1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

How effective is the primary framework in literacy and numeracy?

Discussion in 'Primary' started by hearnshaw86, Mar 12, 2010.

  1. I have done a fair bit of research into the primary framework, However there is only so much reading I can do, I was wondering if any teachers on here could share their opinion on the effectiveness of the framework. Thanks

  2. What has your research so far led you to think?
  3. tafkam

    tafkam Occasional commenter

    You'll need to define effective first of all.
    Do you mean effective at providing children with skills for life?
    Or at passing SATs?
    Or at ticking off NC content?
    Or something else?
  4. What research?
  5. Has there actually been any research into the "effectiveness" of the primary framework? Since the framework is just a bunch of objectives, then teaching it should meet the objectives, so it becomes effective in a kind-of self-fulfilling way. As a tool in improving reading or writing? That's a different matter.
  6. That's the one, any help would be great.
  7. Even at the time NLS was being formulated, the evidence on effective reading teaching was converging on systematic sytnthetic phonics.
  8. NLS is a waste of time.
    Teach English - reading and writing and look at the NC instead.
  9. synthetic[​IMG]
  10. The framework is too large and woolly. I trained with the old strategies and they were good because they told you exactly what had to be taught and in what sequence. However, the new framework, I think, is useless. There are so many better things that could be used, programs which give a real strucutre to writing, like the VCOP Andrell Program. To be honest, I'm not sure how long this one will last.
    What do other people think? Will it stay under the new government?
  11. Do you not keep up to date with education? The framework site will be gone on the 31st March. There is no 'framework' or similar to replace it.
    The only thing that has ever been compulsory is the NC. The old strategies were horrid IMO!
  12. The framework site in its current form may go but it will be moved to the national archives
    so the materials will remain available.
    I think that it has taken a while and some trial and error over the past couple of years, but the framework for English has led to some excellent planning in our school - and some genuinely exciting practice in the teaching of writing. It has been very labour intensive where units are not exemplified, and it has had to be tightly monitored. I do think the support for writing materials can be immensely useful in terms of addressing the needs of children that are not making expected progress (or are exceeding expectations) and these should have been promoted far more effectively.

  13. And how has the learning been going?
  14. What? As far back as 1998? Even now the evidence for synthetic phonics is highly suspect. But in any case, the NLS goes way beyond teaching children how to bark out words, which is about all synthetic phonics offers.
  15. Anybody?

    (You might be interested to know that I have been keeping reading age data on KS3 pupils for about 10 years now. There has never been a cohort come to us in Y7 with a mean reading and comprehension age above chronological age. It is usually some 6 to 9 months behind CA. I think our intake may be similar to the Clack cohort. The children are all certainly taught with mixed strategies)
  16. Msz,

    I don't think that linguistic phonics is quite the teaching method that sulla had in mind! Linguistic phonics is no more 'mixed methods' than is SP.

    I might be mistaken but I strongly suspect that sulla is a Searchlights supporter. The strongest critiques of the Clack 'comprehension' figures always come from the UKLA and their supporters and allied academics. I still haven't seen figures which support their claims of the superiority of the Searchlights methods they advocate.
  17. No, because you're asking the impossible. How can we find a cohort similar to Clackmannanshire? There will always be variations between cohorts in anything but a closely controlled experimental context, or when there are control groups as part of a research study. (For understandable reasons, the control groups were removed in the Clackmannanshire study.)
    It also depends what you mean by 'mixed methods'. It's too vague a term.
    And why do you distinguish between 'reading' ages and 'comprehension' ages? Reading is comprehension.
    Can you link me to research studies, besides Clackmannanshire and those published by publishers of synthetic phonics schemes, which provide quantitative evidence that show SP leads to significant improvements in reading comprehension? Jim Rose couldn't find any.
  18. Evidence from countries in which English is not the main language is totally irrelevant, because they don't have spellings with variable sounds, such as those shown at englishspellingproblems.co.uk/html/sight_words.html - English is spelling is unique in posing both spelling <u>and</u> reading difficulties.
    With phonically reliable spellings, which all other European languages have, learning to read involves nothing but the mastery of phonics.
  19. Although everyone knows what you mean when you say that comprehension is reading, for the purposes of a discussion like this, reading is a complex skill involving many sub-skills and SP develops the decoding aspect. Decoding is necessary but not sufficient for comprehension but good decoding skills do help.
    I agree that some inflated claims have been made for SP, especially at the political level, but the fact that some children have problems with comprehension after they have learned to decode using SP doesn't mean that SP isn't fit for purpose - just that more than decoding is required for good reading.

  20. Thank you, elsiepiddock[​IMG]

    I really cannot understand why people
    a) believe that just because a child can read a word they can't comprehend it
    b) believe that a child can comprehend a word without being able to read it!
    Though I do have to modify a) in that the word the child reads must be within their expressive or receptive vocabulary before they can comprehend it. No-body can fully 'comprehend' a word they don't know the meaning of ; though they may sometimes make a lucky guess..

    I once googled the phrase 'barking at print'. It didn't seem to have any sound scientific basis!
    What inflated claims?


Share This Page