OK gcf, the site won't let me quote your post for some reason, but here is my response: You imply that Oxford Brookes University and Brighton University are to be blamed for weak results in literacy in schools local to them, due to aspects of their literacy coverage you do not like (multi cue strategies in the case of OBU, Professor Dombey's use of miscue analysis in the case of BU). First, both institutions were judged outstanding in their primary teacher training, in their last OFSTED inspections. Well, we know how unreliable OFSTED judgements are, so perhaps they were wrong,in both cases.Second, I can count four teacher training institutions in my local vicinity. If the situation is the same in Oxford and Brighton these two institutions cannot be blamed for all questionable teaching in their vicinity, even if the students remained in the area after graduating. Third, you assume that students remain in the area after graduating. This is by no means inevitable. When I think of teachers I know the majority are teaching at a distance from their universities and colleges, especially if they did initial teacher training. I did a PGCE as a mature student at a local university but nevertheless my first job was in the neighbouring borough.You then write about a school in a deprived town which uses JP and has 100% SATs results, by which I suppose you mean 100% level 4 and above. First, there are many schools in deprived towns and cities that achieve good results, whether they use JP or not.Second, there could be many reasons why this school gets good results. Similarly there could be many reasons why the "hundreds" of other schools you mention could get good results. Do you really know those hundreds of schools well enough to know that it is all down to SP? There are many possible reasons and combinations of reasons for success. There may even be successful schools that do not use SP in the way you would advocate.