This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free 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

References

• Barber, M. (1998) `The National Literacy Strategy', Guardian (2 February): 4.
• Bassey, M. (1999) Case Study Research in Educational Settings. Buckingham: Open University Press
• Beard, R. (1999) National Literacy Strategy Review of Research, Standards and Effectiveness Unit. London: DfEE.
• Blair, T. (1997) `My 50 Answers', Evening Standard (14 April): 12.
• Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) ( 1998) The National Literacy Strategy Framework for Teaching. London: DfEE
• Grossen, B. (1997) Thirty Years of Research: What we now Know about how Children Learn to Read — A Synthesis of Research on Reading from the National Institute of Child Health and Development. Santa Cruz, CA: Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning.
• Hargreaves, D. (1996) Teaching as a Research-based Profession: Possibilities and Prospects, Teacher Training Agency Annual Lecture. London: Teacher Training Agency.
• Johnston, R. and Watson, J. (2005) A Seven Year Study of the Effects of Synthetic Phonics Teaching on Reading and Spelling Attainment, The Clackmannanshire Research, February. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive Education Department, URL (consulted May 2005): http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/education/ins4—00.asp
• Kelly, R. (2006) Press Notice, 20 March, URL (consulted April 2006): http://www.dfes.gov.uk/pns/DisplayPN.cgi?pn_id=2006_0038
• Meyer, R. (2002) Phonics Exposed: Understanding and Resisting Systematic Direct Intense Phonics Instruction. Mahwah, NJ and London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Price, L. (2005) The Spin Doctor's Diary: Inside Number 10 with New Labour. London: Hodder and Stoughton.
• Robson, C. (2002) Real World Research, 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Rose, J. (2006) Independent Review of the Teaching of Early Reading: Final Report (The Rose Review), 22 February. London: Department for Education and Skills (DfES), URL (consulted April 2006 ): http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/rosereview/
• Rosen, M. (2006) `Synthetic Arguments', in M. Lewis and S. Ellis (eds) Phonics: Practice, Research and Policy, pp. 123—5. London: Paul Chapman Publishing/UKLA.
• Schwoerer, L. (2001) The Ingenious Mr Henry Care: London's First Spin Doctor. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Sparrow, A. (1998) `Blair Spends £3.6m on his Spin Doctors', Daily Mail (13 June): 29.
• Taylor, D. (1998) Beginning to Read and the Spin Doctors of Science:The Political Campaign to Change America's Mind about How Children Learn to Read. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
• United Kingdom Literacy Association (UKLA) ( 2005) Submission to the Review of Best Practice in the Teaching of Early Reading. Royston: UKLA. [Submission to the Rose Review]
• Wray, D. (2006) `Poor Mr Rose!', in M. Lewis and S. Ellis (eds) Phonics: Practice Research and Policy, pp. 113—28. London: Paul Chapman Publishing/UKLA

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?

This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free 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?