John McLear - 15 May 2011

Confused...

Isn't the whole point of us having an open tender system to stop this type of deal happening?

Richard Smith - 15 May 2011

Legality

Is this legal...seems dodgy to me...a case for Mike to develop I think

Ben Barton - 16 May 2011

FOI Request

As 50% of the approved schemes are from the publisher of Ruth Miskin (DfE's phonics adviser), is it worth an FOI request for a list of the evaluators who presumably included her?

Also worth noting that the following link says that these ARE 'approved' courses entitled to money: http://bit.ly/kVHk4V

Peter Asquith-Cowen - 16 May 2011

DfE list of phonics resources.

Hi Mike,
It never ceases to amaze me how Educational resources and making a 'fast buck' seem to go hand-in-hand. About twelve years ago there was a 'fad' for purchasing a scheme designed by an Australian. My school purchased it and used it. However, it seemed a lot of money to spend and the results was confusion. Kids still got their spellings wrong. I think any teacher worth their salt should be able to teacher the basics of English the way i was taught. The first rule is concentration. We learnt the famous " i before e except after c" and a host of other little rules which has resulted in my being an articulate, well-read man of sixty years. My teachers didn't have to buy Government Schemes, they got on with the job with the blackboard and a piece of chalk. I expect there's money in it for someone. All those first National Curriculum ring-binders distributed to all schools and teachers and later withdrawn must have cost a fortune, but a printing firm near Pocklington Yorkshire got the tender and must have made a small fortune. No. I don't think we need expensive 'schemes' just good, well-qualified teachers who know the ground rules of teaching English effectively. It is appalling that with all the material available children are still leaving school with a poor grasp of their own language.Not enough reading with Mum and Dad at home. Whatever happened to comics? Without knowing it kids were learning history, geography and a whole host of 'ideas' by reading Hotspur, The Eagle, the Lion and Boy's World. These certainly help my English. I think to be forced to buy a Government Scheme is preposterous and most undemocratic. What more rubbish is Gove going to come out with. God help teachers and their pupils!
Best Wishes,
Peter (Asquith-Cowen)

John Walker - 25 May 2011

School autonomy and phonics

Hi Mike,
At the outset, I want to make clear my vested interest in the subject you raise: I am the managing director of Sounds-Write Ltd, a training provider of linguistic (and synthetic) phonics.
Although Sounds-Write has submitted the self-evaluation (and we are currently waiting to hear whether we have been approved), we are totally against the imposition of approved programmes on any teachers. Decisions about whether or not to adopt a particular approach should be based on evidence and on allowing teachers a degree of choice.
What should be the bottom line is how successful the programmes are? While there might be considerable evidence that certain phonics approaches work very well indeed, as far as I know, not one of the seven programmes you mention above have got a stitch of evidence to support them.
The evaluation process set in train by the government is also entirely lacking in transparency. The names of the evaluators are not known and, as has been the case already, when a programme is refused ‘approval’, there is no opportunity to argue the case.
Furthermore, again, as far as I am aware, not one of the evaluators has been involved in the actual practice of teaching phonics to beginning readers in schools.
This is to say nothing of the other process which this government has brought in: the appointment of ESPO for the purpose of the dispensing matched funding. Their tender proposal extends to more than seventy pages and the level of intrusiveness into the tenderer's business is outrageous. The level of bureaucracy and extra expenditure involved would sit very well in the old East Germany.To cut a long story short, if the tenderer happens to be a certain para-statal organisation which has books in every school already, they're a winner. For all of those small providers who specialise in producing very carefully calibrated decodable books, the hurdles imposed are almost impossible to negotiate.
And this government supports enterprise, innovation and small business? What a joke!
This is a very serious issue and, because it's about a very small (but no less important) aspect of teaching, someone with influence ought to be campaigning like mad to scotch the tendering process.
Is anyone else caught up in this Orwellian tangle?

Elizabeth Nonweiler - 25 May 2011

The Evaluators

The evaluators are Frances Brill, Marian Sainsbury and Roger Beard. I found out by asking the DfE.

Tom Burkard - 26 May 2011

phonics

As publishers of the Sound Foundations literacy materials, we agree with every word written by out colleague & competitor, John Walker. In 2009, we wrote a report on 'Every Child a Reader' for Policy Exchange, arguing that it was wrong for government to pick winners and losers.

We were very pleased when ECAR's funding was stopped by the coalition--but now they're doing exactly the same thing all over again. However, I suspect that this current programme will founder: we were able to compete successfully against ECAR and Letters and Sounds, both of which were free at point of use. The current programme requires schools to fill in a lot of forms, and come up with matching funds. Even then, the school has to do a lot of research to find out which of the 'approved' programmes they like. The entire effort appears to be a classic case of civil servants ensuring that they are the front-runners in the race to the trough so generously filled by the tax-payer.

Marlene Greenwood - 26 May 2011

Approval

I, too, must admit a vested interest in the teaching of phonics in schools in England. I am the author and illustrator of the Jelly and Bean books. My books and worksheets have been successfully used in schools for over 10 years, with a special emphasis on helping children who struggle to learn to read. I have folders full of praiseworthy comments about them.

My first submission of a self-assessment form was rejected by the Department for Education on 13th April 2011.
After much soul searching, I revised my teaching guides by removing the offending words and wrote a leaflet to comply with the criteria.
I have not, however, changed any of the books or resources. I believe in them as they stand and I refuse to be manipulated by the financial implications surrounding this issue. I have resubmitted a new self-assessment form and I am now waiting for the verdict.

All the information I have had from the Department for Education stresses that approval for match-funding and approval for the self-assessment documents are two separate issues. The self-assessment can be approved and listed on the DfE website, but to be eligible for match-funding publishers must submit a tender to ESPO, which also has to be approved. The information given is that the criteria for approval is the same, but whether the same panel of evaluators are involved, I do not know.

Considering how long it has taken the DfE to approve (or not) the self assessments (end of November until 13th April in my case) it is difficult to see how ESPO will approve the tenders between 6th June (deadline) and 24th June (implementation of the agreement) if they do not use the decisions already reached by the DfE evaluators.

I should like to ask if these evaluators knew when they signed up for the process that they would also be responsible for the financial outcomes on all the small companies involved.

However, a serious principle of education is involved here. The Department of Education website states quite categorically ..... quote
'Settings and schools should note that this does not constitute an endorsement of the products themselves and should not be regarded as a list of approved programmes or resources.' ....

So what exactly are they 'approving'? Who to give the money to .....? Why .... , when they don't approve the resources or endorse them???

It is all very very confusing and unclear.