This Article Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Hynds, J. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Putting a spin on reading: The language of the Rose Review

University of Sheffield, UK, jeffhynds{at}hotmail.com

The Rose Review, a so-called Independent Review of the Teaching of Early Reading, was published by the British Government's Department for Education and Skills in March 2006, as a result of criticism from Members of Parliament and others, and dissatisfaction with certain aspects of the National Literacy Strategy in England. For reasons that are unclear, the remedy that the Review proposed, now adopted by Government, was the wholesale imposition on teachers of a narrow and reductionist approach to reading called `synthetic phonics'. Knowing the controversial nature of this approach, which has very dubious research backing, and faced with almost universal opposition to it, the Review needed to argue its case very persuasively indeed. This it did by making considerable use of the readily available and politically-inspired techniques of spin doctoring. In this article I analyse the language of the Review in an endeavour to illustrate how this was done.

Key Words: Rose Review • spin doctoring • synthetic phonics

Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, Vol. 7, No. 3, 267-279 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/1468798407083661


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?