Over and again I learn of schools that have made great strides and then with a change of staff, or headteacher, everything changes - but it must not change for the worse, or a successful and content-rich core phonics programme be replaced by weaker phonics programmes and practice.
I have experience of being part-way through providing training and very detailed and supportive consultancy work and then an 'executive head' was brought into the school to oversee it - or a state school has become academised - and on the whim of someone it's 'all change' - and my services have been curtailed 'just like that' no matter how much groundwork has been done and no matter how much money, time and energy has been invested, and no matter how much evidence is there to show great improvements in staff knowledge and provision - and no matter how well the staff are engaged and very enthusiastic about the programme and practices. One person can change all of that with no accountability.
When there is intent to change a programme or practice, in my view the senior person who wants this change must be accountable for it. A full investigation should take place, fully written up and recorded, to evaluate the current state of affairs and any ongoing support and advisory work - any financial investment already made, and to evaluate and compare any change in reputable phonics programmes as the core programme. In other words, there really should be justification and a report to describe the evaluative processes underpinning any changes.
A senior person who replaces the high-quality SSP programmes adopted during the government's match-funded initiative between 2011 and 2013 with 'Letters and Sounds' (DfES 2007) should arguably be held to account.
Anyone who understands about phonics programmes and provision should, by now, appreciate that the 'Letters and Sounds' publication is a detailed framework and not a full or viable class programme and it has no teaching and learning resources to support teachers and learners and to inform and work in partnership with parents. If teachers have translated the guidance in 'Letters and Sounds' and resourced the phonics provision to match or improve on fully resourced core SSP programmes, then they need to demonstrate that this is indeed the case.
What has prompted me to write this? A number of experiences where I have witnessed, or heard of, schools which have to all intents and purposes 'gone backwards' over the years - not progressed.
I received the following from a teacher who gets outstanding phonics results and who has worked very hard over a number of years to promote high-quality phonics teaching in the school where she has worked for a number of years:
Yes - very depressing and not acceptable nor accountable.One of the worrying things really, is the wider view. We had a staff that were so highly trained you could not fault how phonics was taught across the school.
You needed a head on board, someone in the school who could drive it and had the knowledge, and a staff who were on the whole enthusiastic. They had seen my enthusiasm which was backed up by the headteacher.
One element has to be removed and it all starts to crumble.
All teachers have moved on or been pushed except one FT member and one PT, then a head and deputy arrive who say no to KS2 carrying on.
This was followed by a year 2 teacher who jumped on board with the head and DHT thoughts. They truly did not understand phonics. But it was a dictatorship. Nothing could be done by anyone.
Obviously FS and year1 (PT teacher though) carried on, but in schools without a couple of enthusiastic teachers in the right classes it will all disappear.
Very depressing.
