3. Synthetic phonics (from the word synthesis meaning 'to blend') / Linguistic Phonics / 'High Quality Phonics' (Rose Review)

Synthetic phonics is no fad. It is based on empirical research on how children best learn to read. Programmes, which accurately follow the synthetic/linguistic phonic principles, teach children the English Alphabet Code in a systematic and explicit manner, working from simple to complex. Lessons are cumulative with each lesson building on the one before it. The Code consists of approximately *44 phonemes (the smallest discernible units of sound in words) and the ways they are spelled, using graphemes consisting of 1, 2, 3 or 4 letters. A 'transparent' Basic Alphabetic Code, consisting of a one-to-one correspondence between the 40-44 sounds and their most common spelling, is taught first, discretely. This brilliant device of an artificial transparent alphabet code (but unmodified orthography, unlike the 1960's initial teaching alphabet.i.t.a) helps to level the playing field between those who are learning to read and write in English and the majority of their counterparts on the European continent. Once children are secure and confident working with a 'transparent' basic code then the more complex alphabet code is carefully introduced. The number and order of grapheme-phoneme correspondences (GPCs) taught at the basic code stage varies between programmes. *The number of sounds varies between languages; for example, Rotokus, spoken in the Pacific Islands, has 11, Italian has 25 and the South African !Xu language has 141 sounds!

Children are taught to sound out and blend the individual sounds from left to right all-through-the-written-word for reading and to fetch the sounds from memory for spelling, segmenting all-through-the-spoken-word. Writing (spelling) is integral to the programme from the start, to make clear the reversibilty of the code. Multi-sensory mnemonics are used, initially, to help young children remember the letter-sound correspondences. Books, to practise reading, aren't introduced until a few weeks into the programme** and, at first, are decodable. Decodable books only contain words that can be sounded out based on what the student has already been taught, so no guessing or memorising is necessary -see (Resources 11) Genuine, synthetic/linguistic phonic programmes do NOT include any whole language elements; that is a range of strategies for predicting (guessing) words using picture, context and initial letter clues, global sight-word memorisation, or teach sound units larger than the phoneme. Letter names are usually taught late in the programme; letter names, key words and characters can act as a form of 'noise' impeding the direct association of sound to letter/s and vice versa. Exemplar commercial programmes include Jolly Phonics, Phonics International and Read Write Inc..

Linguistic phonic programmes are closely related to synthetic phonic programmes as they, too, teach the grapheme-phoneme correspondences (GPCs) of the Alphabet Code in a systematic and explicit manner, going from simple to complex, with a transparent, 'basic' code followed by the advanced code. The main differences are that they don't use any mnemonics, rules or special terms such as 'silent letter' or 'magic e' and the GPCs are taught in the context of whole-words. When the advanced code is taught, 4-5 of the most common spellings for a phoneme are introduced at the same time, rather than individually, with the less common spellings introduced together at a later stage; multiple spellings are introduced simultaneously to enable the learner to internalise them and ''create a mental 'filing cabinet of sound'... Comparing the spellings in context increases the brain's ability to analyse and therefore remember'' (Nevola. SRS Handbook p113) e.g. Sounds~Write (classroom programme) and the Sound Reading System (remedial).

See Resources 10 for details of synthetic / linguistic phonic programmes available in the UK and abroad.

The word 'alphabet' comes from the names of the first two letters in the Greek alphabet, alpha beta.The Greeks created the first 'sound' alphabet when they added vowel sounds to the Phoenicians' consonants-only alphabet. For the next 2,500 years reading was taught by first teaching the alphabet and then the syllable sounds ab eb ib ob ub, ba be bi bo bu, da de di do du, fa fe fi fo fu(m!) ...etc. It wasn't until the 8th century that conventions in writing that we take for granted such as spaces between words and the use of lowercase letters appeared, set in place by the English scholar Alcuin. In 1654 the French mathematician and philosopher Blaise Pascal discovered that it was possible to split the syllable into smaller units - phonemes, and in doing so created synthetic phonics.The use of the word 'synthetic' is not new, possibly appearing sometime back in the 19th century; Pollard's Manual of Synthetic Reading and Spelling was produced in 1889. Nellie Dale, a teacher at Wimbledon High School for Girls, created a programme in 1898 that was very similar to today's best synthetic phonic programmes.

