A government-validated phonics programme only leads to a “small” boost in reading and almost no progress in writing, compared with other phonics schemes, according to new findings.
The study also found that a phonics programme focused on catch-up for older pupils in Year 5 to Year 8 had a “negative impact” on remedial reading.
The long-awaited study, which cost more than £1 million, was an independent evaluation of phonics programme Read Write Inc. (RWI) and Fresh Start (FS), commissioned by the government-funded charity the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF).
The trial, which began in 2016, involved 131 primary schools, 66 of which were assigned the intervention programmes while the other schools continued their “business as usual” reading provision, such as non-validated phonics schemes.
Pupils in RWI schools made an average of one month’s additional progress in reading after receiving the programme for two years.
With writing, however, there was no additional progress on average, and in some cases the RWI pupils saw “slight, though non-significant, decreases” in outcomes.
Researchers concluded: “The [RWI] programme only led to small increases in pupils’ phonics outcomes for those in the Year 1 cohort.”
Phonics findings for FSM pupils ‘less secure’
Meanwhile, pupils eligible for free school meals (FSM) were found to respond “particularly well to RWI, with this group making an average of three months more progress than pupils who were not offered the programme”.
But the report says the finding “is less secure than the results for all pupils because it’s based on a smaller group of pupils”.
Ten of the schools did not implement the RWI programme.
There are 31 synthetic phonics programmes that have been “validated” by the DfE, including RWI.
According to the Department for Education, validation status indicates that a programme has been self-assessed by its publisher and judged by a small panel with relevant expertise - and that both consider it to meet all of the DfE criteria for an effective systematic synthetic phonics programme.
While schools do not have to use government-validated programmes such as RWI, the DfE has said that all programmes should be rigorous and systematic.
Catch-up programme
Fresh Start (FS), a catch-up programme for children in Years 5-8 who have been identified as below their expected reading age, was also investigated as part of the evaluation.
In the trial, it consisted of daily one-hour lessons for 33 weeks, in place of, or in addition to, regular English lessons.
For this programme, the EEF concluded that “there was evidence that being allocated to the FS treatment group had a negative impact on the Year 7 cohort’s remedial reading”.
Pupils assigned to receive the programme performed “worse on national reading and writing assessments, on average, than pupils who received business as usual”.
Overall, children in FS schools “made the equivalent of two months’ less progress in reading, on average, compared to children in other schools”.
It also found “no impact on pupils’ writing knowledge, regardless of dosage”.
However, the EEF notes that 23 out of 66 intervention schools did not deliver FS at all and 19 schools delivered FS to some but not all eligible pupils, and therefore the findings “should be interpreted with caution”.
The report says: “Overall, RWI shows some promise in supporting early phonics and decoding skills of the reading acquisition process but needs consistent support for successful implementation.
“FS, on the other hand, requires additional evaluation to determine its effectiveness.”
The study was first announced in 2016, and the trials finished in July 2018.
The analysis was conducted and the report drafted between September 2019 and January 2021, with delays reportedly due to issues accessing data from the National Pupil Database.
In addition, a decision was made to publish the findings alongside a second study funded by the Teaching and Leadership Innovation Fund in schools facing significant challenge.
This second trial faced disruption due to the pandemic, so was cancelled.
Professor Christian Bokhove, of the University of Southampton, said it was a “shame” that the results of the original trial were delayed.
He said the outcomes were “negative for Fresh Start” and disappointing for RWI, but added that these trials were notoriously difficult to do well.
Professor Jessie Ricketts, of Royal Holloway University London, said “strong evidence” already exists “that systematic synthetic phonics is successful in raising standards” for pupils in key stage 1. But, she added, “this new study doesn’t tell us conclusively whether RWI is better than the mixture of similar phonics programmes that are being used at schools”.
‘Good reason’ for the wide use of phonics
Both programmes evaluated in the EEF study were developed by Ruth Miskin and delivered by Ruth Miskin Training (RMT).
Recruitment of schools to the evaluation was led by a third party rather than by RMT.
A Ruth Miskin Training spokesperson said that the EEF said there were “challenges” due to “delayed recruitment by a third party resulting in slow onboarding of schools, a significant amount of missing data and low implementation levels”.
They added: “The EEF themselves point out the findings need to be treated with caution and are not a true reflection of the impact of Read Write Inc. and Fresh Start.
“We know that schools that teach our programmes with fidelity achieve impressive results.”
Professor Becky Francis, chief executive of the EEF, said that phonics is a ”widely used approach to teaching early literacy in English schools” and this was for “good reason”.
“Going 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,” she added.
The DfE has been contacted for comment.
