Article

Journal of Early Childhood Literacy

12(4) 367388
Ants, apples and the ! The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permissions:

ABCs: The use of sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1468798411417377
ecl.sagepub.com
commercial phonics
programmes in prior-to-
school childrens services
Stacey Campbell
Macquarie University, Australia

Jane Torr
Macquarie University, Australia

Kathy Cologon
Macquarie University, Australia

Abstract
Commercial phonics programmes (e.g. Jolly Phonics and Letterland) are becoming
widely used in the early years of school. These programmes claim to use a systematic
explicit approach, considered as the preferred method of phonics instruction for
teaching alphabetic code-breaking skills in Australia and the UK in the first years of
school (Department of Education, Science and Training, 2005; Rose, 2006). However,
little is known about the extent to which they are being used in prior-to-school settings,
and the reasons behind decisions to use them. This study surveyed 283 early childhood
staff in Sydney, Australia and found that commercial phonics programmes were being
used in 36% of the early childhood settings surveyed. Staff with early childhood univer-
sity qualifications and staff working in not-for-profit service types were less likely to use
a commercial phonics programme than staff without university qualifications and staff
working in for-profit services. Staff with less than 10 years experience were also more
likely to use a commercial phonics programme. The rationale behind decisions deter-
mining whether or not staff used the programmes ranged from pragmatic reasons, such
as parent pressure or higher management decisions, to pedagogical reasons, such as
teacher beliefs about how children learn to read and write. The practices staff engage in
to teach phonics are explored.

Corresponding author:
Stacey Campbell, Balaclava Road, Macquarie University, North Ryde 2109, NSW, Australia
Email: stacey.campbell@mq.edu.au
368 Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 12(4)

Keywords
early childhood, emergent literacy, phonics programmes, literacy development, teacher
beliefs

Introduction
The role of explicit phonics instruction in teaching reading is a subject of much
debate in the media and in the research literature (Cambourne, 2009;
Department of Education, Science and Training, 2005; Devine, 2009; Dombey,
1999; Ferrari, 2010; Goouch and Lambirth, 2007; Savage, 2007; Soler and
Openshaw, 2007). Although exact numbers are not available, it appears that
commercial phonics programmes that follow a systematic explicit approach to
teaching phonics are being widely used in the early years of school. Anecdotal
evidence suggests that such programmes are also being used in prior-to-school
settings, with children aged five years and younger.
While many commercial phonics programmes make strong claims for
their efficacy in fostering young childrens literacy development (Letterland
International, 2009; Lloyd, 2005; Manson and Wendon, 2007), there is little
empirical evidence to support these claims, especially for children in the
prior-to-school years (Soler and Openshaw, 2007). Furthermore, the methods
of instruction recommended by some commercial phonics programmes do
not necessarily resonate with practices that are regarded as developmentally
appropriate for fostering young childrens language and literacy development.
Explicit phonics instruction, conducted in a style whereby young children
aged three to five years are grouped together to recite, chant and review
phonemes and graphemes (which is the method employed by many com-
mercial phonics programmes) is questionable in terms of pedagogical appro-
priateness for preschoolers (Neuman and Roskos, 2005). This specific method
of teaching phonics, which is direct, adult initiated and programmed for
large-group learning, challenges the pedagogical practices of many early
childhood teachers, who subscribe to an emergent literacy learning perspec-
tive. According to this perspective, literacy-rich play is important as it enables
children to make connections with print through meaningful experiences
such as sharing books, dramatic play, songs, nursery rhymes and language
play (Morrow and Tracey, 1997). In this way, speaking, listening, reading and
writing are integrated and supported through social contexts (Beecher and
Arthur, 2001). According to this perspective, children learn phonics through
play, exploration and interaction with others, rather than through explicit
instruction (Snow, 2006).
Campbell et al. 369