Nellie Dale’s Book ‘On the Teaching of English Reading’
www.archive.org/stream/onteachingofengl00daleuoft click on the side arrows to 'turn' the pages.

Rebecca Pollard's Manual of Synthetic Reading and Spelling N.B. Pollard's method used diacritic markings, unlike modern synthetic phonics.
http://openlibrary.org/details/acompletemanual00pollgoog click on the side arrows to 'turn' the pages

Phoneme awareness (PA: to be consciously aware that words are composed of discrete sounds that are comparable and manipulable) is the subject of much controversy and confusion. Children who who fail to acquire PA 'naturally' alongside conventional (mixed methods) literacy teaching, are deemed to have a constitutional brain weakness; the hallmark of dyslexia. Many 'experts' advocate phonological awareness training for all children prior to any teaching of reading, to help overcome this brain 'glitch' that appears to be present in so many. This erroneous thinking has resulted in the insertion of a harmless, but time-wasting, 'sounds only' stage (Phase One) in the new DCSF programme Letters and Sounds. '(T)he research conclusively proves there is no benefit to phoneme-only training programmes as opposed to instruction using a good synthetic phonics programme from the outset, one which teaches segmenting and blending using letter symbols and lots of writing practice. Phoneme analysis sufficient to be able to decode is acquired much more rapidly in the context of print than in isolation' (D.McGuinness. Response to Hulme).

'Scores of developmental studies show that phonemic processing is one of the most “buffered” language skills humans possess, and is least susceptible to disruption and malfunction. Chaney showed that by age three, children are highly sensitive to the phoneme level of speech.  Nearly all of the 87 three-year-olds in her study could listen to isolated phonemes (/b/ -- /a/ -- /t/), blend them into a word, and point to a picture representing that word – with nearly 90% scoring well above chance' (D.McGuinness. RRF messageboard)

Part and parcel of the 'brain glitch' theory is the idea that all children are biologically programmed to recognise words as unanalysed wholes at first (termed the logographic stage) and then, as a result of a normal, biologically-driven developmental progression, are able to break words into smaller and smaller units of sound: whole words ->syllables ->onset and rime ->phonemes. Many Early Years academics believe that young children need to receive reading instruction following this order too; going directly to the phoneme level is, they suggest, 'developmentally inappropriate', especially if the children are younger than six or seven, and could be 'dangerous'. There is no scientific evidence to back this belief. Many parents teach their pre-schoolers to read using synthetic phonics, and some very young children teach themselves, with no ill effects reported. Research in Germany (Wimmer/ Hummer) has shown that children do not go through a logographic stage when they are taught with the synthetic phonics method from the very start of reading instruction (RRF 45.p6) see- www.rrf.org.uk/newsletter.php?n_ID=104

Phonological awareness training is not a necessary prerequisite to learning to read and spell. Phoneme sensitivity is innate as babies need it to acquire spoken language, but they are not consciously aware of this ability. 'In fact, no one needs to be explicitly aware of phonemes unless they have to learn an alphabetic writing system' (D McGuinness LDLR p36) . People who have learnt to read using non-alphabetic scripts lack phoneme awareness; studies 'show the strong impact of the type of writing system and type of instruction on the development of phonemic awareness -an environmental effect, and restates the point that you do not acquire this aptitude unless you need it' (D.McGuinness WCCR p135)

The ease with which a child can be taught to consciously listen and unravel the phonemic level of speech in order to link each phoneme with its written symbol, appears to be heritable 'Good/bad phoneme-awareness runs in families, just as musical talent does' (D.McGuinness WCCR p151) This unravelling is necessary because speech consists of co-articulated sounds blended into a rapidly produced sound stream.

