1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:07,440
this computer. And greetings, this is the Reading Instruction Show. I am your host as always and

2
00:00:07,440 --> 00:00:14,160
we've been doing interviews. We have a very special guest, Paul Gardner, and he's going to tell us

3
00:00:14,160 --> 00:00:19,040
his story starting in England. Welcome, Paul. Thank you for being on our show.

4
00:00:19,920 --> 00:00:24,320
You're welcome, Andrew. Thank you for inviting me. So tell us your story.

5
00:00:24,320 --> 00:00:37,040
Okay, well, we're going back to the year 2010. And I'm a university lecturer in England teaching

6
00:00:37,040 --> 00:00:43,440
English to student teachers who are going to be primary teachers. It's a primary B8 course.

7
00:00:45,120 --> 00:00:52,480
And in 2010, there were some significant things that happened. One was that the teaching of

8
00:00:52,480 --> 00:00:58,720
synthetic phonics was made statutory in English schools. And for your listeners, I just want to

9
00:00:58,720 --> 00:01:05,920
make it clear that this was only English schools. Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales have separate

10
00:01:05,920 --> 00:01:12,080
education, they're separate education jurisdictions. So what the British government said, actually only

11
00:01:12,080 --> 00:01:19,600
applied to English schools. So the teaching synthetic phonics from years one to two, so that's five to

12
00:01:19,600 --> 00:01:26,800
seven year olds was made statutory, statutory requirement. At the same time, there was a clause

13
00:01:26,800 --> 00:01:33,280
inserting into the qualified teacher standards, the standards that we as lecturers had to abide by

14
00:01:33,920 --> 00:01:40,640
in delivering our curriculum to student teachers. So there was a clause added there

15
00:01:40,640 --> 00:01:49,680
of that we had to teach synthetic phonics to our students. Okay, so I complied with that as a

16
00:01:49,680 --> 00:02:01,440
university lecturer. I implemented that. And however, I wasn't entirely comfortable with the

17
00:02:01,440 --> 00:02:09,120
exclusive teaching of synthetic phonics as the only method of early reading. So I basically

18
00:02:09,120 --> 00:02:16,240
got my students to critique it as the only method. So for example, when students went out on school

19
00:02:16,240 --> 00:02:23,040
placements, which was their teaching practices, you know, an essential requirement of the course,

20
00:02:23,760 --> 00:02:28,320
and they came back into universities, I would I would question that. So what did you see about

21
00:02:28,320 --> 00:02:33,440
the teaching of early reading? And they would tell me and I said, well, did it work or were there

22
00:02:33,440 --> 00:02:39,200
any problems? What one of the challenges? And many students reported that children were

23
00:02:39,920 --> 00:02:46,160
accurately reading what was on the page, the words, so they were decoding effectively. But

24
00:02:47,120 --> 00:02:51,360
they noted that many of the students were not really understanding what they were reading.

25
00:02:52,000 --> 00:02:57,520
So we interrogated this week, deconstructed it and we considered, well, what what did children

26
00:02:57,520 --> 00:03:05,760
actually need in order to both decode and comprehend. So we expanded on this

27
00:03:07,760 --> 00:03:21,200
linear approach to the teaching of early reading. Then if we skip to 2012, what lessons need to know

28
00:03:21,200 --> 00:03:30,800
is that schools and schools of education, that's university departments that teach student teachers

29
00:03:32,160 --> 00:03:39,440
are inspected by an organization called Offsted. So this is a government body that goes in to

30
00:03:39,440 --> 00:03:46,000
ensure that you're meeting the national requirements for teacher standards and so on and so forth.

31
00:03:46,000 --> 00:03:54,560
So we had an Offsted inspection in 2012, October 2012. As I was the lead

32
00:03:56,560 --> 00:04:01,440
academic for the primary English, I met with the Offsted inspector.

