Literacy Volume 41 Number 1 April 2007 35

Synthetic phonics and the teaching of

reading: the debate surrounding England’s
‘Rose Report’
Dominic Wyse and Morag Styles

Abstract of words (i.e., onsets, rimes, phonogrammes, spelling

patterns) as well as phonemes.
The Rose Report, commissioned by the Secretary of
State for Education for England, recommended in During the 1980s and early 1990s in the United
March 2006 that early reading instruction must include Kingdom, influential ideas about English teaching
synthetic phonics. This paper evaluates the extent to
came from intellectual teachers and scholars, whose
which research evidence supports this recommenda-
work had vision as well as professional and academic
tion. In particular, a review of international research
into the teaching of early reading shows that the Rose credibility. These intellectuals included Margaret Meek
Report’s main recommendation on synthetic phonics (1982), Connie Rosen and Harold Rosen (1973), James
contradicts the powerful body of evidence accumu- Britton (1970), Douglas Barnes (1976) and Brian Street
lated over the last 30 years. In this paper it is argued (1984). The influence of American socio-cultural
that action already taken by the UK government theorists such as Shirley Brice Heath (1983) was also
to change the National Curriculum in line with the strong.
Rose Report’s recommendations represents a change in
pedagogy not justified by research. 1997 marked the introduction of the National Literacy
Strategy (NLS) Framework for Teaching (Department for
Key words: literacy policy, literacy research, phonics, Education and Employment (DfEE), 1998). The Frame-
reading teaching, synthetic phonics
work was a comprehensive document that specified
the detailed objectives of literacy teaching for primary
classes in England, together with a set format for
Background lessons. The Canadian team from the Ontario Institute
for Studies in Education, commissioned by the UK
In 1993 Mary Jane Drummond and Morag Styles government to carry out the evaluation, described the
edited a special issue of the Cambridge Journal of NLS (and the National Numeracy Strategy) as ‘‘among
Education, entitled ‘The Politics of Reading’ (Styles the most ambitious large-scale educational reform
and Drummond, 1993). The issue showed that the strategies in the world’’ (Earl et al., 2000, p. 1).
teaching of reading had as much to do with politics (in Although the Framework was ‘non-statutory’ (not
the widest sense of the word) as with pedagogy, and obligatory), the pressure brought to bear on teachers
tried to disentangle some of the competing claims through the Office for Standards in Education
about the best ways to teach reading in the early years. (OfSTED) inspection process meant that the content
At that time, the big debate was about whether to teach and methods of the Framework were, effectively,
reading through published schemes, or by a whole prescribed.
language approach, called the ‘real books’ or ‘appren-
ticeship’ approach (Waterland, 1985). But even then In the period since 1997, there have been many
there were strong advocates for synthetic phonics, criticisms of the Framework, one strand of which has
such as Joyce Morris (1984), who believed this was the questioned the lack of research evidence in support of
only way to teach reading. The American National its pedagogy (see Wyse, 2003). An opposing line of
Reading Panel (National Institute of Child Health and criticism has come from those who advocate synthetic
Human Development, 2000) described synthetic pho- phonics.
nics programmes as those that emphasise teaching
students to convert letters (graphemes) into sounds From 2004, research into a synthetic phonics approach
(phonemes) and then to blend the sounds to form carried out in Clackmannanshire, Scotland, was
recognisable words. Analytic phonics, on the other promoted strongly by the media. This resulted in
hand, is taken to refer to larger-unit phonics pro- a recommendation by England’s Education Select
grammes, that introduce children to whole words Committee (a parliamentary committee charged with
before teaching them to analyse these into their overseeing educational matters) that there should be a
component parts, and emphasise the larger sub-parts governmental enquiry into the teaching of reading

r UKLA 2007. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
36 Synthetic phonics and the teaching of reading