Anecdotal reports indicate that many early childhood staff are currently using
more explicit methods of teaching literacy to children under five, including
commercial phonics programmes such as Letterland, Jolly Phonics and Ants
in the Apple. Little is known about how widely commercial phonics pro-
grammes are being used by staff in prior-to-school settings, including
preschool (which usually operates during school semesters with shorter
hours) and long-day care (which generally operates year round, 10 hours per
day), nor the reasons for their adoption by early childhood staff. This study aims
to explore to what extent, and why, commercial phonics programmes are being
used with children aged five years and younger in early childhood services.
The production of commercial phonics programmes is a growing industry,
and the adoption of commercial programmes is on the rise, not only in the
USA but also in English-speaking countries worldwide (Reeves, 2010).
Furthermore, there are considerable commercial interests involved in produc-
ing commercial programmes (Goouch, 2007). Such programmes typically
include a range of products, including flash cards, books, videos and DVDs,
teacher instruction and parent manuals, newsletters, magazines and websites.
Many phonics programmes are heavily promoted internationally. The cost of
commercial phonics programmes ranges from AU$200 to AU$2,000, depend-
ing on what programme components are purchased. Some components are
recommended as essential while others are optional. These programmes often
promise a complete and easy way to develop the skills necessary to be able to
read, for example the Letterland website claims that we publish everything you
need to help your child become a happy, confident and successful reader
(Letterland International, 2009). Jolly Phonics products state that the
programme teaches the letter sounds in an enjoyable, multisensory way, and
enables children to use them to read and write words (Jolly Learning, 2005).
In some countries, such as the USA, teachers are under pressure to comply
with a range of mandates in preparing children to meet educational standards,
and as a consequence commercially produced programmes have been devel-
oped that claim to meet both state and federal educational standards and that
also claim to be based on scientific research (Fang Fu and Lamme, 2004).
Commercial phonics programmes are generally based on a systematic
explicit approach to phonics instruction, typically instructing children in
how to make grapheme-phoneme correspondences. Some commercial
phonics programmes may also include explicit instruction in phonemic
awareness (Ehri and Nunes, 2002). Commercial phonics programmes cover
around 90 phonics rules, whereas children need to understand over 500
spelling and sound relationships in order to become proficient readers by
370 Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 12(4)

late elementary school level (Snow and Juel, 2005). Essentially, this suggests
that some commercial phonics programmes are not intended by their
producers to be a total solution to teaching children how to read, but may
be seen as a resource that can be integrated into existing reading programmes.
Commercial phonics programmes may also employ a synthetic phonics
approach, which is similar to systematic explicit phonics. With synthetic
phonics children learn isolated phonemic, phonological and alphabetic
skills, rather than learning phonics when engaged in a wider range of activities
(Cunningham and Cunningham, 2002). Children are introduced to individual
letters first and are then taught to build on them to form words. When chil-
dren are introduced to a word they are encouraged to synthesize the sounds
represented by letters to produce the word (Johnston and Watson, 2005). The
first texts that children encounter through these systems are constructed to
restrict the graphemes and phonemes to those previously introduced
(Cunningham and Cunningham, 2002).
One of the difficulties faced when attempting to develop a commercial
phonics programme is that the English language is complex (Wyse and
Goswami, 2008). It is different from many other alphabetic languages such
as German, Finnish, Italian and Spanish, where synthetic phonics instruction
is considered effective. This is because these languages use a less complex
syllabic structure and there is a one-to-one mapping of phonemes to graph-
emes (Seymour, Aro and Erskine, 2003; Wyse and Goswami, 2008). The
English language, however, is characterized by the phonological complexity
of its syllable structure and inconsistent spelling systems. This means that
direct instruction has to incorporate more than instruction at the phoneme-
grapheme level (Wyse and Goswami, 2008). Another difficulty is that
commercially produced programmes do not always provide substantial pro-
fessional development, other than the essential and initial training that tea-
chers need to implement the programme (Wren, 2002). Furthermore,
training in the use of commercial programmes is often conducted by the
publishers of the programmes, whose primary interest is in promoting
their own programmes (Fang et al., 2004).
Schools often purchase commercial reading programmes in the hope that
the product will help resolve student literacy issues; however, the programmes
are generally designed to address only one aspect of reading (Wren, 2002).
They tend to focus on reading sub-skills such as phoneme-grapheme
correspondence without addressing all areas of literacy development such as
vocabulary, comprehension and discourse structures (Duncan-Owens, 2009).
Furthermore, the effectiveness of commercial reading programmes is difficult
Campbell et al. 371

