Decodable reading books are part of our toolkit when supporting our children to become proficient readers.
Recently, there has been extensive funding available to enable schools to implement them in schools, as part
of their approach to systematic synthetic phonics. However, I have become deeply concerned about the
allocation of decodable reading books across some schools so thought I would spend some time unpicking
possible explanations and mixed messages.
After numerous months, I think I have discovered some causes of the confusion!
- Schools are clear that a child’s decodable reading book should have the grapheme-phoneme-
correspondences in it that they know. In addition to this, common exception words may be
introduced in the book or taught previously.
- Schools are aware that their decodable reading books have to align with the school’s phonics
programme so they can match books closely to a child’s knowledge of GPCs and exception words. - The main challenge is a myth/concept that the books must be matched at ‘90%/95% fluency.’
This last point is a growing trend and something that concerns me, especially as it has become a challenge in
some Ofsted inspections I have been linked with. Therefore, I have spent some time looking back to where this
concept came from and if it is backed by research.
My Summary
Has Ofsted’s focus on 90%/95% fluency (when they mean automaticity) come from their training? Has someone trained Ofsted inspectors that the 90% fluency (when they mean automaticity) is vital and yet I am unable to find research that supports this? Neither can I find any references within Oftsed’s own material. There is nothing in the DfE Reading Framework either.
Could someone have misinterpreted the original evidence for ‘instructional level’ due to the Reading Rockets article (2. An introduction to fluency) in an attempt to simplify things? It looks like the grid could have been translated into something else. It’s clear that research or guidance about ‘instructional level’ shows we also need to consider vocabulary and level of comprehension.
It’s also clear that the information about instructional level was mainly aimed at any reading books and not
directed at ‘decodable reading book’ or early readers. Lots of information about texts at an instructional level referred to readers being able to gain information from the text.
Has the idea of 10% errors simply been shifted to 10% sounding and blending words and this has been potentially
relayed in some way to Ofsted?
I am unable to find research that supports this. On the contrary, renowned literacy specialist and advisor, Tim Shanahan, dispels the original ‘instructional level’ idea raised by Betts.
To supplement this, there is evidence to show that a child may learn a word in a list but might not then read it in a text. This is the key idea behind those who think children should have a book that they can read with 90%+ accuracy and automaticity (they would say fluency). They expect the child to do amazing learning in phonics and then transfer it to books. I believe it’s unlikely to happen for lots of children, particularly those who find learning to read difficult.
1. They need lots of repeated efforts at sounding and blending before recognising words by sight.
2. It’s impossible to find and utilise enough words found in reading books, for ample practice within phonics lessons. Simply
compare two reading books and see the range of vocabulary within them to see my point.
Beginner readers need practice time. Through practice they will develop confidence and far more: knowledge of vocabulary, orthographic mapping, and eventually fluency, if the correct feedback/instruction is provided. The evidence above supports this. When working with schools, it’s important that I support teachers to focus on providing the right type of practice as required.
There is a noticeable fear factor around teachers allocating decodable texts, resulting in some children not getting worded books as they ‘can’t read with 90% automaticity’. I met numerous children in Reception, during the spring term, who still had a wordless book. Instead of doing this, I ask schools to focus on growing the child’s knowledge of the GPCs, useful exception words and helping the child to develop the skill of blending. We know that children will succeed with effective support from an adult. Research shows that children can benefit from a book at frustration level when supported by an adult (one to one). Therefore, the focus must be on training adults to provide the best strategies and guidance to enable children to thrive and not inadvertently hold them back from developing their full capacity to become a reader.
Also, when allocating decodable reading books, there isn’t a single bit of evidence that states the books have to be produced by the same publisher as the school’s core phonics programme. Simply, we need to know that the child has the knowledge and skills to be able to read the books and that the words in the books ‘closely’ match the GPCs and exception words previously learnt.
It’s important that we provide books so that children can apply their alphabetic code knowledge and feel like readers. When we’ve done that, we have to focus on ourselves – are own knowledge and skills. Does our support and guidance enable progress? Practice (a child reading books) is most effective if it is supplemented with specific and effective feedback. We also know that the adult supporting the child needs much more than this: a smile, a passion for reading, an interest in the book, a willingness and ability to discuss the content, someone who can model expert reading…and much more.
Teachers require clarity and this should be provided in their professional training and not inadvertently undermined by misinformation or misperceptions by schools’ advisors or even Ofsted inspectors during school inspections.
Thank you for taking the time to read this. Below, you will find a trail of my reading and thinking. If you have any thoughts about this content, please email info@theliteracyadvisor.co.uk