(House of Commons Educations and Skills Committee, press or government interest. It drew on evidence from
2005). In June 2005 the government duly announced a visits to 120 primary schools. ‘‘The teaching and
review of the teaching of early reading, to be headed by learning of reading were observed in 470 classes and
the ex-inspector and education consultant, Jim Rose. over 2,000 children read aloud to HMI . . . particular
The interim report was released in December 2005 and attention was paid to the children’s ability to read
the final report was published at the end of March 2006 fluently, accurately and with understanding’’ (Her
(Rose, 2006). Majesty’s Inspectorate (HMI), 1990, p. 1). It was
concluded that ‘‘phonic skills were taught almost
universally and usually to beneficial effect’’ (p. 2) and
The Rose Report that ‘‘Successful teachers of reading and the majority of
schools used a mix of methods each reinforcing the
The final report (hereafter the Rose Report) addressed other as the children’s reading developed’’ (p. 15).
five concerns: Indeed, in the United Kingdom, phonics has always
 ‘‘what best practice should be expected in the been widely regarded as a necessary skill for learning
teaching of early reading and synthetic phonics’’ to read, write and spell, but not necessarily the prime
(p. 7); skill or the one that must be acquired ‘‘first and fast’’.
 ‘‘how this relates to the development of the birth As Dombey (2006, p. 6) accurately observes:
to five framework and the development and renew-
al of the National Literacy Strategy Framework for
teaching’’ (p. 7); ‘‘The most successful schools and teachers focus both on
 the needs of children with significant literacy phonics and on the process of making sense of text. Best
difficulties; practice brings these two key components together, in
 the implications for school leadership and manage- teaching that gives children a sense of the pleasures
ment; reading can bring, supports them in making personal
 the value for money of proposed changes. sense of the texts they encounter and also shows them how
to lift the words off the page’’.
The Rose Report starts by stressing the importance of
including systematic phonics instruction in early In contrast, as part of the Rose enquiry, HMI found it
reading programmes, a position that is supported by necessary to visit only 10 schools (pre-judged as
international research. But, in recommending that ‘‘representative of best practice in the teaching of
early reading instruction should include synthetic phonics work’’ (Rose, 2006, p. 21)) in constructing an
phonics, it moves to a position that is not supported evidence base to legitimise marked changes in reading
by research evidence. pedagogy.

The potential impact of the Rose Report on the early

years and primary curriculum spreads beyond Eng-
land. While other anglophone countries have imposed Research evidence and systematic phonics
systematic phonics on their education systems (Aus-
tralian Government. Department of Education, 2005; One of the most significant contributions to debates
National Institute of Child Health and Human Devel- about research evidence and the teaching of reading
opment, 2000), England is the first to impose synthetic was the report of the US National Reading Panel (NRP)
phonics on all early years settings, including schools. on reading instruction, carried out by the National
For this reason an analysis of the international research Institute of Child Health and Human Development
picture in relation to the Rose Report and a considera- (2000). This extensive meta-analysis addressed a
tion of its likely impact are of interest to those working number of questions including: ‘‘Does systematic
in other countries. phonics instruction help children learn to read more
effectively than non-systematic phonics instruction or
In this paper we focus on the evidence for the following instruction teaching no phonics?’’ (chapter 1, p. 3). As
key paragraph in the Rose Report: far as differences between analytic and synthetic
phonics are concerned, the NRP concluded that
‘‘specific systematic phonics programs are all signifi-
‘‘51. Having considered a wide range of evidence, the cantly more effective than non-phonics programs;
review has concluded that the case for systematic phonic however, they do not appear to differ significantly
work is overwhelming and much strengthened by a from each other in their effectiveness although more
synthetic approach’’ (Rose, 2006, p. 20). evidence is needed to verify the reliability of effect
sizes for each program’’ (National Institute of Child
Before we address the research base for the Rose Health and Human Development, 2000, chapter 2,
Report, it is interesting to make the following p. 93). The point about systematic phonics, as opposed
comparison. In 1990 a report by Her Majesty’s to synthetic phonics, is contrary to the Rose enquiry’s
Inspectorate (HMI, the predecessor of OfSTED) on conclusion that the case for systematic phonics is much
the teaching of reading was published, to very little strengthened by a synthetic phonics approach.

