Matched funding for approved phonics schemes – some thoughts

Disclosure: I own a large stake in a publisher of phonics resources which are NOT on the approved list and work for others; some on and others off the list. This is a personal view.

Two months ago the government announced that there would be matched-funding for phonics resources and training to support synthetic phonics in infant classes across the UK. To an industry struggling with tight budgets and curriculum change not due for 18 months, the £3000 per school on offer was a welcome relief. However as the list of approved schemes arrived and news that East Shires Purchasing Organisation (ESPO) was going to be managing the procurement of the products and services grumbles began.

I have a variety of concerns about the philosophy behind this process and the way it is being carried out.

Approving of teaching material by Government doesn’t work

Firstly, how does the Government (via a group of educational researchers) know what is best for children in individual schools with individual needs? Indeed Michael Gove championed ‘teacher power’ when he arrived in office. http://bit.ly/lxxHcJ it seems that teachers know best how to run schools but not how to teach phonics.

In support of this argument is the concerns raised by the owner of THRASS a widely respected phonics support package about not being included in the list. Many thousands of schools use THRASS especially to support SEN children and those for whom English is a Second Language. However because THRASS didn’t meet three criteria it was rejected – not sure that is going to help Tower Hamlets where over 50% of children start school with little or no English. A substantial tightening of the criteria has led to many schemes previously approved being rejected … whither teachers professional judgement? http://bit.ly/jDdG4e and http://bit.ly/myhkb0

Secondly, where schemes are approved by Government it leaves the door open for cries of ‘conflict on interest’. This was highlighted by NATE’s concern about Ruth Miskin’s involvement in the National Curriculum Review http://bit.ly/jzwnu5. I know Ruth and I am sure that she would brook no preferential treatment of her material or that of anyone else and the focus would be all about helping children to read. However, I believe the process itself leaves her and the Government open to calls of foul play. Despite releasing the names of the assessors to BESA and others, there will always be losers in this process and transparency can easily be called into question.

Finally, a return to teacher judgement. Surely the best way to move this forward is with the much mooted Reading Test for 6 year olds. Frankly that is the litmus test and whether a school uses Jolly Phonics, Read Write Inc or a whiteboard and some pens to help children to read it doesn’t matter how this is achieved. Taking the results of the benchmark tests in 2012 and then advising/inspecting schools where there was clear set of lower scores would surely be a better way to move phonic teaching forward.

Adding a layer of bureaucracy to school purchasing wastes time and money

By insisting that schools purchase their resources via ESPO not only cuts out the suppliers (and therefore their margins in a tough market) but also adds complexity and time to the buying process.

According to the The Educational Publishers Council (http://bit.ly/jx0Szf) the ESPO catalogue won’t be ready until September. I would have thought that schools would be looking to make their purchases around phonics now (in the last half term before the summer break) to prepare those resources for teaching at the beginning of September. Delay strikes me as particularly difficult for those children who will be tested in 2012 who might only have 2 and a half terms of ‘official’ synthetic phonics teaching before their reading test.

In my experience, schools like to review a program before making a purchase. They currently do this with their publisher’s representative or via a sample set of material. This process is important, especially with a large complex phonics program which may need some considerable explanation to ensure schools get the right material. However, once this process is complete, rather than completing the order form with the rep or phoning customer service to get advice on exactly what the right products are for the school, the teacher will need to consult a catalogue and engage with a third party. It seems rather complex and bureaucratic to me. I also wonder what the additional cost is in schools and what ESPO are taking out of the process.

In conclusion, I come back to what Michael Gove said early on in his tenure; Teachers Know Best. Let them get on with their job, give them advice and guidance but don’t put obstacles in their way and I am sure more children aged 6 will be able to read in 4 years time than can now.

Filed under: Blog entries by ben