Sounds-Write 2013 / Teach to Read training reports

[Derrie Clark]

January 2013: Ofsted monitoring report on Sounds-Write training

http://literacyblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013 ... ounds.html

Quote:

This is outstandingly thorough training. Those participating are given a full grounding in all aspects of phonic knowledge, including the alphabetic code and the processes of blending and segmenting. To this is added a detailed and conscientious introduction to the rigorous and systematic ‘Sounds-Write’ programme, covering both theoretical background and effective implementation. All this is backed up by an invaluable handbook and is presented with all the skill and expertise that comes from extensive, effective experience of both teaching and training.

[Susan Godsland]

Various synthetic/linuistic phonics programme trainings discussed:

Phonics training for teachers

http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/primary/168 ... r-teachers

[Susan Godsland]

Elizabeth had her training inspected over a year ago but has only now found time to put a link to the report:

“This is excellent training. It gives clear, strong messages, fully supported with all the information, advice and modelling of practice needed to help teachers along the road to effective delivery of systematic synthetic phonics. It is presented with the expertise and conviction that come from substantial experience of effective practice. It meets all but one of the criteria very well indeed and is prevented from full compliance only by including reference to some materials not currently assessed as meeting the core criteria. “

http://www.nonweiler.demon.co.uk/DfE_Re ... toRead.pdf

[geraldinecarter]

Oh my goodness - I'm so sorry Elizabeth. Sue Lloyd also got ticked off for mentioning the unmentionable....double whammy of rejection - makes me sad that such effective books for struggling readers are cast aside.

[kenm]

From the report:
".. some reference is currently made to programmes and materials which do not fall into this category [assessed as meeting the core criteria] and these references are threaded through the delivery, including the presentation slides, the hand-out materials, and the samples put out on display."

Do we know which programmes and materials these are? and have the people who have to assess them looked at them and turned them down or just not got around to it?

[geraldinecarter]

They certainly looked at the BRI materials,Ken. But as soon as they read:

"I see Sam"

they seemed to give up ... in spite of the fact that research, testimonials from leading SP users, wide-spread field testing etc.etc. illustration showing exactlly where BRI fits in with all the major SP programmes (thanks to Elizabeth's generosity and painstaking work).

My daughter wrote this for our Dyslexia leaflet (incidentally until she worked on MRI stories, she'd had previsely 1/2 hour" phonics" teaching at school - out of the blue they learned sounds of the alphabet...\. Now, in spite of being a voracious readeer by the time she went to school, she is a firm believer in SP foundations:

There is no ‘silver bullet’ to cure dyslexia and other special needs; there is,
however, the transformatory effect of gradual code introduction, rigorous
decoding, and extensive practice within lively, accessible stories.

This seems hard to grasp for some unfathomable reason.

Tom Burkard's materials aren't mentioned, but I don't think he applied.

There are lots of good things in the catalogue. However, there is far too much attention paid to 'fluffy' supplementary materials makng an artificial leap from decoding to reading for enrichment and meaning. The worst thing about the catalogue was the decision to shove training to the back. On the whole though, in spite of the superficiality of the BRI judgement, its good that trainings are being inspected.

[JIM CURRAN]

What happened with BRI was scandalous. Over the years I have used it with some of the most challenging children and it worked when nothing else did.

[JAC]

Indeed Jim, I have had the same success using BRI. When such an excellent resource is overlooked/rejected I can't help losing respect for those who decide on such matters!

[chew8]

They certainly looked at the BRI materials,Ken. But as soon as they read:

"I see Sam"

they seemed to give up ...

Does this mean that the early introduction of the 'ee' digraph was the problem? Was this actually mentioned in whatever feedback they sent?

Jenny C.

[Elizabeth]

To clarify the feedback from the DfE, following observation of my training:

The DfE observer made no comments about the reasons why anything was not in the catalogue.

I didn’t take the feedback about resources as a criticism of my training. In fact, I am glad the DfE does not approve training where resources that do not conform to the Core Criteria are recommended. I believe that almost all the resources I recommended do conform to the Criteria, but they were not in the catalogue and I accept that the DfE observer had to be consistent. I suspect he did a good job of preventing trainers recommending some resources that do not fit with synthetic phonics teaching.

The only resource I recommended that it could be argued does not to conform to the Criteria is Jolly Grammar, because it does not emphasise blending for reading. However, I mentioned it only as designed to follow Jolly Phonics, which conforms very well to the Core Criteria. If those teaching Jolly Phonics are well trained and teach Jolly Phonics rigorously, then Jolly Grammar follows Jolly Phonics very well.

Most of what I included that wasn’t match-funded was only in a list or display of helpful resources and did not form part of the training. It’s difficult to remember now, but I think I held up a BRI book and praised that for helping children with difficulties and explained that Jolly Grammar is produced by Jolly Learning to follow Jolly Phonics.

I included the following:
- BRI reading books as Geraldine has pointed out.
- Sounds~Write stories, which are now accepted and in the catalogue.
- Jolly Grammar resources, which were included in the training because the school asked specifically for Jolly Phonics training (integrated with Letters and Sounds) and Jolly Grammar is designed to follow Jolly Phonics.
- a few Sound Foundations resources
- a few Step by Step games

[Derrie Clark]

When he came to observe me in January 2012, I had the Sounds-Write and Dandelion Readers on display. I think the Dandelion Readers had been accepted by then (despite the initial ridiculous rejection!). The Sounds-Write books weren't though. However he asked why they weren't in the catalogue as he thought they obviously should be. I explained the approach is predominantly about training and professional development. The idea is that teachers know how to use the resources they have available rather then commit schools to having to buy programme specific resources and consumables.

[chew8]

Re. Elizabeth's last message: my question about feedback on the BRI books was really directed to Geraldine. I assumed that when she said that 'they' had seemed to give up as soon as they saw 'I see Sam', 'they' referred to the people compiling the list of 'approved' programmes. I just wondered if the feedback (if any) had mentioned the early introduction of 'ee' as a problem.

Jenny C.

[geraldinecarter]

Not specifically, Jenny - though I inferred from their comment that BRI did not 'fit' in with SP's GPC progression, that thiey had fallen at the first hurdle. It's water under the bridge - but I'm very sad about it as the books supplement any synthetic phonics programme and no other books, as far as I know, have the rigourous blending and segmenting training and overlearning for the 19% who still fail. Also, the DfE said they were going to take overall cost into account - that's a joke.

[kenm]

Considering that BRI probably had the most rigorous development and evaluation schedule of any scheme, has been used successfully for over 30 years and continues to flourish, its failure shows the criteria to be at fault.

I can see that a consistent order of presentation of correspondences across schemes would make life easier for providers of supplementary decodable books, but I have never read of any user of BRI suggesting that it needs supplementing.