33
00:04:03,200 --> 00:04:09,120
The Offsted inspector asked me no questions about the board English curriculum. All questions in this

34
00:04:09,120 --> 00:04:16,000
45-minute interview were solely about synthetic phonics, how we were teaching synthetic phonics,

35
00:04:16,000 --> 00:04:22,400
how we knew our students had acquired the knowledge in order to teach synthetic phonics and so on and so forth.

36
00:04:23,120 --> 00:04:34,400
So that was that. We then skip 10 months to August 2013. I've just come back from holiday, I've walked into my house

37
00:04:34,400 --> 00:04:43,280
and on the mat inside was an envelope which I opened up and it was a letter from the Vice Chancellor of the University

38
00:04:43,840 --> 00:04:49,760
informing me that I had been suspended from the university pending an investigation.

39
00:04:50,400 --> 00:04:57,840
And I'd been suspended because the wording was something like, it has come to light that your performance at the

40
00:04:57,840 --> 00:05:05,840
Offsted inspection in relation to the university's duty to teach synthetic phonics basically was wanting

41
00:05:05,840 --> 00:05:17,840
and that I had not fulfilled my duties, my obligations. Well, it turns out that I actually had a colleague with me in that interview with the Offsted inspector.

42
00:05:19,120 --> 00:05:26,640
And I remember her saying after the meeting, well, she didn't understand what I was saying.

43
00:05:26,640 --> 00:05:33,120
Well, she didn't ask anything other than questions around synthetic phonics, but you know, you did really well. Okay.

44
00:05:35,040 --> 00:05:47,120
So I then contacted the university. I was told that, pardon me, my conditions of my suspension included that I was not to enter the campus.

45
00:05:48,160 --> 00:05:54,800
I was not to talk to my colleagues. And so I challenged both of those points. I said, well,

46
00:05:54,800 --> 00:06:00,400
I'm actually doing my PhD. Are you telling me that I cannot use the library on campus?

47
00:06:01,200 --> 00:06:09,920
And so they, they changed their wording and said, well, you can use the library, but only after five o'clock in the evening.

48
00:06:10,400 --> 00:06:19,600
Okay. It was a 24 hour library. So, you know, I could use it from five through two, presumably the next morning.

49
00:06:19,600 --> 00:06:31,600
And I said, also, with respect to colleagues, I said, so some of my colleagues are personal friends. Are you telling me that I'm not allowed to talk to my personal friends?

50
00:06:31,600 --> 00:06:43,600
And they kind of backtracked on that and said, well, no, you can talk to colleagues who are your personal friends. So, but nevertheless, they look for those kind of stipulations.

51
00:06:43,600 --> 00:06:51,600
By the way, this is a nightmare for American professors. What you're describing as a nightmare.

52
00:06:51,600 --> 00:07:01,600
Yes, it was a nightmare for me too. I could assure you. So in fact, I was suspended for what would have been approximately three months, I think it was.

53
00:07:01,600 --> 00:07:21,600
Towards the end of the three months, there was a so-called hearing where I was interviewed by an academic from another department. He was a sports scientist, along with somebody from the human resources department.

54
00:07:21,600 --> 00:07:35,600
And he began by sort of asking me about this claim that I've not met my requirements to teach synthetic phonics.

55
00:07:35,600 --> 00:07:49,600
And in the wording of the accusation, there was the term synthetic phonics and phonics. So I began by sort of saying, well, are you familiar with the difference between these two terms?

56
00:07:49,600 --> 00:07:53,600
And so I had to explain all that.

57
00:07:53,600 --> 00:08:03,600
I was the only person who was interviewed. I asked, well, where did these allegations came from? And I was told, I can't tell you that.

58
00:08:03,600 --> 00:08:18,600
So there was no clarity around who gave any evidence to suggest that I had not taught my students how to teach synthetic phonics.

59
00:08:18,600 --> 00:08:23,600
In the end, I was exonerated. I was reinstated.

60
00:08:23,600 --> 00:08:33,600
But I was told that I would have to teach on a different campus, which was some 20 miles away.