Phoneme awareness is exhibited once again as a direct result of the teaching methods found in synthetic phonic programmes; it is the process of learning the letter-sound correspondences, translating the letters into sounds in words and vice-versa, that makes the phonemes explicit. '...the ability to manipulate speech sounds is a taught skill, not an outcome of cognitive maturation or exposure to language (Rice/Brooks p54) '(A)s their literacy improves it should again become an automatic process for literacy purposes and drop below consciousness unless it is actually needed to deal with an unfamiliar written word.'(Philpot. RRF messageboard) For those children who lack any aptitude for learning to consciously untangle the phoneme level of speech (due to normal genetic variation, NOT a brain defect), skilled, synthetic phonics teaching on school entry, with short, daily, one-to-one revision sessions, will enable them to learn the knowledge and skills necessary to become good readers.

http://www.rrf.org.uk/newsletter.php?n_ID=33
Jennifer Chew discusses teaching phonemic awareness WITH letters

''The NLS Searchlight was a political compromise to get whole language supporters on board when the original framework was drawn up. It seems so reasonable on the surface, a bit of phonics, a bit of look and say, a bit of whole word guessing, who could argue with that? Well, if you go on doing what you’ve always done, you’ll go on getting what you’ve always got, in this case 25 to 30 per cent of the children in your school unable to read properly. The long tail of underachievement in England is recognised in international studies. It was there before the NLS. The NLS was supposed to get rid of it. It’s still there, complete with gender gap and underachieving boys spawning a whole new cottage industry for advisors and publishers. In synthetic phonics schools there is no long tail of underachievement. There is no gender gap. Boys do not underachieve. Same kids — different teaching methodology.'' (Shadwell)

20th March 2006: The Rose Review recommended that the NLS 'searchlights' strategies should be dropped and replaced by the 'simple view of reading' and that all children should be taught to read using 'high quality phonics' (synthetic phonics) taught discretely (Rose Review p70). Ruth Kelly, Education Secretary at the time, agreed, 'I accept all your recommendations and will ensure that they are implemented' (Kelly response to interim report 30/11/05) “I am clear that synthetic phonics should be the first strategy in teaching all children to read (Times 21/03/06)

'(S)ynthetic' phonics is the form of systematic phonic work that offers the vast majority of beginners the best route to becoming skilled readers. Among other strengths, this is because it teaches children directly what they need to know...whereas other approaches, such as 'analytic' phonics, expect children to deduce them' (Rose Review. 47) ‘Having considered a wide range of evidence [including the NRP and the Torgerson et al publications#] the review concluded that the case for systematic phonic work is overwhelming and much strengthened by a synthetic approach’ (Rose Review. 51)

It is stated clearly in the DCSF's own synthetic phonics programme, Letters and Sounds, that the NLS multi-cueing strategies should no longer be used; '(A)ttention should be focused on decoding rather than on the use of unreliable strategies such as looking at the illustrations, rereading the sentence, saying the first sounds and guessing what might fit ... Children who routinely adopt alternative cues for reading unknown words, instead of learning to decode them, find themselves stranded when texts become more demanding and meanings less predictable. (L&S p.10)

Rose Review: Final Report
www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/phonics/report.pdf

http://RoseReportExtracts.notlong.com
Extracts from the Rose Review.

www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmsctech/900/900we24.htm
The range of evidence considered by Rose Review -see Annex C.

www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmsctech/900/900we24.htm
The Committee on Science & Technology examines the evidence base of the Rose Report.

The basic principles for teaching with synthetic phonics:

- Don't teach an initial, whole-word sight vocabulary.

- Don't teach predicting (guessing) using picture, context or initial letter cues.

- Don't use look-say books and repetitive-text books; use phonics decodable text and text that you have written to match their level of knowledge and skills.

