Challenges to 'research' basis for SSP promotion in England
Posted: Thu May 21, 2015 2:06 pm
Here in England, over and again various people challenge the research basis for successive governments increasingly promoting the need for systematic SYNTHETIC phonics to teach reading and spelling instruction - the 'technical' elements of reading and spelling.
Systematic Synthetic Phonics is now embedded in the statutory National Curriculum in England (Sept, 2014).
Susan Godsland addressed this persistent doubt about 'the research' with the following message to me and others. I was aware of Diane McGuinness's review of the Torgerson et al research review but not the parliamentary inquiry by the Science and Technology select committee.
Susan wrote:
Systematic Synthetic Phonics is now embedded in the statutory National Curriculum in England (Sept, 2014).
Susan Godsland addressed this persistent doubt about 'the research' with the following message to me and others. I was aware of Diane McGuinness's review of the Torgerson et al research review but not the parliamentary inquiry by the Science and Technology select committee.
Susan wrote:
I’m almost certain that the follow-up research people refer to is the DCSF commissioned Torgerson et al research review. It’s commonly used to put down Synthetic Phonics and cause uncertainty because its conclusion was that there was no strong evidence, 'that any one form of systematic phonics is more effective than another'. The review carried little weight with the Rose Report team (Final Report, March 2006). The reasons for this are explained in a report by Parliament's Science & Technology Committee, produced after they had examined the evidence base of the Rose report -see paras.22,23,24:
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200 ... 00we24.htm
Professor Diane McGuinness examined the Torgerson et al review closely.
See http://www.syntheticphonics.com/article ... rticle.pdf for her ‘pulling no punches’ analysis.