to evaluate because programme developers often commission their own

research where results have not always been put through a process of peer
evaluation (Duncan-Owens, 2009). Some commercial programmes, when
correctly implemented, have been shown to lead to an increase in reading
scores, especially with lower-performing schools in the USA; however, there is
no one commercial reading programme that has been shown to be successful
with all children and all teachers (Wren, 2002). The results from some studies
focusing on the use of a commercial phonics programme, in particular the
Clackmannanshire study, have been questioned (Ellis, 2007). Other studies
have shown that there were no long-term academic gains by children who had
more didactic academically-directed preschool experiences than children who
were taught from a more child-initiated curriculum (Marcon, 2002).
Furthermore, research has suggested that the most effective settings are pos-
sibly ones that have a balanced approach between an open framework, free-
play opportunities and group work involving direct instruction (Siraj-
Blatchford and Sylva, 2004).
Research on explicit phonics instruction through the use of commercial
phonics programmes has been limited to research with children aged five
years and over. Little research has investigated the use of phonics programmes
with children under five. The Rose Report in the UK (Rose, 2006) claimed that
it is appropriate to begin a systematic phonics instruction programme with
children aged five and above; however, this claim is difficult to support with evi-
dence as the majority of studies in the Rose Report were carried out with
children aged six and older (Wyse and Styles, 2007). Wyse and Styles (2007)
state that the claim regarding the appropriateness of this type of instruction
with five-year-old children is not supported by evidence and is arguably one of
the most controversial recommendations of the Rose Report (p.37). In
response to Wyse and Styles (2007), it was argued that to be fair they
should also point out there is no evidence to show that children under 5
years will not benefit either (Brooks, 2007: 170).
The current paper aims to determine the following:
1. The extent to which commercial phonics programmes are being used in different
types of prior-to-school childrens services.
2. The relationship between the use of commercial phonics programmes and staff
qualifications and experience.
3. The reasons given by early childhood staff for using commercial phonics
programmes.
4. Early childhood staff practices relating to the teaching of phonics in the prior-to-
school years.
372 Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 12(4)

Method
Survey design
This study used postal surveys to obtain feedback from early childhood staff
working with children aged three to five years in Sydney, Australia. The survey
was developed following a review of recent research investigating the beliefs
and attitudes of early childhood staff about emergent literacy development.
The survey was designed to investigate self-reported early childhood staff
practices (e.g. I use a commercial phonics programme to teach letters and sounds only)
and early childhood staff beliefs (e.g. One of the ways children learn about letters
and sounds is by sharing picture books with adults) about literacy in early childhood.
The survey included a range of data collection methods to enhance the
potential to understand the perspectives and views of the participants. These
were as follows.
Likert scale. There were 24 statements that required participants to respond
on a five-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.
The statements included general phonics teaching (e.g. I do much incidental
teaching about letters and sounds in the course of everyday activities), general literacy
teaching (e.g. I dont teach the alphabet in a structured way, but I do teach letter awareness
indirectly, e.g. name cards) and specific statements related to the use of commercial
phonics programmes (e.g. I follow the commercial phonics programs suggested sequence of
letter introduction).
Questions requiring short answers. Two short-answer questions were asked in the
survey: one requiring a yes/no response as to whether the participant uses a
commercial phonics programme, and one asking participants to give reasons
for using or not using one.
Demographic questions. Demographic data were also collected on the partici-
pants backgrounds including the type of service in which they worked,
the age groups of children with whom they worked, their years of service
in the early childhood field and their level of qualifications.
Open-ended section. An open-ended section was included at the end of the
survey. Here participants were invited to share any ideas or comments.
Invitation to participate in an interview. An additional section invited participants
to take part in an interview to discuss their views on phonics instruction and
its role in early childhood literacy programmes.
Once a final draft of the survey was completed, the survey was trialed
with four academics who were also practising early childhood teachers with
expertise in this area. Following their feedback, further changes were made to
the survey, and it was then posted with reply-paid envelopes to a wide range
Campbell et al. 373

of early childhood centres with varied demographic profiles across the Sydney
metropolitan area. Survey responses were anonymous (see Appendix).