- Don't waste time playing 'phonological awareness' games or teaching concepts of print.

- Don't teach consonant initial and end clusters, word families or rhyming endings (rimes) as these are sound units larger than the phoneme.

- Do teach fast, 3- 5 letter/sound correspondences a week.

- Do teach letter sounds, NOT names.

- Do teach letter/s-sound correspondences to automaticity. After the teaching of half a dozen consonants plus a couple of vowels focus on the skills of segmenting all-through-the-spoken word for spelling, and sound out and blend all-through-the-written-word for reading.

- Do provide words, sentence and text level reading of letter/s-sounds that the children already know.

- Do introduce 'tricky' words systematically still emphasising the blending of the regular sounds whilst pointing out the tricky part.

- Do plan plenty of dictation activities with controlled letters and spellings.

- Do provide plenty of handwriting practice with a proper tripod pencil grip.

- Do develop comprehension through a broad and rich language curriculum.

http://www.rrf.org.uk/newsletter.php?n_ID=34: Six activities that make no difference whatsoever to reading and spelling success, and two activities that are actually related to worse reading and spelling achievement.

Genuine synthetic phonic schemes recommend that phoneme/ grapheme correspondences should usually be taught quickly at the rate of about 3-5 a week with all 40+ phonemes being introduced within a few weeks. If your child is slow to learn the skill of hearing and manipulating the smallest sounds in words (due to normal brain variation) or they have problems remembering the sounds and graphemes (paired-associate learning) then plenty of revision will be needed.

It has been established that knowledge of the alphabet letter names is one of the best predictors of later reading attainment, but those who, as a consequence of this information, advocate the early teaching of the names, are confusing correlation with causation. 'Experiments on letter-name training did not produce increased reading achievement' (Jenkins, Bausell, & Jenkins, 1972; Samuels, 1971) Experienced remedial tutors find that struggling readers, in particular, tend to use a strategy of mixing sounds and letter names when they try to decode. Do NOT teach or use the names of the letters of the alphabet (ay, bee, see, dee etc.) in the first stages of teaching reading to avoid any confusion between the names and sounds and adding unnecessarily to your child's memory load.

The initial sound-letter correspondences taught are those (Jolly Phonics uses s, a, t, i, p and n) that make up plenty of 2/3 letter words and most easily avoid the 'schwa'. This is the extra 'uh' sound that it is difficult to avoid adding when saying the consonant sounds individually (consonant means 'together with') e.g. 'b'uh, 'j'uh (Macmillan p29). Do try to make individual sounds as 'pure' as possible when teaching them to your child. After learning the first 18 letter-sounds (Jolly Phonics) children can decode over 1000 words!

Lessons should be short and done on a daily basis. That way, your child should stay interested and achieve confidence by being able to read and write simple words independently within a very short time (see Lesson Plans). Until your child can pull the letter shapes from memory and handwrite competently they should not be expected to write down words. Instead, the graphemes should be written on individual cards (other manipulative materials such as plastic or wooden letters could be used) with the child then having practice using them to make real and nonsense words.(Macmillan p30)

Beginning readers need to be shown how to sound out and blend (synthesise) all the phonemes from left to right THROUGHOUT each word as they are reading, not just the initial letter sound, and discouraged from using any guessing strategies -cover the picture if it is causing your child to guess and only uncover once the page has been read. For advice on blending, fun 'actions' to go with each of the phonemes and other helpful hints, go to: http://jollylearning.co.uk/2009%20P-T%20Guide_2009%20Guide.pdf Parents will also find the very inexpensive Jolly Phonics Word Book helpful as it provides selected word lists suitable for blending practice and dictation.

