Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.

 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate


On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.


RSS 2.0

Facts about the phonics screening check

By Jennifer Buckingham - posted Monday, 28 August 2017

It’s astonishing that much of what is written in opposition to the Phonics Screening Check is inaccurate, given that information about it is very easy to find.

The UK government publishes a collection of official statistics and makes available a useful amount of data on the results of the Phonics Screening Check each year. Technical reports and evaluations are also easy to find.

Sadly, the Check’s critics seem to not bother to research their subject, leading to the spread of misinformation and impoverishing public debate over its value.


There are a number of common criticisms of the Phonics Screening Check, all of which have been repeatedly refuted, but which are worth revisiting.

Claim 1: The Phonics Screening Check is advocated by people who claim that phonics instruction is sufficient alone to learn to read.

The Facts: All reading specialists and researchers know that phonics is essential but not sufficient for reading, but there is good reason to believe that phonics is not being taught well and deserves particular attention.

Claim 2: A ‘balanced approach’ to teaching reading is the most effective.

The Facts: A ‘balanced approach’ to teaching reading has no evidence of effectiveness, partly because there is no accepted definition. In practice, a balanced approach tends to mean a mixture of learning lists of words by sight, the ‘multi-cuing’ method of guided reading, and some incidental phonics teaching. Each of these elements of a ‘balanced approach’ has been consistently shown to be less effective than explicit systematic phonics instruction, especially synthetic phonics, within a comprehensive program that includes explicit instruction in vocabulary and comprehension.

Claim 3: Decoding is ‘not synonymous with reading’ and therefore the Phonics Screening Check serves no purpose.


The Facts: Decoding is the first step to reading. A child can have a well-developed vocabulary, but if they cannot accurately identify the words on the page, they cannot read. There is a vast amount of evidence supporting the ‘Simple View of Reading’ – that children require both decoding and language comprehension skills, and that decoding skills are a strong predictor of later reading ability.

Claim 4: There have been no improvements in reading since the Phonics Screening Check was introduced in England.

The Facts: There have been clear improvements in performance on both the Phonics Screening Check in Year 1 and Key Stage Reading tests in Year 2. The proportion of children who achieved the ‘threshold’ score in the Year 1 Phonics Screening Check has increased each year, from 58% in 2012 to 81% in 2016. Paul Gardner attempts to minimise this improvement, claiming that “students that 'failed' the test in 2012 had to re-take it in 2013 and would have been included in the figures for the higher pass rate.” This is not true. While it is that case that students who do not achieve the threshold score in Year 1 do the Check again in Year 2, their scores are recorded separately and therefore do not contribute to the higher pass rates in Year 1.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

8 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Jennifer Buckingham is a research fellow with The Centre for Independent Studies.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Jennifer Buckingham

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Jennifer Buckingham
Article Tools
Comment 8 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy