A new report published by the Education Policy Institute (EPI) examines the impact of the national phonics screening check (PSC) on early reading development in primary schools across England.
The research by EPI uses national pupil-level census data for all children in year 1 in England from 2009 (well before the PSC was introduced) to 2018 (when it was well-established). It looks at children’s key stage 1 reading and writing results, and key stage 2 reading results. It also looks at patterns of children being recorded with Special Educational Needs and/or Disabilities (SEND).
The report finds that:
- There is no evidence of improved Key Stage 1 reading results: The report finds no evidence that key stage 1 reading results improved as a direct result of the PSC’s introduction in 2012. Although there was a general upward trend in reading performance before the PSC, the increase slowed and stalled after its implementation. The research also finds no evidence that key stage 1 writing results improved due to the introduction of the check once other pupil and school factors are accounted for.
- There is no evidence that key stage 2 reading results have improved since the introduction of the PSC. In the first three cohorts of children who took the PSC in year 1, and then progressed to the end of primary school, results for key stage 2 reading have risen and then fallen. 71 per cent overall reached the ‘expected level’ in 2017; 75 per cent in 2018; and 73 per cent in 2019. It is particularly difficult to examine whether the PSC may have had an impact at key stage 2, because reformed assessments at this stage began in 2016.
- There is no evidence that the PSC has narrowed attainment gaps by the end of primary school. The research also looks at gaps between higher and lower-attaining groups of pupils and finds no evidence that the PSC impacted positively to narrow gaps at key stage 1 or key stage 2.
- There is a relationship between not passing the PSC and being identified as having special educational needs and/or disabilities (SEND): The report suggests that children who “fail” the phonics screening check are more likely to be newly recorded as having SEND in year 2.
The EPI report also looks at results from the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS), which tests the reading skills of a sample of year 5 pupils in England every five years.
The report concludes that PIRLS results do not provide any indication that the PSC has positively impacted the reading skills of children in England. There has been no significant rise in children’s reading scores in PIRLS among those who have taken the PSC – though there was a rise before the PSC was introduced.
In addition to analysing the national pupil-level data, EPI partnered with TeacherTapp to survey teachers on their views and experiences with the PSC. The key findings include:
- Time spent on phonics: Many teachers reported spending 30-60 minutes a day on phonics lessons in the fortnight leading up to the PSC. However, there was considerable variation, with older teachers and those working in ‘outstanding’ schools or schools with fewer pupils registered for Free School Meals (FSM) generally reporting spending less time on phonics.
- Mixed views on the PSC: When asked for their views on the PSC, 39% of teachers said the check “should be scrapped,” while 14% felt it should remain unchanged. Another 24% believed the PSC should be retained but with significant changes.
The EPI report concludes that neither national data from the PIRLS study, previous research using the NPD, nor the new analyses here, find a discernible positive impact of the PSC on the reading levels of primary aged children in England. The views of teachers appear mixed.
Policy Recommendations
-
- The Department for Education should commission and publish a fresh, evidence-informed review of whether the phonics screening check is an effective national intervention that helps children learn to read.
- The Department for Education should transparently and widely consider the costs and benefits of the check, and of alternatives: including no check, and other strategies for supporting children’s reading development.
- This review should be undertaken by independent experts with a range of knowledge, including of children’s reading and literacy development, and of practices and pedagogies within primary schools.
You can download and read the full report here.