It's important that children practise reading and spelling newly taught graphemes in different positions in words, not just in the 'initial letter' position. This is to teach them transitivity- the understanding that there is a consistent relationship between each phoneme and a letter across all positions in a word and across all words e.g. the letter t stands for the phoneme /t/ in the word ' top', /t/ in ‘tap’, /t/ in ‘bit' and the /t/ in 'nets'

The English Alphabet Code 'Key': a brief overview.

www.syntheticphonics.com/DH%20Alph%20Code%20overview%20with%20teaching%20points%20-%20A4x7.pdf
Debbie Hepplewhite's comprehensive Alphabet Code chart

Many of the most commonly used words (HFWs) in the English language are not pronounced exactly as they are spelled -they contain a 'tricky' letter/s which is not transparently decodable. This can give the misleading impression that English is a very irregular, 'unphonetic' language and an excuse for teaching with whole-word methods, when in actual fact it is highly regular (over 85% according to the experts). 'Even the core of high frequency words which are not transparently decodable using known grapheme–phoneme correspondences usually contain at least one GPC that is familiar. Rather than approach these words as though they were unique entities, it is advisable to start from what is known and register the ‘tricky bit’ in the word. Even the word yacht, often considered one of the most irregular of English words, has two of the three phonemes represented with regular graphemes' (L&S Notes of Guidance p16) Teach the regular part of the word and draw attention to the irregular part/s. Do NOT teach as global wholes. <One>, <once>, <two>, <who>, <the>, <are> and <eye>, are the only high frequency words that may need to be memorised as whole units i.e. are true 'sight' words, though no English word is completely phonologically opaque.

'If children 'receive contradictory or conflicting instruction, most children prefer to adopt a 'sight word' (whole word) strategy. This seems 'natural', it is easy to do initially, and has some immediate success, that is until visual memory starts to overload...becoming a whole-word (sight-word) reader is not due to low verbal skills, but is a high risk factor in the general population, and something that teachers should curtail at all costs.' (emphasis in original. RRF51 p19)

A myth, disseminated by the whole language advocates, is that using synthetic phonics to teach reading leads to lower comprehension levels. This is absolutely not the case. The Clackmannanshire researchers Johnston and Watson say, 'Much is made of the fact that the synthetic phonics programme in Clackmannanshire led to much greater increases in word reading and spelling skill than in reading comprehension, implying that reading comprehension did not benefit from the intervention. However, it should be noted that at the end of the seventh year at school, reading comprehension in the study was significantly above age level, in a sample that had a below average SES (socio-economic status) profile' (RRF newsletter 59. p3) A follow up study by Johnston and Watson found that, 'The children in the Clackmannanshire study (taught by the synthetic phonic method) were reading words about two years ahead of what would be expected for their age. Their spelling was six months ahead of what you would expect for their age, and their reading comprehension was about right for age. However, although the pupils in England (taught by the NLS analytic method) from similar backgrounds were reading words about right for their age, their spelling was 4.5 months below what is expected for age, and reading comprehension was about seven months behind' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7147813.stm)

**Another myth, widely circulated by the whole language proponents, is that the 'rather cruel' (Goouch/Lambirth p39) synthetic phonics teachers withhold all books from children whilst they are teaching them to read. Nothing could be further from the truth. Maggie Downie, an enthusiastic user of synthetic phonics, explains, 'There is a world of difference between 'looking' at books and reading them. Synthetic phonics practitioners are just as concerned that children should enjoy a 'literature rich environment' as any of the 'balanced literacy/whole language advocates. All that they say is that children should not be expected to READ books which are beyond their current state of phonic knowledge. Giving children words to decode which are beyond their capability is something akin to expecting a beginning pianist to play a piano sonata before they have mastered the scales. Systematic phonics instruction is scaffolded learning; give the child words to read which it hasn't learnt the code for and you pull the scaffold away from under them, leaving them dangling helplessly. with no option but to guess at the word. This confuses and scares children, and turns them off reading. I can't understand why anyone would want to do that.'' Phonics expert, Ruth Miskin, agrees, 'While we're teaching them this nightmare alphabetic code, we should give them simple books to read, but the richest books to hear' (Guardian 01/04/08)