Participants
Of the 900 surveys distributed, 31.4% (N 283) were returned, all of which
were usable. Respondents included university-qualified early childhood
teachers, early childhood educators who had a diploma or certificate qualifi-
cation from a government technical and further education college (TAFE) or
a private vocational education and training college (VET), and staff who had
no early childhood qualifications. Survey respondents were employed in for-
profit, not-for-profit and school-based preschools, and long-day care centres.
Within Australia, the terminology used to refer to childrens services
varies considerably from state to state. In New South Wales, where this
study was conducted, the following terms are used. The term long-day
care centre refers to centres that cater to children from six weeks to five
years of age. Such centres are open for 48 weeks a year for approximately
10 hours per day. The term preschool refers to centres for children aged three
to five years, which open during school hours only. The term preparatory
class or prep refers to programmes for three- to five-year-old children
that are attached to either government primary schools or independent
schools. Prep services, like preschools, follow the same hours and vacations
as the school to which they are attached.
Funding arrangements for childrens services vary across service types.
For-profit centres are usually long-day care services that are owned by private
operators. Corporate long-day care services are for profit and run by
companies listed on the Australian Stock Exchange. Local government- and
community-based services are either preschools or long-day care settings.
They are not for profit. Table 1 shows participants qualifications and the
type of service in which they were employed.
It can be seen from Table 1 that 74% (n 210) of respondents were
university qualified with a bachelors or masters degree in early childhood,
and 22% (n 64) of respondents had a TAFE or VET diploma or advanced
diploma in childrens services. There were 3% (n 8) of respondents who
had another qualification, for example a bachelors degree in primary or sec-
ondary education. The high proportion of university-qualified early child-
hood teachers who responded to this survey is possibly due to the fact that
the survey was targeted at staff working with three- to five-year-old children,
and in New South Wales, regulations require that there be at least one
374 Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 12(4)

Table 1. Participant response rate by qualification and service type

Long-day care Preschool Prep Other Total

Qualifications n 283 n % n % n % n % n %

Early childhood university 104 (50) 95 (45) 10 (4) 1 (1) 210 (74)
qualifications
Early childhood TAFE/diploma 46 (72) 17 (26) 0 (0) 1 (2) 64 (22)
qualifications
No formal qualifications 1 (100) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (1)
Other 5 (63) 2 (25) 1 (12) 0 (0) 8 (3)

university-qualified early childhood teacher in centres with over 29 children.

This teacher commonly works with the three- to five-year-old children.
The majority of respondents were employed in long-day care services. This
could be because there are more long-day care services in Australia than
preschools or school-based prep settings.
When the proportion of survey respondents working in each service type is
compared with the total proportion of different service types operating in
New South Wales, it can be seen that the proportion of respondents working
in preschools (40%) is greater than the state average (27%) (Baruch and
Holtom, 2008). There were fewer long-day care centres in this study
(56%) compared with the total for New South Wales (68%). Responses
from staff working in prep settings (4%) are equivalent to the state average
(5%). Figure 1 depicts a comparison between total service types operating in
New South Wales and the proportion of service types represented in this study.

Results
The results were analysed using Pearson 2 (SPSS version 17.5) to determine
the extent to which commercial phonics programmes are being used in
relation to service types, staff qualifications and staff experience, and the
reasons for their use.

The extent to which commercial phonics programmes are being used

Of the 283 survey responses, 36% (n 103) of staff reported that they cur-
rently use a commercial phonics programme (Table 2). This suggests that
commercial phonics programmes are currently being used in approximately
one third of early childhood settings in metropolitan Sydney.
Campbell et al. 375

New South Wales service types Survey responses

School prep School prep

4% 4%
Preschool
25%
Preschool
Long-day 41%
care
55%
Long-day
care
71%

Figure 1. Survey responses compared to New South Wales services types Source of New
South Wales Service types data: National Childcare Accreditation Council, 2009; New South
Wales Department of Community Services, 2006; New South Wales Department of Education
and Training, 2009.

Table 2. Use of commercial phonics programmes in different types of early childhood setting

Yes No

Service type n 283 n % n %

Long-day care 67 (43) 89 (57)

Preschool 30 (26) 84 (74)
Government school prep 6 (55) 5 (45)
Other 0 (0) 2 (100)
Total 103 (36) 180 (64)

Of those who responded to the survey, 57% (n 161) reported that they
have used a commercial phonics programme at some point either now or in
the past.

