Read this.

[teejay100000]

www.cps.org.uk/cps_catalog/why%20can%27t%20they%20read.pdf

or could it be because it is easier to achieve A grades than it was ?

Helloooo, that is what we've been debating for the last feels like weeks.

fivecandles, I don't remember Oxford and Cambridge routinely offering two Es. Are you sure about that? Maybe that was only if you came from the right school or if it was in an undersubscribed difficult subject?

sorry fivecandles but sometimes things need repeating

claig, yep. Admittedly you had to pass the exam and interview first and then they gave you unconditional offers or 2 Es.

wow, I went for interview and failed, but got 3 A grades, which they told us at the time was achieved by only 0.5% of all pupils in the country.

I failed the interview too.

they don't know what they missed

I'm probably repeating this too

"Repeated changes make it impossible to compare exam standards over time, Oates argued. "If you invoke unnecessary change in qualifications, you are providing an unnecessary challenge in maintaining standards. We need to reduce the scope and frequency of change in qualifications."

Oates said that other reasons for higher grades were markers giving pupils "the benefit of the doubt", and improved access to past papers."

Tim Oates is director of assessment at Cambridge University's exam board ...

Well,exactly Claig

'fivecandles, I don't remember Oxford and Cambridge routinely offering two Es. Are you sure about that? Maybe that was only if you came from the right school or if it was in an undersubscribed difficult subject?'

It may have been that the applicant made such a good impression at their interview that the university wanted them regardless of the grades achieved. A schoolfriend of mine was offered a place at Newcastle with 2 Es to study Fine Art, based entirely on her artistic talent. Of course, she got the expected A in art and reasonably good grades in her other subjects.

The usual requirement for a popular subject like Engish or History at a 'good' university at that time was 2 Bs and a C.

Cecily, it is quite true that 2Es was the standard offer for Oxbridge (a matriculation offer, for which you needed 5 passes, 2 at A level, 3 at O level aand to include a foreign language and probably maths and English as well. Most people of course usually had the O levels by this stage and so just needed two passes at A level), but it's not really fair to say that was what the expected you to get at A level. In order to get the offer you had nearly always taken some fiendishly difficult (beyond A level) entrance exams and so the A levels were a bit of a formality. They did also give some people offers without taking the entrance exam, but these were usually 3As and only very exceptionally 'matriculation offers'. Even when these offers were given it was assumed that the candidates would far exceed this.

Other universities also gave low offers too if they saw you were applying to Oxford/Cambridge (they could see your other choices in those days) or if they thought you were a strong candidate that they wanted on their course. So for example I had a 2E offer from Oxford and Bath and a 3E offer from York (though they rather spoiled it by specifying which A levels they wanted the Es in which seemed rather ridiculous). I don't think I was an especially strong candidate either.

Oxbridge didn't always offer 2 Es as standard. Individual colleges could stipulate grades. They obviously didn't want me much because they asked for three As. But I got them - hah! - so they had to take a state school kid after all.

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/31/ben-goldacre-teaching-reading-shootout

RollaCoasta, thanks for the interesting link

which takes us full circle back to the original link

From RollaCosta's link:

There were 14 trials in total looking at reading accuracy as their outcome, and collectively they found some evidence that phonics are a little better.

Then there were four trials looking at comprehension, which found only weak evidence of benefit, and three trials on spelling, which collectively found no benefit for phonics.

Interesting that according to that article only 1 of these studies took place in England too. English is much less phonetically logical than most other languages which tend to have stricter 'rules'.

But I totally, totally agree with the writer's insistence on research. So many trends in education are just that. Makes me mad when consultants are paid thousands to go into schools and use pseudo-scientific language to convey either nonsense or common sense. Even worse when they refer to things like 'neuroscience' when they actually have a degree in drama or whatever and have no scientific qualifications whatsoever.

I look forward to the day when education policy is actually based on evidence.

www.prometheantrust.org/syntheticphonics.htm
THE EFFECTS OF SYNTHETIC PHONICS TEACHING ON READING AND SPELLING ATTAINMENT A seven year longitudinal study
West Dunbaronshire ten year sudy
A multi-strand literacy programme with early years phonics teaching at its core has eradicated illiteracy among schoolchildren in one local authority area in Scotland, according to the final results of a ten-year study released by West Dunbartonshire Council this week.

The findings were seized on by the Conservatives in Westminster, who want to extend the use of synthetic phonics, as they unveiled proposals for all six-year-olds in the UK to sit a national reading test.

A series of investigations involving over 60,000 pupils, including all of West Dunbartonshire's 23 nurseries and 35 primary schools, found that the level of pupils leaving secondary school without basic reading skills has fallen from 20 per cent to virtually zero since the study begun in 1997.

fivecandles: 'I look forward to the day when education policy is actually based on evidence'
I absolutely agree, fivecandles.

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00sk7rm
Sunday 6th June 8pm.
There's an interesting piece on this R4 programme about 5 minutes in:

They are talking about the government's use of evidence-based policy -sometimes called 'spray-on evidence'. Education is used as an example; someone who worked in the area of examining government policy in the last parliament says that of 70+ education initiatives only 2-3 had received a robust evaluation before being rolled out. He said that politicians often relied on 'strong instincts' based on personal experience if the evidence wasn't there but, as he said, intuition is often wrong.

The Rose Report 2006, which advocated systematic synthetic phonics and getting rid of multi-cueing, WAS based on good evidence- and this evidence was then checked by the all-party Science & Technology committee who gave it a clean bill of health:www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmsctech/900/900we24.htm

For an analysis (Prof. McGuinness is trained in statistical analysis) of the shoddy Torgersen, Brooks and Hall review:
dyslexics.org.uk/comment.pdf

Maybe the problem is not lack of evidence, knowledge or govt support - but a lack of funding?

Schools can't implement a synthetic phonics program without money to train teachers and buy books....

IndigoBell, the government continue to pour money into the whole language, multi-cueing intervention programme, Reading Recovery.

Schools really need to prioritise the effective teaching of reading as the foundation to all learning.

If schools carry on in a make-do fashion using the rushed-out, resourceless, government reading programme, whole language reading books and poor LEA training, then in the long run they'll (actually we tax-payers) end up spending more to rectify the many struggling readers...

The govt recommends teaching synthetic phonics and then pours money into whole language?

I never cease to be amazed....

'The govt recommends teaching synthetic phonics and then pours money into whole language?'

Yes, it's extraordinary isn't it!
Yet the last government (and this government) knew this was the case:

September 2009. Jim Rose describes RR as 'a multi-cueing, non-systematic approach' at the Australian 'Dyslexia Speld Foundation' conference.

www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/44/4405.htm
Dec. 2009. UK Parliament's Sci&Tech committee evidence check on early literacy interventions:

• 'The Government's decision to roll out Reading Recovery nationally is not based on the best quality, sound evidence'.

• 'Teaching children to read is one of the most important things the State does. The Government has accepted Sir Jim Rose's recommendation that systematic phonics should be at the heart of the Government's strategy for teaching children to read. This is in conflict with the continuing practice of word memorisation and other teaching practices from the 'whole language theory of reading' used particularly in Wave 3 Reading Recovery. The Government should vigorously review these practices with the objective of ensuring that Reading Recovery complies with its policy'

BTW, it's not just Reading Recovery that parents should be warned about -there are many cheaper Reading Recovery clones out there in schools such as Catch Up Literacy, Sound Linkage and FisherFamilyTrust Wave3.