Jim Rose, in his review, wrote, 'There is some force in the view that, as they learn to master the alphabetic code, children should be given reading material that is well within their reach in the form of 'decodable books'... Using such books as part of the phonic programme does not preclude other reading. Indeed it can be shown that such books help children develop confidence and an appetite for reading more widely.' (Rose Review. 82)

First reading practice books should offer a sequenced presentation of short, simple, regularly spelled words that the beginning reader can easily de-code (see Resources 11 for decodable reading books) and, perhaps surprisingly, they should not include too many large, colourful and appealing illustrations. Children presented with both text to de-code and an interesting picture to look at on the same page will naturally tend to focus on the picture rather than the print. Pictures are mainly processed in the right brain hemisphere and this may interfere with the processing of sequential print, which takes place in the left-brain hemisphere. Boys, who are more inclined to use visual-spatial learning, are at increased risk of distraction by the use of highly illustrated texts (Macmillan p43, p95)

The vision of some struggling readers can be badly affected by stress and anxiety when they are asked to read aloud in public; they may complain about the letters 'moving and jumping around'. Part of the difficulty is the panicky search for clues (word-shape?initial letter?last letter?picture clue?word within word?...) rather than the consistent use of left to right all-through-the-word tracking when reading. Tom Burkard says, '(I)n 2000 we started using a cursor--a piece of card about the size of a business card, with a notch cut out of the upper left-hand corner. Since then, we haven't had a single problem with 'letters moving around' (RRF messageboard 21/2/06) ''It’s moved along, grapheme/phoneme correspondence by G/PC, if necessary, to cover up text that hasn’t yet been read. The child has no choice but to “read through the word.” Very clever. Like training wheels on a bicycle, the technique should be terminated as soon as the child “gets it.” But it’s a very useful aide to that end.'' (Schutz. RRF messageboard)

www.piperbooks.co.uk/documents/Notched_Card_Technique_000.pdf
Notched card technique.

The joy of teaching reading with synthetic phonics is that, after just a few months, most children will begin to self-teach (psychologists call this 'boot-strapping') and, unlike with the other methods, your child will really be able to read - can quickly decode most simple words and can usually work out any new, phonetically regular words they encounter. As a result they will be able to choose storybooks (real books) of their own choice from the library shelves, instead of being stuck with interminable reading scheme books with a restricted word count or by muddling through, guessing many words in storybooks with the resulting loss of comprehension and confidence.

www.syntheticphonics.com/
Reliable information on Synthetic Phonics.

www.syntheticphonics.com/pdf%20files/Criteria%20for%20evaluating%20a%20phonics%20programme.pdf
Criteria for evaluating a phonics programme -useful for parents and school staff.

A Guide for Head Teachers: Ruth Miskin is adamant that head teachers particularly have the power to make huge differences in the lives of the children they teach in just 18 months. And here's how… http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/L/lost_for_words/phonics_7.html

http://www.rrf.org.uk/newsletter.php?n_ID=95
A prototype for teaching the English Alphabet Code by Professor Diane McGuinness.

http://eddie.idx.com.au/2006/88phonics.html
Sound sense. How learning to love synthetic phonics could revolutionise teachers’ working lives — to say nothing of the children’s!''

www.rrf.org.uk/messageforum/viewtopic.php?t=1306
Synthetic Phonics:The Scientific Research Evidence.

www.scotland.gov.uk/library/documents7/interchg.pdf
The Clackmannanshire study: A Seven Year Study of the Effects of Synthetic Phonics Teaching on Reading and Spelling Attainment

www.rrf.org.uk/newsletter.php?n_ID=170
Fact and Fiction about the Clackmannanshire study.

www.rrf.org.uk/rhona_ppt.pdf
Rhona Johnston's ppt. on the Clackmannanshire study

www.rrf.org.uk/messageforum/viewtopic.php?t=3785
A Comparison of Results for Synthetic Phonics and Other Reading Programmes

http://www.rrf.org.uk/newsletter.php?n_ID=158
Phonics: The Holy Grail of Reading. Jenny Chew explains the relationship between Decoding and Comprehension.