r UKLA 2007
Literacy Volume 41 Number 1 April 2007 37

More recently England’s Department for Education favour of systematic phonics teaching refers to
and Skills (DfES) commissioned a systematic review of children age 6 and older. Twenty out of the 43 studies
approaches to the teaching of reading. The methodol- covered in the Torgerson et al. (2006) and NRP meta-
ogy of the NRP was refined to produce a meta-analysis analyses were carried out with children aged 6–7. Only
that included only randomised controlled trials nine studies were carried out with children aged 5–6.
(RCTs). On the basis of their work, Torgerson et al. No studies were carried out with 4-year-olds. The idea
conclude, once again in direct contrast to the Rose that children younger than five will benefit from a
enquiry, that ‘‘There is currently no strong RCT systematic phonics programme is not supported by
evidence that any one form of systematic phonics is evidence and is arguably one of the most controversial
more effective than any other’’ (2006, p. 49). This recommendations of the Rose Report.
finding supports their pedagogical recommendation
that ‘‘Since there is evidence that systematic phonics The importance of an appropriate reading context. The ex-
teaching benefits children’s reading accuracy, it should tent to which reading teaching should contextualise
be part of every literacy teacher’s repertoire and a the material to be taught has been at the heart of
routine part of literacy teaching, in a judicious balance arguments about reading pedagogy. There is continu-
with other elements’’ (p. 49, emphasis added). One of the ing disagreement about the best ways to balance
difficulties of forming policy recommendations for work on whole texts with sub-word-level work.
reading pedagogy is that this judicious balance can Although the Rose Report says that phonics teaching
easily be disrupted by policy thrusts that lack a should be ‘‘securely embedded within a broad and
sufficient evidence base. language-rich curriculum’’ (p. 16), its advocacy of
synthetic phonics contradicts this aim. The report
This work in the United States and England has been adopts Torgerson et al.’s (2006, p. 15) definition of
complemented by an Australian government report synthetic phonics as ‘‘an approach to the teaching
recommending that: of reading in which the phonemes associated with
particular graphemes are pronounced in isolation and
blended together (synthesized)’’ (emphasis added). As
‘‘teachers [should] provide systematic, direct and explicit
far as teaching synthetic phonics is concerned it is
phonics instruction so that children master the essential
argued that, ‘‘From work considered by this review, the
alphabetic code-breaking skills required for foundational
balance of advantage favors teaching it discretely as the
reading proficiency. Equally, that teachers [should]
prime approach to establishing word recognition’’
provide an integrated approach to reading that supports
(p. 20, emphasis added). Therefore, ‘‘In practice, this
the development of oral language, vocabulary, grammar,
means teaching relatively short, discrete daily sessions,
reading fluency, comprehension and the literacies of new
designed to progress from simple elements to the
technologies’’ (Australian Government. Department
more complex aspects of phonic knowledge, skills
of Education Science and Training, 2005, p. 14).
and understanding’’ (p. 16, emphasis added). Whereas
the Rose Report provides considerable detail about the
The Australian report also appropriately cautioned
ways phonics is to be taught, there is very little detail
that:
about other important aspects of reading teaching
such as how reading comprehension can be enhanced
‘‘While the evidence indicates that some teaching and what the report means by a ‘‘language-rich
strategies are more effective than others, no one approach curriculum’’.
of itself can address the complex nature of reading One way to embed phonics teaching securely in a
difficulties. An integrated approach requires that teachers meaningful context is to link it directly to children’s
have a thorough understanding of a range of effective books and other whole texts. But the synthetic phonics
strategies, as well as knowing when and why to apply method advocated by the report does not support this.
them’’ (Australian Government. Department of An example of synthetic phonics teaching praised by
Education, Science and Training, 2005, p. 14). the report denied children books during the pro-
gramme: ‘‘This is a very accelerated form of phonics
The Rose Report claims that ‘‘there is ample evidence that does not begin by establishing an initial sight
to support the recommendation of the interim report vocabulary. With this approach, before children are
that, for most children, it is highly worthwhile and introduced to books, they are taught letter sounds’’
appropriate to begin a systematic programme of phonic (House of Commons Educations and Skills Committee,
work by the age of five, if not before for some children, 2005, p. Ev 61). One of the most popular commercial
the way having been paved by related activities synthetic phonics schemes in England, Jolly Phonics,
designed, for example, to build phonological aware- also withholds books from children: ‘‘During the first
ness’’ (p. 29, italics as in original, underlining added). 8–9 weeks the aim is to prepare the children for reading
Early years educators have been particularly con- books. Stories and poems are read to them, but the
cerned about the dangers of an inappropriate curricu- children are not expected to try and read books for
lum being imposed on young children. The research themselves . . . Teachers and parents may find it
evidence on this matter is quite clear and once again difficult not to give children books to read in the first
contradicts the report. The majority of evidence in few weeks’’ (Lloyd, 1998, pp. 25–26). The teaching of

r UKLA 2007
38 Synthetic phonics and the teaching of reading

reading through synthetic phonics strongly empha- In contrast to the recommendations of the Rose Report,
sises discrete teaching of phonemes and graphemes the reading instruction studies included in the two
decontextualised from sentences or whole texts. meta-analyses show the particular benefits of different
types of phonics instruction when carefully integrated
Yet the 43 studies in the NRP and Torgerson et al. (2006) with whole text work making use of a range of teaching
meta-analyses reported gains where phonics instruc- strategies.
tion was integrated with text-level learning, often
as part of the classroom literacy or language arts The Clackmannanshire studies
curriculum. The study by Berninger et al. (2003) is one When research is cited in the Rose Report there is a bias
of the most recent and is indicative of the majority. In towards work that advocates synthetic phonics. This is
this study, second-grade teachers in eight schools clearly evident in the four-and-a-half pages of the main
serving diverse student populations were asked to report that are devoted to just one document, a report
refer their ‘poorest readers’. These children were then of some research carried out in Clackmannanshire, a
tested by project staff, to check whether children met very small authority in Scotland (Johnston and Watson,
the inclusion criteria. Forty-eight pairs of children 2005). The title of the document claims a ‘‘7-year
were randomly assigned to four teaching conditions: longitudinal study’’, however, the research actually
(a) explicit and reflective word recognition; (b) explicit consisted of two experiments that had been previously
and reflective reading comprehension; (c) combined reported, followed by several years of further testing of
explicit word recognition and explicit reading com- the children. Experiments 1 and 2 had already been
prehension; or (d) a control group, given practice in reported in a peer-reviewed journal article in 2004
reading skills without any instruction. The most (Johnston and Watson, 2004) but the new data, from the
effective condition featured phonics teaching carefully further testing of children after that date (Johnston and
integrated with reading comprehension training, using Watson, 2005) is only available online and has not been
‘‘highly engaging texts’’. peer reviewed.

Experiments 1 and 2 were designed to compare the

‘‘It is intriguing to consider why explicit comprehension
effectiveness of analytic and synthetic phonics teach-
instruction might facilitate learning to decode written
ing for early readers. The authors recognised a fault
words – the skill on which at-risk readers have the most
with the design of experiment 1, where the analytic
difficulty. One explanation for the transfer from comprehen-
phonics groups were taught fewer letters than the
sion training to phonological decoding may be that explicit
synthetic phonics group, so they attempted to correct
instruction in reading comprehension develops broad-based
this by carrying out experiment 2. Experiment
metalinguistic awareness (Mattingly, 1972) that may
2 compared three groups taken from primary one
generalize across levels of language in the functional
(aged 5) classes in Clackmannanshire. The groups
reading system’’ (Berninger et al., 2003, p. 112).
were described as follows: (a) ‘‘no letter-training
group’’; (b) ‘‘accelerated letter training group’’; and
Another study that featured careful integration of
(c) ‘‘synthetic phonics group’’.
phonics teaching and whole text work was carried out
by Umbach et al. (1989). Thirty-one first graders from a
The Rose enquiry accepted that the methodology of the
low-income rural area were assigned to two instruc-
Clackmannanshire studies had ‘‘received some criti-
tional groups: a traditional basal (reading scheme)
cism by researchers’’ (p. 61) but defended the use of the
approach and a more structured direct instruction
work by focusing on the classroom practice that was a
approach that included phonics. They attributed gains
feature of the synthetic phonics approach. ‘‘Focusing
in reading competence in the experimental group in
on the practice observed in the classroom and its
part to the phonics instruction they had received; but
supportive context, rather than debating the research,
they also saw that contextualising this instruction in
is therefore not without significance for this review’’
meaningful experiences of connected print had played
(p. 62, emphasis added). The profound influence that
a contributory role:
the Clackmannanshire research has had, and is likely
to have, means that it is necessary to offer a substantial
‘‘The differences in Passage Comprehension scores which critique.
favored the students taught in the Reading Mastery
Program are important and warrant comment. Although The final report of the Clackmannanshire research
the Reading Mastery Program has decoding as its ( Johnston and Watson, 2005) concluded that ‘‘the
primary emphasis, this program provides students with synthetic phonics approach, as part of the reading
systematic instruction in language development training curriculum, is more effective than the analytic phonics
(e.g., vocabulary development) in addition to story approach’’ (Johnston and Watson, 2005, p. 9). Johnston
comprehension activities. For example, throughout the and Watson were not the first to compare synthetic and
oral reading of stories, students were frequently asked analytic phonics within one research project. Foorman
comprehension questions to ensure that all children in the et al. (1997) carried out such a comparison, concluding
group comprehended the passage’’ (Umbach et al., 1989, that ‘‘synthetic phonics facilitates skill in phonological
p. 119). analysis relative to analytic phonics and sight-word

