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 professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

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

    Dismiss Notice

Phonics brand is immaterial

Discussion in 'Early Years' started by mashabell, Jan 22, 2011.

  1. <font size="2">Acc. to an aricle in yesterday's TES, Ofsted has just reported</font>
    <font size="3">Effective phonics teaching was found at all of the primaries inspected, with pupils taught "letter-sound correspondences", "how to blend individual sounds together to read words" and "how to break up individual sounds to spell them".</font>
    <font size="3"></font> <font size="3">Inspectors observed a "wide variety of effective approaches" using phonics, and there was "no notable difference in attainment" whether schools devised their own programmes or used published schemes.</font> A similar view was expressed by Greg Brooks in a piece published on 7 Jan
    <font size="3">http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6066997</font> <font size="3">Professor Brooks is a long-term advocate of phonics, the teaching technique favoured by Conservative ministers. </font>
    <font size="3">He said: "It is well-established that systematic phonics works better than an unsystematic system. From the angle of theory, I think synthetic phonics ought to be superior but we need more research."</font><font size="3">....there was not enough evidence to show that synthetic phonics was better than any other phonics system.</font>
     
  2. <font size="2">Acc. to an aricle in yesterday's TES, Ofsted has just reported</font>
    <font size="3">Effective phonics teaching was found at all of the primaries inspected, with pupils taught "letter-sound correspondences", "how to blend individual sounds together to read words" and "how to break up individual sounds to spell them".</font>
    <font size="3"></font> <font size="3">Inspectors observed a "wide variety of effective approaches" using phonics, and there was "no notable difference in attainment" whether schools devised their own programmes or used published schemes.</font> A similar view was expressed by Greg Brooks in a piece published on 7 Jan
    <font size="3">https://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6066997</font> <font size="3">Professor Brooks is a long-term advocate of phonics, the teaching technique favoured by Conservative ministers. </font>
    <font size="3">He said: "It is well-established that systematic phonics works better than an unsystematic system. From the angle of theory, I think synthetic phonics ought to be superior but we need more research."</font><font size="3">....there was not enough evidence to show that synthetic phonics was better than any other phonics system.</font>
     
  3. The Ofsted report suggests that early years teachers are now doing a good job and should not be made to feel inadequate by the pushers of SP.
     
  4. gcf

    gcf

    Well, Masha, as you are perfectly well aware, those who use a synthetic phonics approach have been asking for randomized control tests, more transparency, more effective teaching instruction for student teachers. Have you been asking for this degree of transparency?
     

Share This Page