What's the difference between PI, NNP and Floppy's Phonics?

[debbie]

There is a noticeable resurgence of interest in phonics programmes in England's context at the moment. The Department for Education is opening up another opportunity for full Systematic Synthetic Phonics programmes to apply for 'DfE validation'.

This coincides with the current DfE publishing a statement saying the 2007 version of Letters and Sounds will no longer be 'validated' as a full SSP programme because it does not provide the requisite teaching and learning resources.

Consequently, I'm being asked by more people about whether my phonics programmes are validated, and what the difference is between Floppy's Phonics (publisher Oxford University Press), Phonics International and No Nonsense Phonics Skills.

Floppy's Phonics and Phonics International were 'DfE validated' back in 2012 and they will be re-submitted to be re-evaluated.

'No Nonsense Phonics' will be submitted as a 'full' SSP programme too.

Meanwhile, on being asked to describe the differences, this is one of my replies which I thought I'd share here:

Thank you for your interest in these phonics programmes. I can assure you that your question is entirely sensible and not infrequently asked!

The Phonics International programme is, in effect, the mother of the Floppy's Phonics programme. This means that there are some big similarities with regard to certain important teaching principles, that is, rationale and resource design.

For example, the 'two pronged systematic and incidental phonics teaching and learning approach' with the ever-present overview Alphabetic Code Chart:

https://phonicsinternational.com/Debbie ... andout.pdf

Both programmes are based on a two session teaching and learning cycle from 'revisit and review' right through to 'apply and extend' with paper-based core resources for every child to work with, own and share back and forth with parents routinely (via the bookbag routine).

https://phonicsinternational.com/Settin ... folder.pdf

Both programmes have certain core resources that I consider very effective 'core and essential' for example, the Alphabetic Code Charts, the Alphabet Poster, the Frieze, the Say the Sounds Posters, the multi-skills Activity Sheets, the plain Cumulative Texts.

Both programmes have the same 'Phonics Hand Routines'.

You can see/hear some of these core principles via this pre-recorded webinar and full course notes (I use the same course notes regardless of programme):

https://phonicsinternational.com/cv-lockdown-resources/

Floppy's Phonics covers more code in a shorter time-scale, but PI has more content-rich cumulative texts and choices of resources.

FP is for infants, and PI can extend through KS2 to contribute to spelling (with fewer lessons for juniors than we provide for infants).

PI has 12 Units of work but I would look to getting to the end of Unit 6 by the end of Year 1 all things being equal. They will be good readers and spellers by then!

FP follows the order of introducing the sounds of Letters and Sounds although I do include spelling alternatives for some of the sounds at an earlier stage.

Both programmes do not have an empty phase 4 (a notion/phase from the DfES 'Letters and Sounds' publication) and both programmes have shorter and longer words from the outset.

FP has a lovely range of glossy phonics books to supplement learning and these are paralleled on the online subscription platform.

Some schools use FP in the infants and then build on this start by using PI in KS2.

Phonics International is free.

FP has a longer teacher-led component for 'session one' with the interactive whiteboard and speaking and listening, as well as introducing the focus code, that PI does not include.

PI has a wider range of resources which may never be called upon that are not 'core' although they all have specific learning intentions (not pink and fluffy).

From PI, I have developed the 'No Nonsense Phonics Skills' series published by Raintree. And then PI Ltd has now produced more hard copy resources that can be used with both PI and NNPS, see here:

https://phonicsintervention.org/no-nons ... cs-skills/

https://phonicsintervention.org/shop/

These hard copy, ready-made resources are a super addition and we are going to submit 'No Nonsense Phonics' as a full SSP programme in the current DfE validation round.

I suspect this will only go some way to explain the differences but I hope it helps.

Please don't hesitate to get back to me with specific questions that you may still have.

Best wishes,

Debbie

[debbie]

UPDATE: All three of our phonics programmes have been 'DfE-validated'.

Having said that, the process was very unsatisfactory - and probably very ill-advised because now that the DfE has, in effect, 'rubber-stamped' 45 SSP programmes, officials are unlikely to admit if any of them are not getting the high results that others are achieving.

But even 'impoverished' systematic phonics programmes will manage to get many, if not most, children started on their reading journey. In a sense, that can be a problem because it then means that any children who struggle and don't, for example, reach or exceed the benchmark in England's Year One statutory Phonics Screening Check, the children's 'within child difficulties' will be held responsible for weak reading (and spelling/writing) rather than looking at whether the phonics provision could be better or is fundamentally flawed despite fulfilling the DfE 'core criteria' for validation.

It seems to me that the DfE validation process involved establishing whether the submitted programmes fulfilled the official 'core criteria' but not how the programmes DIFFERED and whether this makes a difference.

I've fought very hard, for many years, for paper-based, content-rich cumulative decodable worksheets or workbooks for children's own practice. There are MANY very important and beneficial reasons for this. So, regardless of whether readers of this forum approve or not, I've written a 'partial critique' about the fastest growing phonics programme in England and why I think it is fundamentally flawed:

https://hepplewhite.org/2024/09/23/sept ... s-revised/

It's looking to me that there isn't sufficient genuine knowledge and understanding in the field of phonics and foundational literacy - nor how children can learn most effectively and what they really enjoy - to enable professionals to truly evaluate and compare programmes, practices and results. This includes the DfE validators who were 'anonymous' and totally unaccountable for their flawed and unfair processes.

I'm very unimpressed.