r UKLA 2007
Literacy Volume 41 Number 1 April 2007 39

methods, but this facilitation does not appear to confounded with treatment-group differences. Differ-
transfer to gains in word reading’’ (p. 272). It is useful ences in outcomes between treatment groups
to compare the two studies in order to reflect on the were evidenced, but these cannot unambiguously be
appropriateness of the methodology. attributed to the treatments themselves’’ (p. 272). By
contrast, Johnston and Watson are certain about their
Foorman et al. worked with children with ‘reading findings: ‘‘It is concluded that synthetic phonics was
disabilities’, whereas Johnston and Watson worked a more effective approach to teaching reading,
with children with a range of reading competence, spelling and phonemic awareness than analytic pho-
selected from schools in Clackmannanshire. Foorman nics’’ (p. 351).
et al.’s attention to the selection of participants
included a number of measures for ensuring an To claim an advantage for one approach to the teaching
appropriate sample. These included a review of of reading over another, it is important that gains
eligibility testing results for students with reading are shown for comprehension, not just for decoding
disabilities in the area. Measures included the indivi- and related skills. The comprehension findings re-
dually administered achievement-test scores, intelli- ported in the Clackmannanshire research are some-
gence tests scores, Woodcock-Johnson Psycho- what unclear. In experiment 1, at the first post-test,
Educational Battery – Revised and the Wechsler comprehension test outcomes are not reported.
Intelligence Scale for Children. By contrast, Johnston At the second post-test in experiment 1 it is reported
and Watson relied on the British Picture Vocabulary that, ‘‘On the test of reading comprehension (Primary
Scale. This is insufficiently robust to control for Reading Test, France, 1981), there was no significant
children’s general capability before the interventions. difference between groups’’ (Johnston and Watson,
Foorman et al. used a parental questionnaire based 2004, p. 339). Experiment 2 was the more important
on previous theory to identify ethnicity, gender and because the authors corrected the problem they
socio-economic status. Johnston and Watson used had recognised with experiment 1, in which letters
the Clackmannanshire Council School Deprivation had not been taught at the same rate to the different
Index, which does not assess individual families’ groups. But in experiment 2, no test for comprehension
circumstances. Specific details about the populations is reported. The 2005 report repeats much of this
in the Johnston and Watson (2004) experiments are information, but adds an analysis of outcomes
minimal. from primary 2 to primary 7. It is claimed that ‘‘In
Primary 2 the children were comprehending what
Although they gave no indication of the teachers’ prior they read 7 months ahead of their chronological age,
experience, or any measures used to evaluate their but by primary 7 this had dropped to a 3.5 months
effectiveness as teachers, Foorman et al. assessed advantage’’ (p. 66).
compliance with the programmes through weekly
visits, monitoring checklists and review of teacher Given that comprehension scores were not reported for
journals. Johnston and Watson include no information experiment 2, these gains cannot be attributed to the
about compliance or teacher effectiveness in experi- influence of the synthetic phonics approach. The
ment 1. In experiment 2, the programmes were claims made for comprehension are further compli-
implemented by ‘‘one of the authors’’ although it is cated by the fact that the ‘‘Primary Reading Test
not clear which author this was. It is of course possible (France, 1981)’’ was used to test the children in primary
that a priori views about synthetic phonics could have 2 and primary 3 but this was changed to the ‘‘Group
had a beneficial impact on the delivery of synthetic Reading Test (Macmillan Unit, 2000)’’ to test children
phonics and/or a negative impact on the delivery of in primary 4 to primary 7. Although it is claimed that
analytic phonics. there was a 3.5 months advantage for the experimental
group on comprehension, there was, by this stage, no
One of the most significant problems with the control group: comparison was made against the norm
Clackmannanshire work is that the research design for chronological age. So it is not clear whether the
did not allow for a valid comparison of teaching children’s experience of synthetic phonics improved
methods, even where experiment 2 had corrected the their comprehension.
error in the design of experiment 1. This is because in
both experiments 1 and 2, the different groups were In summary, although the Clackmannanshire research
given different amounts of teaching. (The differing raises some interesting questions about the rate of
numbers of activities between groups is a problem phonics teaching, it has some significant limitations:
with the Foorman et al. study as well.) In experiment 2,
reported in the 2004 paper, only the synthetic phonics
groups were taught sounding out, blending and  Controls for children’s levels of prior attainment
reading of the words in the target list. and development lacked rigour.
 The socio-economic backgrounds of the children
The discussion section of the Foorman et al. study is were not adequately assessed.
reflective and appropriately cautious. For example  Very little information was given about the schools:
they explain that ‘‘Demographic variables were clearly for example, their effectiveness.