http://coreknowledge.org/CK/about/CommonKnowledge/v19II_2006/v19_II_2006_simpleviewofreading.htm
Simple View of Reading

www.donpotter.net/ed.htm
Free, phonic materials, many of historic interest.

http://projectpro.com/ICR/Phonics/Reading.htm
How Phonics helps your Child to Read

www.sedl.org/reading/framework/research.html
Phonics research references

www.rrf.org.uk/messageforum/viewtopic.php?t=120
The regularity of our written language.

www.nifl.gov/partnershipforreading/publications/html/stanovich
Using research and reason in education.

www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-1408279,00.html
Some sound advice on learning to read

http://projectpro.com/ICR/Phonics/CriticalThinking.htm
Phonics teaches critical thinking skills.

www.nrrf.org/
National Right to Read Foundation.

www.multilit.com.au/Portals/24/docs_public/published_papers/MULTILIT_SMH_20031004.pdf
War of the Words.

http://web.mac.com/kstanovich/iWeb/Site/Research%20on%20Reading.html
Keith Stanovich's website.

Go to Resources 10 for Synthetic Phonic programmes and resources.

#Many educational academics remain vehemently opposed to synthetic phonics (Wyse. Rose Tinted Spectacles ppt) and continue to campaign against the Rose Report (Wyse/Styles.Editorial) Although they agree that teaching reading using synthetic phonics 'can be extremely effective' in transparent languages (Wyse/Goswami p693), in their opinion, there is still (!) 'not enough evidence' that the discrete, (synthetic) phonics method is more effective for teaching reading in English than the contextualised, (analytic) phonics method that, due to their progressive ideology, they prefer. Therefore, they argue, Early Years teachers should be able to carry on using a mixture of methods to teach reading if they wish to do so, ignoring the government's directive for them to use synthetic phonics as the prime approach.

The academics cherry-picked two, particular publications from the whole range of evidence that the Rose Review team considered, to bolster their argument. The publications they singled out are the American National Reading Panel (NRP) report and the Torgerson et al. research review (Wyse/Goswami p693) This is because both concluded that there was no strong evidence, 'that any one form of systematic phonics is more effective than another'. Professor Diane McGuinness, a cognitive scientist trained in statistical analysis, closely examined both publications and found them to have major weaknesses which nullified that particular conclusion-see and www.aowm73.dsl.pipex.com/dyslexics/comment.pdf for her Torgerson et al. analysis and Early Reading Instruction Chapter 4 for a comprehensive analysis of the NRP report.

As part of their mission to overturn the new synthetic phonics initiative, the same educational academics have attempted to subvert the Clackmannanshire empirical research study. This is because the study concluded that, 'synthetic phonics was a more effective approach to teaching reading, spelling and phonemic awareness than analytic phonics' (Johnson and Watson, 2004 p351) . This excellent, peer-reviewed study played a large part in persuading the DCSF to introduce synthetic phonics as the primary method to teach reading. The academics have disseminated myths and misinformation about the research -see the RRF newsletter article, 'Fact and Fiction about the Clackmannanshire study', which also includes comment on the Torgerson et al review: www.rrf.org.uk/newsletter.php?n_ID=170

Postscript: Marilyn Jager Adams wrote the foreword for the last book written by the late Jeanne Chall (Professor of Education at Harvard University, outstanding academic researcher and staunch advocate for synthetic phonics) Jager wrote 'Many years later, when I was given the task of reviewing the research on phonics, Chall told me that if I wrote the truth, I would lose old friends and make new enemies. She warned me that I would never again be fully accepted by my academic colleagues...as the evidence in favor of systematic, explicit phonics instruction for beginners increased so too did the vehemence and nastiness of the backlash. The goal became one of discrediting not just the research, but the integrity and character of those who had conducted it.' (Chall p.vi)

©