61
00:08:33,600 --> 00:08:51,600
And I would be moved to a completely different department. And the department taught an aspect of English that was really outside. It was teaching English to speakers of other languages, which was not my particular forte.

62
00:08:51,600 --> 00:08:55,600
And I felt very uncomfortable about the prospect of doing this.

63
00:08:55,600 --> 00:09:11,600
I challenged it. I met with one of our provisional chancellors who ultimately agreed that it wasn't the best place for me to teach and that I didn't have to move campus in the end.

64
00:09:11,600 --> 00:09:29,600
However, I was not put back into teacher education. I moved to an allied course, which was education studies. So it was still within the realm of education, but I wasn't teaching English anymore, which is my passion.

65
00:09:29,600 --> 00:09:48,600
So it derailed my career, basically. My career was pretty much unholy for two to three years. And it was quite clear that I was not going to get anywhere at that particular university and ultimately had to leave and move elsewhere.

66
00:09:48,600 --> 00:10:00,600
So, at the time, I inquired with my professional organization, the United Kingdom Literacy Association, to see if anybody else had experienced this.

67
00:10:00,600 --> 00:10:17,600
And I was told that no, nobody else had actually been suspended. Nobody had gone through what I had gone through. However, they had received reports from some schools of education that books had been banned from their book lists.

68
00:10:17,600 --> 00:10:30,600
So, any book that suggested there was an alternative method or an additional method to teaching early reading other than synthetic phonics was banned from their book list.

69
00:10:30,600 --> 00:10:46,600
And, yeah, so there was a level of scrutiny and policing of synthetic phonics that was really very pernicious. And it remains the case now.

70
00:10:46,600 --> 00:11:02,600
But it's probably even worse now because not only would the individual be castigated for teaching anything other than synthetic phonics or anything other than exclusive teaching a synthetic phonics.

71
00:11:02,600 --> 00:11:12,600
Universities would lose their funding for and their student numbers and that has happened in some instances.

72
00:11:12,600 --> 00:11:26,600
It's a really, it's a real heavy sledgehammer that's being used in England to ensure that there was only one method to teaching early reading.

73
00:11:26,600 --> 00:11:32,600
If you can't win the argument in an academic setting, you bully.

74
00:11:32,600 --> 00:11:41,600
And that's what that's what has been done. It sounds like to you and that's a scary thing. The sledgehammer is an apt metaphor.

75
00:11:41,600 --> 00:11:54,600
Yes, indeed. It was bullying. It was harassment. And I think that it's important to to kind of recognize not just the fact that your career is derailed.

76
00:11:54,600 --> 00:11:57,600
It's the emotional and psychological toll.

77
00:11:57,600 --> 00:11:59,600
The police state.

78
00:11:59,600 --> 00:12:19,600
Indeed, it's very much like yes, it's very much like a police state, which leads me to the view that the exclusive teaching of synthetic phonics has less to do with literacy education and much more to do with control.

79
00:12:19,600 --> 00:12:20,600
Yes.

80
00:12:20,600 --> 00:12:28,600
It's about controlling what teachers do. It's about controlling children and how they learn.

81
00:12:28,600 --> 00:12:37,600
And I can't help but feel that because this is an approach that's used in state schools.

82
00:12:37,600 --> 00:12:41,600
It's not used in the private sector necessarily.

83
00:12:41,600 --> 00:12:47,600
It is actually, for me, I think it's a form of miseducation.

84
00:12:47,600 --> 00:13:05,600
It is a way of containing what children are able to do and how they're able to think because it's also alongside the teaching synthetic phonics is the use of direct instruction as the same pedagogic approach.

85
00:13:05,600 --> 00:13:19,600
So when we put these two things together, when we're testing children or teaching children from the smallest units of language in a direct instructional approach.

86
00:13:19,600 --> 00:13:38,600
And there have been several reports in England subsequent to the implementation of synthetic box around how this narrowing of this approach to early reading not only takes up time.

87
00:13:38,600 --> 00:13:46,600
It also therefore it also takes away from other aspects of the English curriculum and reading.

