Are your children’s vaccines up to date?

Set a reminder

Please or to access all these features

Primary education

Join our Primary Education forum to discuss starting school and helping your child get the most out of it.

Success For All - teaching children to read

48 replies

Baalamooree · 09/01/2015 14:25

Is anyone familiar with the Success For All way of teaching children to read? I gather it is an American programme adopted by some schools (academies?) but not state schools.

How does it differ? Is it a more successful way of teaching reading, writing etc? Just wondering as I've come across a primary school that teaches this way and claims to have achieved remarkable results, but I have not heard of it before.

OP posts:
Are your children’s vaccines up to date?
Ferguson · 09/01/2015 18:07

Have you looked at their web site? Sounds impressive - I hadn't heard of it before. Could be worth looking into in more detail I guess.

HarveySchlumpfenburger · 09/01/2015 20:28

I think there are some state schools that do use it and aren't academies. IIRC it's based on synthetic phonics to teach the basics of reading and writing and teaches other literacy skills - speaking, vocabulary, comprehension all ngside that. Not unlike RWI. If the school are using it as set out, I don't see any reason to doubt the claims that they've had good results with it because, on paper at least, it should work.

maizieD · 09/01/2015 20:38

Success for All has been around for many years (20+). As far as I am aware it's an American programme based on Direct Instruction and systematic phonics. I don't know the details of the programme or how it compares with the good UK synthetic phonics programmes but I don't doubt that it is quite successful.

Of course, the school using it will talk it up Wink

The only thing I know that makes me suspicious of it is that it didn't qualify for funding under the US Reading First programme; its developer was in cahoots with Reading Recovery in challenging this, and, he still seems to approve Reading Recovery (which is not based on systematic phonics instruction) despite it being heavily criticised by independent reading researchers...

HarveySchlumpfenburger · 09/01/2015 20:52

I have to admit, from the little I've been able to find out about it, there's always been something I just don't like about it. I'm not quite sure what it is. If you are going to buy in a complete program it might be a good choice. Personally I think I'd like a bit more freedom to choose what skills to work on and I don't know how much it allows. I suspect not a great deal.

Baalamooree · 09/01/2015 21:27

It does sound impressive, I agree. The school in question places children in groups according to ability, so streaming, I guess. Once they progress they move to another group so they are always being challenged.

It all sounds positive but I wondered how rigid this is and if this is really a 'one size fits all' way of teaching?

Sorry Rafa, but what is RWI? Oh dear, I really will need to do more research before my DC starts school Blush

Thank you all, this is really helpful.

OP posts:
HarveySchlumpfenburger · 09/01/2015 21:54

Sorry, Read Write Inc. It's Ruth Miskin's synthetic phonics/literacy programme. It initially focusses on phonics to teach the basics of reading/writing then as the children progress begins to cover more comprehension as well.

Bananasandchocolatecustard · 09/01/2015 22:00

SFA is used in some schools in Wales.

TheCheeseAlarm · 09/01/2015 22:07

We use it. We're not an academy. The Phonics side is very similar to RWI. Ruth Miskin worked for SfA before she started RWI.

The teachers adapt the skills taught within the plans to match the needs of the children. It does not have to be taught rigidly.

We have seen huge improvements in both fluency of reading and comprehension skills. It has other excellent things built in too such as a focus on general skills for cooperative learning. After the phonics programme it focuses on using whole real books and there is a great selection. The children enjoy it too. There is a huge focus on spoken language.

However, before I sound too much like an advert, I have seen it taught really badly. The first time I saw an SfA lesson, I hated it on sight. Where it is taught well, it is fast moving and enjoyable.

maizieD · 09/01/2015 22:28

Slightly OT, but @ TheCheeseAlarm

I've just been looking at the website of a school that uses SFA with apparently stunning results: www.taylor.leicester.sch.uk/

But, I was surprised to see they were advising parents to use Look, Say, Cover. Write & Check for learning spellings. Is this part of SFA?

Just curious; it seems to work for them as their SATS results are excellent but I wouldn't recommend it myself as part of phonics instruction.

TheCheeseAlarm · 09/01/2015 22:31

No. In the Phonics section, Roots, spelling is part of the daily Phonics session and dealt with just like RWInc. In the other post-Phonics lessons, Wings, spelling is left up to the school to use whatever method they like.

maizieD · 10/01/2015 11:22

P.S It is absolutely essential that you and your child pronounces the discrete sounds correctly. If he (or you) adds a little 'schwa' sound to them (e.g. says /suh/ rather than /s/) and you're teaching him to spell each 'sound' he hears he might try adding in the schwa, which, of course, will lead to a wrong spelling! There's a link to a video of the sounds being correctly pronounced on the website I linked.

maizieD · 10/01/2015 11:23

OOPs, wrong thread. Apologies Blush

Millais · 10/01/2015 11:47

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

maizieD · 10/01/2015 13:15

The fundamental principle of spelling is the relation of the sounds of which a word is composed to the letters which spell each of the sounds.

This is what most people do when asked to spell an unknown spoken word, they break the word into its sounds (or maybe its syllables if it's a multisyllable word) and choose a spelling for each sound. I, and colleagues, have seen this done repeatedly in phonics training sessions for teachers! So why teachers should use a method of teaching spelling which is completely unrelated to the way they would work out the spelling of an unknown word is a bit of a puzzle!