r UKLA 2007
40 Synthetic phonics and the teaching of reading

 The experience and effectiveness of the people learning to decode (to read) and encode (to write/spell)
implementing the programmes was not adequately print’.
controlled.  ‘For most children, high quality, systematic phonic
 Experiments 1 and 2 were not valid comparisons work should start by the age of five, taking full account
of the synthetic phonics teaching method versus the of professional judgements of children’s developing
analytic phonics teaching method because the abilities and the need to embed this work within a broad
different groups were taught different amounts. and rich curriculum’.
 Reading comprehension was not significantly im- Implications of the review
proved by the synthetic phonics approach. The Secretary of State for Education has decided that
the findings of the review should be secured through
In view of these limitations it is very difficult to see the revised framework for teaching literacy, currently
why this study, as opposed to any of the other studies being developed by the Primary National Strategy,
covered in the two meta-analyses, was singled out and through changes to:
by the Rose review other than because of its high  the key stage 1 English programme of study for reading
media profile and because it was politically expedient  an early learning goal’’ (Qualifications and Curri-
to do so. culum Authority (QCA), 2006b, p. 1).

Particularly worrying for the future of children going

Conclusion to school in England was the proposal to make changes
to the programmes of study in the National Curricu-
The Rose Report’s conclusion that synthetic phonics lum, which unlike the Primary National Strategy
should be adopted nationally as the preferred method literacy Framework, are a legal requirement. The main
for the teaching of early reading is not supported by proposal was to replace the following wording:
research evidence. The available research evidence
supports systematic tuition in phonics at a variety of
‘‘Reading strategies
levels (e.g. phoneme, onset-rime) combined with
1 To read with fluency, accuracy, understanding and
meaningful experiences with print. The Rose Report’s
enjoyment, pupils should be taught to use a range of
conclusions are based on assertion rather than rigorous
strategies to make sense of what they read’’ (Department
analysis of appropriate evidence, as the following
for Education and Employment (DfEE) and The
extract indicates:
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA),
1999, p. 46, emphasis added).
‘‘Having followed those directions, and notwithstanding
the uncertainties of research, there is much convincing with this:
evidence to show from the practice observed that, as
generally understood, ‘synthetic’ phonics is the form of
‘‘Reading Strategies
systematic phonic work that offers the best route to
1. Pupils should be taught to read with fluency, accuracy,
becoming skilled readers’’ (Rose, 2006, p. 19).
understanding and enjoyment’’ (Qualifications and
Curriculum Authority (QCA), 2006b, p. 2).
The ambiguous notion of ‘‘leading edge practice’’ is
used as a rationale for the opinions in the report. The
The consultation ran for 12 weeks from 8 May to 31 July
lack of attention to research evidence seriously calls
2006. It is claimed that a leaflet raising awareness
into question the extent to which the remit for a
of the consultation was sent to Key Stage 1 schools,
‘‘thorough examination of the available evidence and
foundation-stage settings and other key partners
engagement with the teaching profession and educa-
and stakeholders. During a keynote speech that one
tion experts’’ (p. 19) has been met.
of the authors of this paper gave to a national early
years conference, the audience was asked if anyone
Despite these serious omissions, the Rose Report has
had seen the consultation leaflet. Not one of the
already begun to have a direct impact on national
delegates, a mixture of early years practitioners, local
educational policy in the United Kingdom. This can be
authority workers and academics, indicated that they
seen in the consultation that was initiated by the
had seen it.
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority:
However, the report of the consultation shows that
‘‘Review of early reading there were 568 respondents, 372 of whom answered
In June 2005 Jim Rose led an independent review on best question 1 about the National Curriculum, a question
practice in teaching early reading. The final review was which required a yes or no response. Of these,
published in March 2006. It recommends that: 286 agreed with the change, which resulted in
 ‘High quality, systematic phonic work as defined by the deletion from the National Curriculum of the explicit
review should be taught discretely. The knowledge, mention of use of a range of strategies to make sense of
skills and understanding that constitute high quality what is being read. Yet somewhat contradictorily, in
phonic work should be taught as the prime approach in the ‘further comments’ space on the consultation form,