88
00:13:46,600 --> 00:14:03,600
In many schools, teachers now don't read to their children because they say they don't have time to read to their children. They see it as a luxury as an accessory rather than an essential part of the reading curriculum.

89
00:14:03,600 --> 00:14:24,600
The other point that I should probably make is that from 2012 England imposed the phonics screening check. So when children are in at the end of the first year of education and year one, so they can be either five plus or six.

90
00:14:24,600 --> 00:14:38,600
So there can be a huge age range when they take gap in the age range when they take this test. The phonics screening check is 40 words 40 discrete words.

91
00:14:38,600 --> 00:14:43,600
20 of the words so 50% are nonsense words.

92
00:14:43,600 --> 00:14:44,600
Yes.

93
00:14:44,600 --> 00:14:50,600
And the first 12 words in the in the test are these nonsense words.

94
00:14:50,600 --> 00:15:02,600
The children have to make the graphophonic correspondences. That's the sound letter correspondence and blend the word synthesize it to read the word.

95
00:15:02,600 --> 00:15:21,600
In the early stages when there was a pilot of this in 2011 and then the phonics screening test proper in 2012 early studies suggested that teachers were reporting that better readers were actually failing the test.

96
00:15:21,600 --> 00:15:22,600
Yes.

97
00:15:22,600 --> 00:15:33,600
So if we take for example the word storm let's suppose the word storm. Sorry, let's put so the word might be strong. Okay, nonsense word might be strong.

98
00:15:33,600 --> 00:15:40,600
But the better readers were. Yes, they were making those graphophonic correspondences, but then they were reading a real word.

99
00:15:40,600 --> 00:15:42,600
Trying to make sense of it.

100
00:15:42,600 --> 00:15:45,600
Indeed. That's exactly what children do.

101
00:15:45,600 --> 00:15:52,600
They try to make sense of what they're reading because that's the logic of it. Yes.

102
00:15:52,600 --> 00:16:04,600
At the heart of language is meaning making and the heart of reading is meaning making and therefore they try to make meaning out of things who would read nonsense words that's nonsense.

103
00:16:04,600 --> 00:16:19,600
Yes, it is. It is nonsense words. But I suppose if you are wedded to the logic that the reading is about or decoding is about making the link between the letter and the sound.

104
00:16:19,600 --> 00:16:21,600
Okay.

105
00:16:21,600 --> 00:16:35,600
There is some logic to it because you prove that the children are making those graphophonic correspondences and they're not reading it because it's a sight word to them.

106
00:16:35,600 --> 00:16:40,600
However, for me, I think the misconception is that English is a phonetic language.

107
00:16:40,600 --> 00:16:41,600
Right.

108
00:16:41,600 --> 00:16:50,600
And synthetic phonics works up to a point it works with CVC words constant vowel constant words like cat dog, etc.

109
00:16:50,600 --> 00:17:00,600
And I don't like that. But as we know, English language includes words that are phonetically regular.

110
00:17:00,600 --> 00:17:05,600
And we have to learn them in other words, the words was one, etc.

111
00:17:05,600 --> 00:17:17,600
You know, and they get around this by saying, well, these are tricky words, these are tricky words, but nevertheless, in the English curriculum, the strategy curriculum in England.

112
00:17:17,600 --> 00:17:27,600
Teachers are encouraged to even read those words using synthetic phonics as their first method.

113
00:17:27,600 --> 00:17:43,600
So it's a real it's a, it's, it's almost a balling could narrow perspective of early reading that is driven by this sledgehammer, you know, and everybody has got to got to adhere to it.

114
00:17:43,600 --> 00:17:53,600
Also in England, what happened at the time was schools were told they had to adopt a synthetic phonic program.

115
00:17:53,600 --> 00:17:54,600
Okay.

116
00:17:54,600 --> 00:18:00,600
Many of these synthetic phonics programs include decodable books.

117
00:18:00,600 --> 00:18:04,600
Now there's one such program called read write ink.

