Debbie Hepplewhite's SyntheticPhonics.com

[Debbie Hepplewhite]

I would like to draw attention to Professor Diane McGuinness's excellent response to the Torgerson, Brooks, Hall meta-analysis of various research projects in the USA and UK.

http://www.rrf.org.uk/Torgersonarticle.pdf

Diane McGuinness's response is a wonderful illustration of how one must look closely at the quality of conclusions drawn by academics.

One point that I would like to make is the ongoing tendency of people to 'fudge' the issues in the reading debate.

How long will those in authority continue to promote the need for a 'range of reading strategies' or a balance of phonics with 'other methods' without outlining precisely what 'other methods' or 'range of strategies' they mean.

Torgerson et al promote that phonics teaching is not in doubt as long as it is 'balanced with other methods'.

What 'other methods'?

I find it hard to believe that academics continue to make such ludicrous statements when the precise description of teaching methods and 'which is better' is the crux of the reading debate in the first place.

I despair - again.