Perhaps it is because very few people specialise in supporting the development of orthographic knowledge in very young children, but no one else seems to be talking about guiding children to reach the self-teaching phase. Few seem to know when a child has reached it or, if not, why not. Many are used to following phonics programmes and using sight word flashcards. They talk about “teaching reading”, yet most of the journey happens through implicit learning, and the research is very clear about that. The purpose of explicit instruction is to facilitate that process and to be completed as quickly as possible.
 

My determination does not only come from the feelings I experience when a young child breaks through to that self-teaching phase (which is amazing!) It is also because I can tell, even from six months of age, which children are likely to believe that their difficulties in learning to read and spell are their fault. They do not know that they would never have had to experience that if they had been taught differently. It is why we screen children so early at the Early Dyslexia Screening Centre. We must protect these children. 

We live in a world obsessed with “direct, explicit instruction,” which is not suitable for many four-year-olds, especially those who are ADHD or autistic. It's also inappropriate to be taking every KS1 child through a phonics programme in the same way, and with a teacher leading a lesson from the front. It's so common place I wish educators would take a step back and see that this is not an effective way to support individuals within the neurodiverse classroom. I know the DfE is to blame for this. I can show you how to get children there quickly by making the code visible in real words they care about and in sentences, then moving them onto the Monster Mapped One, Two, Three and Away! series as soon as possible. Youo can actually do this in the classroom as a separate activity to sythetic phonics lessons, or a TA can take children out and do ths with individual children or small groups. Children see the code, for ALL words, hear the sounds with Phonemies®, and reach the Self-Teaching Phase in weeks, not years. At this point they learn more about reading by reading, and their spelling has developed because we show them how words 'work' and because by bonding speech sounds, spelling and meaning together we secure words in the word brain box. This aligns with the Science of Reading. All I have done is taken the research and my own work as an action researcher, to find a different way to teach phonics.
 

Many do not realise that the “best way to teach phonics” is not settled science. Synthetic phonics is simply one approach that has been mandated by the Department for Education. The DfE states that:
 

“The EEF considers synthetic phonics to be one of the most secure and best evidenced areas of pedagogy and recommends all schools use a systematic approach to teaching it.”
 

We can show them another way, one that does not leave one in four children unable to read by age 11 (DfE, 2024).

I am becoming increasingly frustrated by the spread of misinformation and the selective use of research. For example, within The Reading Framework (p. 44), the DfE states:
 

“There is convincing evidence of the value of systematic synthetic phonics (SSP), including the seven-year study by Johnston and Watson undertaken in Clackmannanshire, published in 2005, which has been especially influential in England.”
 

It certainly was influential, and worryingly so.
 

What is never shared with the public is that one in five children had not mastered the GPCs (the same proportion that consistently fail the PSC). Sue Lloyd, the developer of Jolly Phonics, claimed:

“Synthetic phonics provides the necessary skills that enable the majority to read and write above their chronological age. The 20% of children who have literacy problems still have a good foundation of the basics and just need more time and input.”
 

However, the findings reported in the final paper of the Clackmannanshire study, published in February 2005, did not support this claim. By the end of Primary 2, all the children had been exposed to synthetic phonics, including the original analytic groups.

On pages 41–44 of the study, Tables 8.1–8.6 show a decline in scores across the board. The researchers defined being two years or more behind as a “severe learning disorder”, so the figures below show the percentage of pupils who were one year or more behind. As the reader reviews these, keep in mind that the researchers note on pages 37–40 that “No main effect of background was found” in relation to all three measures. So why on earth was this mandated?