118
00:18:04,600 --> 00:18:17,600
So prior to read writing is a person called Ruth Miskin. Well, Ruth Miskin was appointed by the government to be their literacy expert.

119
00:18:17,600 --> 00:18:25,600
And the government then said, okay, schools have got to have one of these programs.

120
00:18:25,600 --> 00:18:31,600
And we will match fund their purchase of these programs.

121
00:18:31,600 --> 00:18:42,600
So read writing was one one program that they promoted as a consequence of about 25% of schools in England now use read writing in that schools.

122
00:18:42,600 --> 00:18:49,600
I've heard principles in schools or headteachers in schools refer to their schools as read writing schools.

123
00:18:49,600 --> 00:19:07,600
And this idea of synthetic phonics has become so much part of the educational psyche so much part of the culture of early reading in England to now that schools are actually equating themselves with reading programs and decodables.

124
00:19:07,600 --> 00:19:13,600
And this has influenced other jurisdictions as well.

125
00:19:13,600 --> 00:19:17,600
I now work in Australia.

126
00:19:17,600 --> 00:19:26,600
The first things that I was told when I came to Australia was that in terms of education, Australia follows what England does.

127
00:19:26,600 --> 00:19:33,600
Well, my response that was, well, I come from the future then and I can tell you you don't want to go there.

128
00:19:33,600 --> 00:19:42,600
However, unfortunately, I'm not experiencing deja vu because Australia is adopting exactly what England has done.

129
00:19:42,600 --> 00:19:50,600
And it's being driven by a particular think tank in Australia.

130
00:19:50,600 --> 00:19:58,600
Which I think has quite close links with the Murdoch media, for example.

131
00:19:58,600 --> 00:20:06,600
And there are now, you know, the very powerful voices that are pushing the synthetic phonic approach.

132
00:20:06,600 --> 00:20:14,600
And the United States in Australia had adopted the phonic screening check directly from England.

133
00:20:14,600 --> 00:20:32,600
And so that whole kind of the so-called reading war has now been imported into Australia as, and so I'm giving it as I'm on my second wave of this debate around early reading.

134
00:20:32,600 --> 00:20:38,600
And I don't know, in England then, have all the reading problems been solved?

135
00:20:38,600 --> 00:20:44,600
Since they must have since they adopted this, this curriculum.

136
00:20:44,600 --> 00:20:53,600
That's a really interesting question. Of course, the government in England says that the standards reading have improved.

137
00:20:53,600 --> 00:21:06,600
And that's an argument that's being used in Australia as well to promote synthetic phonic. So the argument is, since the implementation of the phonic screening check, standards of reading have improved.

138
00:21:06,600 --> 00:21:09,600
Okay, well, let's deconstruct that.

139
00:21:09,600 --> 00:21:15,600
So just to set up the kind of testing regime in England.

140
00:21:15,600 --> 00:21:27,600
So at the end of year one students do the phonic screening check. At the end of year two students have what is called SETs. It's a standard assessment test.

141
00:21:27,600 --> 00:21:35,600
So it's a national test, standard national assessment test. So they have that at the end of year two, and also in year six.

142
00:21:35,600 --> 00:21:43,600
All right. So remember the phonic screening check was implemented in 2012.

143
00:21:43,600 --> 00:21:49,600
The last testing before COVID was 219.

144
00:21:49,600 --> 00:21:55,600
Okay, so in theory, we have seven years of phonic screening check data.

145
00:21:55,600 --> 00:22:01,600
Okay, what does that data suggest? All right, well, the data suggests from that phonic screening check.

146
00:22:01,600 --> 00:22:10,600
But the percentage of children who achieve the past mark has increased remarkably.

147
00:22:10,600 --> 00:22:18,600
Okay, so in the first year, 2012, it was approximately 58% of students passed the test.

148
00:22:18,600 --> 00:22:24,600
And in 219, approximately 81% passed the test. Okay.