Having established that this is the basic principle for spelling words the initial task is to teach children how to break words into their component 'sounds' and then write a 'spelling' for each sound. I am absolutely aware that English spelling is more complex than this; that it's not straightforward because we have a variety of ways of spelling the same sounds, but once the basic principle is established you can work on the 'alternative' sound spellings aspect. At least, once it is established children will, at worst, spell phonetically and produce a word which is logical and recognisable rather than a collection of randomly remembered letters (often with some sounds completely missing)

When I was working (now retired) I would promote a modified version of LSCWC.

  1. Read the word (& note any possibly 'tricky' sound spelling - there's usually only one in a word)
  2. Cover it
  3. Work out what the sounds are in the word
  4. (this step isn't obligatory but is helpful for weaker children) Put a line for each sound
  5. Write a spelling for each sound in the same order as the sounds come in the spoken word, saying each sound as it is written (promotes kinaesthetic memory) If they're writing on their 'lines' each line should have a sound spelling on it.
  6. Check by reading the resultant word, sounding out and blending exactly what has been written (not what they 'think' they've written). Corrections can be made at this stage if needed.
  7. Uncover the target word and make a visual check.

(multi syllable words can be worked out by identifying the number of syllables, then the sounds within each syllable and spelling them syllable by syllable)

Alternatively the target word can just be spoken initially by the teacher and written on the board at the end of the process for a visual check.

Children who have had good phonics teaching initially will probably do this quite automatically (this is why I was puzzled by the promotion of LSCWC by the SFA school; if children have been taught spelling using the sound/symbol correspondence why would they be taught any other way?) Unfortunately some children are taught phonics for reading but not for spelling; they get the LSCWC method which is dependent on learning the letters & letter order in each word with no reference to the significance of the letters (i.e that they represent sounds). As a result many tend to write down the letters in any order because they can just about remember the letters but not exactly where each one should be...

Of course, a big problem with trying to correct spelling is that writing a word is influenced by kinaesthetic memory; if a child has persistently misspelled a word they may be able to get it right when they are thinking about it but in the course of writing a piece of work they tend to forget the correct spelling, as they are concentrating on what they are 'saying' in their writing, and the automatised 'wrong' spelling is produced without thinking.

I do think that poor spelling is a far bigger problem than poor reading, it's just that poor reading is much more apparent and has a more debilitating effect on the child. In the secondary school I worked in poor reading probably affected some 20% of the pupils whereas teachers would estimate that 50 -60% were poor spellers.

This is a nice little programme for teaching multi-syllable word spelling: www.ontrackreading.com/phonics-program/multisyllable-method-overview

www.ontrackreading.com/

Mashabell · 10/01/2015 15:10

It is true that poor spelling is a far bigger problem than poor reading and for 2 reasons:

  1. Only around 2,000 common words contain letters with irregular pronunciations, such as 'said, many, other', while over 4,000 contain unpredictably used letters. Many irregular spellings have teachable pronunciations, e.g. wait, straight, eight.

  2. For reading, other letters in a word and context can help with working out the right pronunciation. For spelling words with irregularly used letters, it's simply a matter of having to remember the right ones, word by word.
    There is no other way of deciding what makes 'wait, straight, eight' or 'blue, shoe, flew, through, too' right or wrong and the rote-learning burden is much greater.

That's why the a child of average ability can learn to read pretty well in three years, but needs 10 years to become a modestly proficient speller of English, and why there are far more poor spellers than readers.

For words that keeping causing problems for particular children, there is no better way than just writing them out 'correctly' a few times, with the LSCWC method, or just careful copying.

Millais · 10/01/2015 16:50

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

maizieD · 10/01/2015 20:53

For words that keeping causing problems for particular children, there is no better way than just writing them out 'correctly' a few times, with the LSCWC method, or just careful copying.

There couldn't possibly be a worse method than this, marsha. Your ideas are unbelievably outdated and make absolutely no sense in terms of how children learn.

maizieD · 10/01/2015 20:56

I work in a local authority which is promoting Reading Recovery type methods

An English LA?
Can you not just tell the Advisors (who I presume are the people pushing the RR methods) to b*gger off?

Millais · 10/01/2015 21:04

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

maizieD · 10/01/2015 22:18

That's why I went for a modified version of LSCWC; it's a ( little )bit familiar!

Does your school have 'research' group? Could you do a bit of action research on a couple of groups, one with LSCWC and one with a phonics based version? Go for whichever is most successful...

Mind you, 'research' results which conflict with the LA's Ruling Theory are never accepted. Sue Lloyd couldn't get her LA interested in her phonics programme at all. That's why she went commercial Sad

Millais · 10/01/2015 22:24

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

HarveySchlumpfenburger · 10/01/2015 22:24

Debbie Hepplewhite had similar problems with her LA didn't she. Although I don't think that's why she went commercial.

Mashabell · 11/01/2015 07:23

staff are getting mixed messages about teaching reading, phonics and spelling. Tricky to tackle

Phonics works well at the beginning, but because English spelling is a mixture of phonic and non-phonic, everybody uses a mixture of methods for learning to read and write English. Nobody can learn to spell here/hear, two/too/to or their/there correctly just with phonics.

Only totally blinkered phonics evangelists regard mixed methods as evil.
Despite what they claim, nobody learns to read 'on, only, once, go, to' or to spell 'blue, shoe, flew' just with phonics.

Debates about how best to teach children to read and write would be far more sensible and less emotional or abusive if people bothered to take more note of the vagaries of English spelling.

Papermover · 11/01/2015 15:24

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Millais · 11/01/2015 20:55

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.