r UKLA 2007
Literacy Volume 41 Number 1 April 2007 41

‘‘The most common comment, cited by a third (32 per instruction for low-achieving second-grade readers. Language,
cent) of respondents, [was] that a variety of teaching/ Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 34, pp. 101–116.
BRITTON, J. (1970) Language and Learning. London: Allen Lane.
learning methods needs to be used alongside phonics,
DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT (DfEE)
including contextual understanding’’ (Qualifications (1998) The National Literacy Strategy Framework for Teaching. Sud-
and Curriculum Authority (QCA), 2006a, p. 13). In our bury: DfEE Publications.
opinion, the lack of publicity about the consultation DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT (DfEE)
and the very small number of respondents means that AND THE QUALIFICATIONS AND CURRICULUM AUTHOR-
the statutory change to England’s National Curricu- ITY (QCA) (1999) The National Curriculum. Handbook for Primary
Teachers in England. Key Stages 1 and 2. Norwich: Her Majesty’s
lum cannot be regarded as legitimate. Stationery Office (HMSO).
DOMBEY, H. (2006) How should we teach children to read? Books
The Rose Report concludes with the signal of stronger for Keeps, 156, pp. 6–7.
state intervention in the training of teachers: ‘‘effective EARL, L., FULLAN, M., LEITHWOOD, K., WATSON, N., JANTZI,
monitoring of the teaching and learning of phonic D., LEVIN, B., and TORRANCE, N. (2000) Watching and
Learning: Oise/ut Evaluation of the Implementation of the
work by those in positions of leadership’’ will be National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies. Nottingham: DfEE
required and this ‘‘priority must be reflected in the Publications.
effective training of the teaching force’’ (Rose, 2006, FOORMAN, B. R., FRANCIS, D. J., WINIKATES, D., MEHTA, P.,
p. 21). In view of the way that the NLS Framework for SCHATSCHNEIDER, C. and FLETCHER, J. M. (1997) Early
Teaching was enforced by OfSTED in schools and interventions for children with reading disabilities. Scientific
Studies of Reading, 1, pp. 255–276.
teacher-training institutions, and the growing realisa- HEATH, S. B. (1983) Ways with Words: Language, Life and Work in
tion of the problems caused by its inadequacies, Communities and Classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University
the Rose Report’s recommendations make worrying Press.
reading. Furthermore, in our view, the Rose Report HER MAJESTY’s INSPECTORATE (HMI) (1990) The Teaching and
provides the most prescriptive, rigid and limited Learning of Reading in Primary Schools. London: Department of
Education and Science (DES).
view of what it means to teach early reading to HOUSE OF COMMONS EDUCATIONS AND SKILLS COMMITTEE
have appeared in England. The United Kingdom (2005) Teaching Children to Read: Eighth Report of Session 2004–2005.
Literacy Association’s response to Rose’s interim Report, Together with Formal Minutes, Oral and Written Evidence.
report reminds us of a more appropriate reading London: The Stationery Office Limited.
JOHNSTON, R. and WATSON, J. (2004) Accelerating the develop-
curriculum:
ment of reading, spelling and phonemic awareness skills in initial
readers. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 17, pp.
327–357.
‘‘Best practice in the teaching of early reading brings JOHNSTON, R. and WATSON, J. (2005). The effects of synthetic
together two key components: the acquisition of the phonics teaching of reading and spelling attainment: A seven year
longitudinal study. Retrieved 10 December 2006, from http://
alphabetic principle and comprehension. These compo-
www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/36496/0023582.pdf