149
00:22:24,600 --> 00:22:33,600
Now, we also have to put into account the fact that in 2012, it was relatively novel.

150
00:22:33,600 --> 00:22:50,600
Students hadn't necessarily been coached in passing the test. But from 2013 onwards, there was a lot of coaching in how to pass the test, how to read the nonsense words.

151
00:22:50,600 --> 00:22:54,600
So a lot of time was invested in, you know, teaching the test.

152
00:22:54,600 --> 00:22:58,600
So was the test basically a phonics test?

153
00:22:58,600 --> 00:23:00,600
Yes. Yes, exactly that.

154
00:23:00,600 --> 00:23:04,600
So in each phonics, you're going to get higher scores on phonics tests.

155
00:23:04,600 --> 00:23:10,600
Correct. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes, it was that test where there were 40 discrete words.

156
00:23:10,600 --> 00:23:11,600
Oh my God.

157
00:23:11,600 --> 00:23:14,600
Yes, 20 of which were nonsense words.

158
00:23:14,600 --> 00:23:23,600
And as I said previously, in the early years, many of the better readers were failing the test because they were trying to write meaningful words.

159
00:23:23,600 --> 00:23:47,600
Okay, so now if, if stand, if that, if that resulted in the improvement of levels of reading, we would see a commensurate increase in the percentage of students scoring highly in the SATs test at the end of year two and the end of year six.

160
00:23:47,600 --> 00:23:48,600
Yes.

161
00:23:48,600 --> 00:24:05,600
Okay, now there is a problem here in making a comparison with the data because the government decided to change the, the SATs tests or the content of the SATs test in 2016.

162
00:24:05,600 --> 00:24:07,600
Okay.

163
00:24:07,600 --> 00:24:13,600
So, in effect, we've only got three years of data comparative data.

164
00:24:13,600 --> 00:24:30,600
What that data shows is that although there was an increase in the percentage of children passing the phonic screening test, there was only a 1% difference in one year of those three years in the SATs tests.

165
00:24:30,600 --> 00:24:45,600
So, you know, it went up 1% and then it came down 1%. So in effect, there was really no significant change in the levels of reading in these tests, which included of course comprehension.

166
00:24:45,600 --> 00:25:01,600
It also needs to be borne in mind, but the, the, the levels of achievement in the SATs test prior to 2012 prior to the phonic screening check were rising.

167
00:25:01,600 --> 00:25:23,600
And then when it got to 216 when they changed the test, there was a dramatic fall in percentages. And then as I said, there's one kind of 1% increase in one year in the results, which then leveled out the following year.

168
00:25:23,600 --> 00:25:38,600
So in effect, there has been no, there is no evidence that reading levels have improved in England when you look at the results from the SATs data and compare it to the phonic screening check data.

169
00:25:38,600 --> 00:25:52,600
Interesting. So, what advice do you have for us, because we're just beginning to get these top down mandates. Do you have any advice for people at higher ed or primary schools.

170
00:25:52,600 --> 00:26:07,600
Well, my advice would be to try and argue that this unilateral approach to the teaching early reading really is, is the wrong path to be going down.

171
00:26:07,600 --> 00:26:31,600
You know, we have, we have decades of evidence that you know, a multi faceted approach to reading is really important. And I think to reduce reading and language down into its smallest component is completely erroneous.

172
00:26:31,600 --> 00:26:42,600
Yes, you know, I think, I think, I think we have to hold on to the fact that the language and reading is about meaning making.

173
00:26:42,600 --> 00:26:45,600
Yes, and understanding meanings.

174
00:26:45,600 --> 00:26:46,600
Yep.

175
00:26:46,600 --> 00:27:02,600
And my, my particular view is that, you know, children are kind of almost natural semi-autisticians in the thing in by that I mean that the young child is looking at their environment.

176
00:27:02,600 --> 00:27:10,600
There are signs and symbols surrounding them in their environment. And what they are doing is they're trying to make meaning of these signs and symbols.

