When our school adopted a systematic synthetic phonics (SSP) programme at the start of this year, I was convinced that we were one of the last schools in the country to do so.

I’ve written previously about my reasons for dragging my heels over this. At the time, we were combining Letters and Sounds with Jolly Phonics, and this approach worked really well for us: children were engaged and enjoying their phonics learning.

But it has now been over six months since we switched to a government-backed SSP scheme. So, what has the impact on learning been? And do I still feel the same reluctance towards it?

We had planned to take a scheme and embed the principles, yet also felt strongly about retaining some autonomy in our teaching. We had become adept at jazzing up a dull phonics lesson, and felt we needed to continue this. 

Our aim, therefore, was to find a scheme that gave us a little more free rein - and I spent a long time poring over the different options.

Once we launched the scheme, I realised I needn’t have agonised so much. At the time, we believed our scheme would offer more flexibility, but after completing the training, it became evident that it didn’t.

Systematic synthetic phonics: the problems

Still, we pressed ahead, and within the first few weeks, it was clear that everyone felt the same. The scheme was dry; it was boring; it was prescriptive and incredibly passive for the children. In a nutshell, we hated it.

We discussed our concerns with our headteacher, but he had already had a view on it. After chatting with other heads, he’d reached the conclusion that the problem wasn’t with the particular scheme we had chosen, but with SSP in general. 

So, what, in our view, are the issues?

• The style of teaching is repetitive and boring.
• Lessons are too prescriptive and stifle teacher creativity.
• The lessons are too long for young children and they quickly disengage.
• Keeping all children at the same stage in phonics is very problematic, with more able children being held back. 
• Workbooks are too formal to engage young children, who need more hands-on, play-based activities. 
• Some children with SEND are not able to focus for the required length of time and would benefit from a more multisensory approach, which the schemes do not allow for. 
• Overcomplicated ditties and illustrations seem to place an unnecessary drain on cognitive load.

When teachers raise concerns about these issues, the stock response seems to be: “But it works.” We are reminded to be patient and trust in the approach and that we will see the impact in time. 

Why SSP works

And although it pains me to say it, after several months, I can see some improvements in the children’s skills. Those tricky phase three digraphs seem to be sticking slightly better than they have in previous years. Blending is, overall, more secure. Children in the lower-middle ability range generally seem to be making more progress, probably as a result of the over-teaching and catch-up aspects of the programme.

There have been some benefits for the teachers, too: reduced workload and resourcing. And, crucially, our phonics teaching did tick the box for our important visitors when “the call” recently came.

So, there are some benefits to these schemes. However, I think we risk missing the bigger picture in forcing all schools to shift towards SSP. 

The early years classroom should be a place for fun and magical moments, which inspire young learners. But this approach is no way to spark an interest in reading. It’s ironic that schools make huge efforts to promote a love of books, yet are made to teach reading using such formulaic approaches. 

I worry that we risk putting children off reading before they reach the end of the EYFS. These days, I watch the children’s eyes glaze over after a few minutes of starting a phonics lesson, and my heart sinks. 

Yes, blending might be more secure. But at what cost?

Helen Pinnington is the early years foundation lead at St Thomas More’s Catholic Primary School in Bedhampton, Hampshire