Children who learn to read using the country鈥檚 鈥渓eading鈥 phonics programme make one month鈥檚 additional progress compared to their peers, while older pupils using a linked catch-up programme typically fall at least two months鈥 behind. That is the 鈥渄isappointing鈥 conclusion of a long-awaited independent evaluation by the of the Read Write Inc and Fresh Start schemes, offered by Ruth Miskin Training and used by 8,000 schools. However, the 拢1 million evaluation was beset with problems, including a second trial being canned because of the pandemic, with the EEF urging caution on interpreting the findings. What did the phonics study find? The EEF found children aged four to nine who participated in the Read Write Inc. Phonics (RWI) programme on a daily basis made, on average, an extra month鈥檚 progress in reading compared to children in the control group. Meanwhile, older children aged nine to 13 who took part in Fresh Start (FS), a daily catch-up phonics intervention for those below their expected reading age made two months鈥 less progress. In both situations, the impact of the programme was exaggerated for children eligible for free school meals. Disadvantaged pupils made, on average, three months more progress than their peers when they participated in RWI. Meanwhile older disadvantaged pupils typically fell three months behind their peers when they participated in FS. More than 130 primary schools were recruited by Queens University Belfast to take part in the trial, which began in 2016. The control group consisted of 65 schools, which continued with their 鈥榖usiness as usual鈥 reading provision. 鈥業t鈥檚 a failed trial鈥 However, EEF itself said the findings 鈥 particularly those just looking at disadvantaged pupils 鈥 should be 鈥渋nterpreted with caution鈥. Many pupils were not included in the final analysis due to factors including absence. In the FS trial, more than a third of schools offered the intervention did not even deliver the programme at all. A spokesperson for Ruth Miskin said the trial did not meet EEF鈥檚 鈥渉igh-quality standards鈥 and are not a true reflection鈥 of the impact of its schemes. The draft EEF report rated the RWI finding as having 鈥渓ow to moderate鈥 security, with a 鈥渕oderate鈥 security for its FS conclusion. Professor Stephen Gorard, director of the Durham University Evidence Centre for Education, rated the 鈥渢rustworthiness鈥 as one out of five. Stephen Gorard 鈥淚 would say it鈥檚 a failed trial. I think the amount of missing data means we can鈥檛 really draw any conclusions.鈥 Schools want ‘trustworthy’ evidence Schools are looking for interventions 鈥渨hich have trustworthy evidence and a big bang. This has neither,鈥 he said. 鈥淚t doesn鈥檛 mean the underlying interventions aren鈥檛 any good. It鈥檚 just that we can鈥檛 and we shouldn鈥檛 do anything on the basis of this trial.鈥 The average costs of RWI for one school was around 拢18,960, or 拢186 per pupil per year, when averaged over three years, the report found. However, the report also looked at relative cost-effectiveness. The EEF found that, on average, the relative cost-effectiveness of RWI for one month鈥檚 progress is 拢126,400 per school per year, or 拢3,718 per pupil per year. 鈥淚f this figure is accurate, then this programme is very, very expensive, with consequences for the use of public funding of schools,鈥 said professor Dominic Wyse, who recently co-authored a landmark study on the teaching of phonics and reading. Fellow academic Alice Bradbury, professor of sociology and education at University College London, added an extra month鈥檚 progress for pupils who participate in RWI was 鈥渄isappointing鈥 given its popularity. But the Ruth Miskin spokesperson said 鈥渟chools that teach our programme with fidelity achieve impressive results鈥, pointing out 20 of the 34 English hubs use the programme and that 鈥淥fsted reading deep dives praise the quality of teaching in schools that teach our programme鈥. Second Read Write Inc trial canned But the findings are likely to call into question the EEF’s decision to delay publishing results until a second report into the scheme was completed. The latter study started in 2019 to evaluate RWI鈥檚 delivery through the Teaching and Leadership Innovation Fund. But it was 鈥渟ignificantly disrupted鈥 by the pandemic. It was announced today that no findings will now be published. Instead, a 鈥渓essons learned鈥 report has been produced. Professor Becky Francis, EEF chief executive, said 鈥渞obust evidence suggests that high-quality, structured phonics teaching can boost young pupils鈥 literacy development, when they are implemented carefully and as part of a wider literacy offering. 鈥淕oing forward, we need more research around the impact that phonics can have on older pupils. Building the evidence base further will help us to better understand the impact that phonics approaches have on this age group.鈥
Angela Lowe 16 October 2022 Working in a school perhaps I can tell you that from my experience the real problem here is not that the Read Write Inc programme is a poor phonics programme, in actual fact I’ve seen children progress 6 months in their reading age using the Read Write Inc phonics programme, and that was directly after the lock down period, between approximately a 5-6 month period. The real problem is the lack of funding available for phonics training, time and time again I hear the same problem where teaching assistants are given Read Write Inc groups to run with no training in how to deliver them, if we aren’t prepared to train our teaching assistants, how on earth are we supposed to fairly assess it as a successful tool for pupil progress in reading, absurd! This research would categorically not include asking those that deliver these programmes, if they’ve been formally trained to deliver them! In absence of the bigger picture at play, the distinct lack of training, due to lack of funding in our schools, that, educators, is one glaringly obvious reason for the disappointing outcome!
GS 11 January 2023 What a shoddy report. A sensationalist headline hiding a failed trial. Shame on you.
Claire 24 February 2024 Three years ago BERA concluded that synthetic phonics instruction was not evidence based. Children need proper books and stories. Not Biff and Kipper go to dentist for a root canal and reading skills so distilled that all the enjoyment has disappeared from reading. Reading = decoding X comprehension right? And we all ask each other why children aren’t reading anymore.