Tim Oates CBE, Group Director of Assessment and Research, Cambridge Assessment
Curriculum policy should not reduce to numeracy and literacy, but it should never forget that these are foundational.
Our PISA scores in literacy were stable in 2018 - no change. But this represents a major achievement (Oates 2021). Why? Because literacy scores have been declining significantly across key nations (Thomson, De Bortoli & Underwood 2017). In the international PISA surveys of 2012 and 2015, 6 countries showed improvement (Uruguay, Slovenia, Colombia, Russian Federation, Chile and Sweden) whilst 8 showed significant decline (Turkey, Chinese Tiapei, Japan, Vietnam, Hungary, Korea, Hing Kong (China) and Switzerland).
However, in the 2018 PISA survey, reading performance improved in 4 countries (Singapore, Macao (China), Turkey and the Republic of North Macedonia), but declined in 13 nations (OECD 2019). From the NFER national report: ‘Compared to previous cycles, England was outperformed by fewer countries in 2018 than in 2015 (12 countries) (Jerrim et al., 2016) and 2012 (17 countries) (Wheater et al., 2013). In fact, in 2018, pupils in England performed similarly to those in 4 countries that had outperformed them in 2015 (New Zealand, Japan, Norway and Germany). Additionally, England outperformed 7 countries in 2018 that had had similar scores to England in 2015 (Slovenia, Belgium, France, Portugal, Netherlands, Switzerland and Russian Federation). (Sizmur et al 2019 p33). This is the global context for England’s performance in reading.
Beyond the big international surveys, detailed national studies show serious issues of decline – for example worrying decline in reading comprehension in the USA 1960-2000s (Spichtig et al 2016) and significant decrease in school-related reading 2007-2017 in Sweden (Vinterek et al 2020).
By remaining stable, we have bucked the serious trend of decline amongst key nations. Our domestic policies seem to be working - indeed the focus on phonics as a vital component of reading competence is endorsed by it being the only element of improvement in the Scottish system (Oates 2021). Into this, enter a big 2022 review which suggests that the focus on phonics over the last decade and half was wrong (Wyse & Bradury 2022). Apart from misinterpreting the international survey data, the review claimed to end ‘the Reading Wars’. Far from it, it opens up more conflict by failing to understand the gains which have been made and by failing to provide any form of fully-worked alternative policy.
Post-2010 policy has emphasised the importance of phonemic awareness as a foundation of reading, and introduced an approval process for reading schemes - ensuring a coherence ladder of progressive texts, accompanied by structured professional development. In contrast to the claims made in the review, the whole strategy is designed to give accelerated access to whole texts, with the National Curriculum emphasising the cultural and intellectual benefits of wide reading for pleasure (DfE 2013). Nowhere does domestic national policy say that phonemic awareness is the sole mechanism for effective reading. Far from it, in asserting phonemic awareness as a vital element of reading, national policy is entirely consistent with what accumulated international research tells us: that competence in reading derives from early high oral exposure to wide vocabulary and complex grammatical structures, accompanied by phonemic awareness and carefully-structured exposure to whole-text reading (Mellanby & Theobald 2014, Lonigan, Burgess & Anthony 2000; Walley 1993; Silven, Niemi & Poskiparta 2004).
And then there’s testing. The survey included in the review suggests widespread antipathy to the year1 phonics check. But the sentiments seem entirely contaminated by an anti-testing ethos conditioned by reactions against domestic accountability arrangements (Ofsted 2018). It just makes sense to sort out how many children can decode unfamiliar words when they arrive in formal schooling. After all, in Finland only around 30% arrive at school at age 6 without emerging or developed reading (Silven et al 2004) - and there, teachers want to know who these pupils are, to enable appropriate support to be given. And they frequently use formal tests to do this (Hendrikson 2012). And how different England is to Iceland, where a new termly national test of reading speed - for all grades - has been welcomed by teachers, parents and young people; precisely for the purpose of effective support and learning (Menntamálastofnun 2016).
I just don’t see that we are getting it wrong. Current national policy is consistent with international research, and our relative international standing is improving, as other major nations decline. As part of policy, it’s right to assert fundamentals and right to use the best international evidence to drive practice.
References
- DfE 2013 National Curriculum in England: English programmes of study Department for Education
- Hendrickson K 2012 Assessment in Finland: a scholarly reflection on one country’s use of formative, summative, and evaluative practices Mid-Western Educational Researcher vol25 no1-2 pp33-43
- Lonigan, Burgess & Anthony 2000 Development of emergent literacy and early reading skills in preschool children: evidence from a latent-variable longitudinal study Developmental Psychology 36 pp596-613
- Mellanby J & Theobald K K 2014 Education and learning: an evidence-based approach Wiley-Blackwell
- Menntamálastofnun 2016 Skimanir og próf í grunnskólum. Available at: https://mms.is/frettir/upptokur-af-fraedsluerindinu-thad-eru-tofrar-i-tolum
- Sizmur J. Ager R, Bradshaw J, Classick R, Galvis M, Packer J, Thomas D &Wheater R 2019 Achievement of 15-year-olds in England: PISA 2018 results National Foundation for Educational Research
- Oates T 2021 England: England and PISA – the long view in Crato N (ed) 2021 Improving a country’s education – PISA results in 10 countries Springer
- OECD 2019 PISA 2018 results – what students know and can do Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
- Ofsted 2018 Ofsted annual report Office for Standards in Education
- Silven M, Niemi P & Poskiparta E 2004 The odds of becoming a precocious reader of Finnish Journal of Educational Psychology vol96 no1 pp152-164
- Spichtig A, Hiebart E, Vorstius C, Pascoe J, Pearson D & Radach R 2016 The decline of comprehension-based silent reading efficiency in the Unites States: a comparison of current data with performance in 1960 Reading Research Quarterly https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.137
- Thomson S, De Bortoli L & Underwood C 2017 PISA 2015: Reporting Ausralia’s results Australian Council for Educational Research
- Vinterek M, Winberg M, Tegmark M, Alatalo T & Liberg C 2020 The decrease of school related reading in Swedish compulsory school – trends between 2007 and 2017 Scandanavian
- Walley A 1993 The role of vocablulary development in children’s spoken word and segmentation ability Developmental Review 13 pp286-350
- Wyse D & Bradbury A 2020 Reading wars or reading reconciliation? A critical examination of robust research evidence, curriculum policy and teachers’ practices for teaching phonics and reading Review of Education vol10 no1 British Educational Research Association
The CST Blog welcomes perspectives from a diverse range of guest contributors. The opinions expressed in blogs are the views of the author(s), and should not be read as CST guidance or CST’s position.