nents should not be developed in isolation. Best practice LLOYD, S. (1998) The Phonics Handbook, 3rd edn. Chigwell: Jolly
integrates skills teaching with more authentic, contex- Learning Ltd.
tually-grounded literacy activities, responding to the MEEK, M. (1982) Learning to Read. London: Bodley Head.
interests of the learner and the literacy contexts of their MORRIS, J. (1984) Phonics 44 for initial literacy in English. Reading, 18.1.
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH AND HUMAN
homes and communities’’ (United Kingdom Literacy
DEVELOPMENT (2000) Report of the National Reading Panel.
Association (UKLA), 2005, p. 3). Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the
Scientific Research Literature on Reading and its Implications for
Reading Instruction: Reports of the Subgroups (NIH Publication no.
The conclusion of the Rose Report, that teachers and 00–4754). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
trainee teachers should be required to teach reading QUALIFICATIONS AND CURRICULUM AUTHORITY (QCA)
through synthetic phonics, ‘‘first and fast’’ is, in our (2006a) Consultation on Proposed Changes to the Key Stage 1 English
view, wrong. In the light of this, there is a pressing need Programme for Reading and a Foundation Stage Early Learning Goal.
for the government’s requirements and guidelines for London: QCA.
QUALIFICATIONS AND CURRICULUM AUTHORITY (QCA)
early reading to be subject to further critical scrutiny in (2006b) Consultation: Implications of the Rose Review of early
the hope that a more balanced approach to reading reading. Retrieved 1 June 2006, from http://www.qca.org.uk/
may once more prevail. 232_16473.html
ROSE, J. (2006) Independent Review of the Teaching of Early Reading.
Nottingham: DfES Publications.
ROSEN, C. and ROSEN, H. (1973) The Language of Primary School
References Children. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
STREET, B. (1984) Literacy in Theory and Practice. Cambridge:
AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Cambridge University Press.
SCIENCE AND TRAINING (2005) Teaching Reading. Report and STYLES, M. and DRUMMOND, M. J. (1993) The politics of reading.
Recommendations. National Enquiry into the Teaching of Literacy. Cambridge Journal of Education, 23.1.
Barton, Australia: Department of Education, Science and Training. TORGERSON, C. J., BROOKS, G. and HALL, J. (2006) A Systematic
BARNES, D. (1976) From Communication to Curriculum. Harmonds- Review of the Research Literature on the Use of Phonics in the Teaching of
worth: Penguin. Reading and Spelling. London: Department for Education and Skills
BERNINGER, V. W., VERMEULEN, K., ABOTT, R. D., McCUTCHEN, (DfES).
D., COTTON, S., CUDE, J., DORN, S. and SHARON, T. (2003) UMBACH, B., DARCH, C. and HALPIN, G. (1989) Teaching reading
Comparison of three approaches to supplementary reading to low performing first graders in rural schools: a comparison of

r UKLA 2007
42 Synthetic phonics and the teaching of reading

two instructional approaches. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 16,

pp. 22–30.
UNITED KINGDOM LITERACY ASSOCIATION (UKLA) (2005)
CONTACT THE AUTHORS:
Submission to the Review of Best Practice in the Teaching of Early Dominic Wyse and Morag Styles, Faculty
Reading. Royston: UKLA. of Education, University of Cambridge,
WATERLAND, L. (1985) Read With Me. An Apprenticeship Approach to 184 Hills Road, Cambridge CB2 2PQ, UK.
Reading. Stroud: Thimble Press. e-mails: bdw28@cam.ac.uk and
WYSE, D. (2003) The National Literacy Strategy: a critical review of
ms104@cam.ac.uk
empirical evidence. British Educational Research Journal, 29.6, pp.
903–916.

r UKLA 2007