177
00:27:10,600 --> 00:27:17,600
And they understand that signs and symbols have meaning. Yes, they are not simply sounds.

178
00:27:17,600 --> 00:27:28,600
You know, and children will acquire their letter sound correspondences, their reading of words in all kinds of ways.

179
00:27:28,600 --> 00:27:42,600
And to, to restrict the, the ways in which they do that, I think it's completely wrong. For me, it's a form of miseducation. Yes.

180
00:27:42,600 --> 00:28:00,600
And as far as I can see, it's, it's being applied to a particular section of the school population. It isn't applied across the board. So what's happening is that the kids in poorer schools are being taught this method.

181
00:28:00,600 --> 00:28:09,600
And kids in richer schools get a much richer and broader literacy and language curriculum.

182
00:28:09,600 --> 00:28:21,600
So Paul, you have so well described a phenomenon. I like your metaphor of blinkers looking only at phonics and the sledgehammer. That's what I'm taking from this.

183
00:28:21,600 --> 00:28:29,600
And it's been like a picture of Christmas yet to come. And it's not a pretty picture.

184
00:28:29,600 --> 00:28:32,600
No, it's not. No, no.

185
00:28:32,600 --> 00:28:35,600
Again, I say I come from the future.

186
00:28:35,600 --> 00:28:37,600
And you don't want to go there.

187
00:28:37,600 --> 00:28:41,600
Yes. Well, it's a scary future.

188
00:28:41,600 --> 00:28:46,600
I want any last words you want to say.

189
00:28:46,600 --> 00:28:48,600
Oh gosh.

190
00:28:48,600 --> 00:29:14,600
I think possibly that one way in which we get through this is by liaising across jurisdictions. So the USA, England, United Kingdom, more generally, Australia, the Anglophone countries, I think, the experts and teachers in these respective jurisdictions need really to come

191
00:29:14,600 --> 00:29:27,600
together. We need an international forum. Because what I see happening is that the drive around synthetic phonics direct instruction is an international phenomenon.

192
00:29:27,600 --> 00:29:37,600
Yes, I think I think it's coming through various think tanks. And it's being it's migrating across these jurisdictions.

193
00:29:37,600 --> 00:29:52,600
But that we have to do very much the same kind of thing as as literacy expert and teachers, we have to come together. And we need a single international voice, I think, to counter these views.

194
00:29:52,600 --> 00:30:09,600
However, there is a problem here. And it's one that we've experienced in Australia. And that is that if you simply come out and counter it, then the other side the, the symphones as I call them, or the symphone prener's the people who are peddling their synthetic

195
00:30:09,600 --> 00:30:24,600
phonics, they're the people who are peddling their synthetic phonics and making money out of them. Because that's the other thing. When you when you trace the voices behind synthetic phonics back, you find a money trail.

196
00:30:24,600 --> 00:30:36,600
You know, there is there is a program that they're promoting. So, so the, the link between direct instruction, so that it phonics and money is, it's quite a profound one, I think.

197
00:30:36,600 --> 00:30:47,600
Rather than, than simply arguing against this particular case, because what they then say is, there is a reading war.

198
00:30:47,600 --> 00:30:56,600
There isn't necessarily a reading war, manufacturing a reading war in order to get publicity, right, to be able to put that particular case.

199
00:30:56,600 --> 00:31:02,600
That's why we have the International Literacy Educators Coalition.

200
00:31:02,600 --> 00:31:17,600
I didn't know about that. Thank you, Andrew. I know we're International Literacy Educators Coalition. And we have several people from Australia and New Zealand, a lot of people in Canada, but we are trying to create these international things.

201
00:31:17,600 --> 00:31:23,600
All right, Paul, your story was scary, but necessary.

202
00:31:23,600 --> 00:31:26,600
Yes, I think it's important that other people know about this.

203
00:31:26,600 --> 00:31:27,600
Absolutely.

204
00:31:27,600 --> 00:31:32,600
This has been the Reading Instruction Show. I'm your host, Andy Johnson.