Rose notes that research shows systematic phonics teaching enables children to make better progress than unsystematic or no phonics. The evidence is so strong that there should not be any argument against the use of systematic phonics teaching for initial literacy.
Rose concedes that the research evidence is not (yet) strong enough to justify a choice between analytic and synthetic phonics - only three randomised controlled trials have been conducted. But in favouring synthetic phonics he gives great weight to classroom observation evidence, where he and his DfES team saw synthetic phonics working well.
Many commentators seem to think Rose is advocating 'phonics only' for initial teaching. This is untrue. He stresses that phonics must be embedded in a broad and rich literacy curriculum.
Register now to continue reading
Thank you for visiting Nursery World and making use of our archive of more than 35,000 expert features, subject guides, case studies and policy updates. Why not register today and enjoy the following great benefits:
What's included
-
Free access to 4 subscriber-only articles per month
-
Unlimited access to news and opinion
-
Email newsletter providing activity ideas, best practice and breaking news
Already have an account? Sign in here
