David Ruffley has written to David Thornton, Acting Director of Learning at Suffolk County Council, regarding teaching methods used in the teaching of reading in Suffolk schools.

This follows the publication of a report on a seven year longitudinal study in Clackmannanshire by academics from Hull and St Andrew's Universities which showed that children being taught using a pure synthetic phonics approach far outpaced the children who were taught using the method advocated in the National Literacy Strategy, namely analytical phonics programmes.

The synthetic phonics approach involves teaching small groups of letters rapidly and children are shown how to combine letters to form words. For example, they learn the sounds for the letters 't', 'a' and 'p' then blend the sounds together to pronounce the word 'tap'. The first block of letter sounds taught are: 's', 'a', 't', 'i', 'p' and 'n' which make up more three letter words than any other six letters.

After sixteen weeks children taught using the synthetic approach achieved a reading age seven months ahead of their chronological age and seven month ahead of children using the analytical method.

The full text of David Ruffley's letter is attached.

David said: 'I am keen to know if Suffolk Education Department will be reviewing their teaching methods for reading and, if not, why it is felt the National Literacy Strategy approach should continue to be used in our Suffolk schools. I want my constituents' children to be taught by the most successful teaching methods so they get the best possible start in life.'

3rd March 2005

Mr David Thornton

Acting Director of Learning

Suffolk County Council

Endeavour House

Russell Road

Ipswich IP1 2BX

I am writing to you regarding the recent publication of a seven year longitudinal study in Clackmannanshire by academics from Hull and St Andrews Universities into teaching methods used in the teaching of reading. I attach a copy of the executive summary of the report, from which you will see that after 16 weeks of the programme, the children being taught using a pure synthetic phonics approach developed a reading age seven months ahead of the chronological age and seven months ahead of the group of children who were being taught using analytical phonics programmes similar to the methods advocated in the National Literacy Strategy.

Given the clear evidence of success of the synthetic phonics programme, it was decided that all the 300 children in the study would be taught using synthetic phonics. By the age of 11 these children had achieved a reading age which was, on average, some three and a half years ahead of their chronological age. Children from disadvantaged homes also appeared to perform equally well.

This particular group of 300 children had a receptive vocabulary knowledge of 93 per cent of average and were expected, therefore, to achieve a reading age of just below their chronological age by the age of 11.

I am aware that some education authorities (for example Tower Hamlets), have taken this and similar research very seriously and have been gradually implementing synthetic phonics programmes in their primary schools. Schools with such programmes tend to achieve SAT results in English, which approach 100 per cent of their 11 year olds achieving level 4 or more and with a significant number achieving level 5 (regardless of the degree of social deprivation). I believe that urgent action is now needed in each local education authority to review whether, in the light of this published research, authorities are content with the National Literacy Strategy approach to the teaching of reading.

I should be grateful if you would let me know whether Suffolk Education Department intends to undertake such a review and, if not, why it is felt that the National Literacy Strategy approach should continue to be used in Suffolk Primary Schools.

I look forward to hearing from you.