Types of early childhood services using commercial phonics programmes

Results showed that significantly more staff employed in long-day care ser-
vices used a commercial phonics programme compared with those employed
in preschools (2(4, n 270) 7.916, p .005) (Table 2). As noted above,
in Australia there are more long-day care services than preschool or school
prep services.
376 Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 12(4)

Table 3. Ownership of service type and the use of commercial phonics programmes

Use CPP Do not use CPP

Ownership type (n 283) n % n %

Not for profit 31 (21) 115 (79)

For profit 57 (58) 42 (42)
School based 11 (34) 21 (66)
Other 4 (67) 2 (33)
Total 103 (36) 180 (64)

Table 4. Staff qualifications and the use of commercial phonics programmes

Use Do not use Total

Early childhood qualification (n 274) n % n % n %

University degree 68 (32) 142 (68) 210 (100)

TAFE/diploma 32 (50) 32 (50) 64 (100)
Other or none 3 (33) 6 (67) 9 (100)

Ownership of service type currently using commercial phonics programmes

Results indicate that not-for-profit early childhood services are signifi-
cantly less likely to use a commercial phonics programme (79%, n 115)
than for-profit services (42%, n 42) (2(6, n 274) 14.105, p .001)
(Table 3).
It should be noted that the majority of respondents to this survey were
employed in a not-for-profit service. However, in Australia, the early child-
hood prior-to-school sector is predominantly for-profit managed (Brennan,
2006; Wannan, 2006). There were also more respondents to this survey from
preschool-based services even though these make up only 25% of all early
childhood services in New South Wales (Figure 1).

Staff qualifications and the use of commercial phonics programmes

The results indicate that early childhood staff with university qualifications
are significantly less likely to use a commercial phonics programme than
staff with a TAFE diploma qualification (2(4, n 274) 6.70, p .010)
(Table 4).
Campbell et al. 377

Teaching experience and the use of commercial phonics programmes

Early childhood staff with less than 10 years experience were significantly
more likely to use a commercial phonics programme than staff who had over
15 years experience (2(6, n 274) 14.105, p .001) (Table 5).

Early childhood staff decisions as to why they use

a commercial phonics programme
The results indicate that early childhood staff are more likely to use a com-
mercial phonics programme for pragmatic or external reasons (57%, n 73)
than for pedagogical or personal reasons (43%, n 56). Some staff provided
more than one reason for their decision (Table 6).

Early childhood staff practices relating to the teaching of phonics

Results show that 83% (n 230) of early childhood staff reported that
they believe it is appropriate to teach phonics in the prior-to-school years
(Table 7). Responses to survey items relating to teaching practices are set out
below.
The results show that the majority of early childhood staff reported that
they teach phonics in a manner that is less structured than the methods typ-
ically employed by commercial phonics programmes. The vast majority of
staff (95%) reported that they plan and teach phonics with a balance of
picture book reading, play-based writing and letter sound introduction,
94% reported that they teach phonics during everyday activities and 81%
reported teaching letter awareness indirectly, for example through the use
of childrens names on cards (Table 7).

Table 5. Use of commercial phonics programmes by years of teaching experience

Yes No Total

Years of service (n 274) n % n % n %

09 years 60 (47) 67 (53) 127 (100)

1014 years 16 (30) 38 (70) 54 (100)
15+ years 22 (24) 71 (76) 93 (100)
Not indicated 5 (55) 4 (45) 9 (100)
378 Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 12(4)

Table 6. Reasons given as to why staff use a commercial phonics programmes

External/pragmatic Pedagogical

(n 129) n % n %

Already in use when they started 21 (16)

The local school uses it 18 (14)
Higher management decision 17 (13)
Recommendation by others 9 (7)
Parent request 6 (5)
In-service recommendation 2 (2)
Total external/pragmatic 73 (57)
Childrens interest and enjoyment 20 (15)
Personal preference for using a programme 15 (12)
Used it previously in another service and liked it 11 (9)
Feel that it supports school readiness 7 (5)
Because the programme is based on research 3 (2)
Total pedagogical 56 (43)

Table 7. Staff practices relating to the teaching of phonics

Yes No Unsure

Statement item Response statement n % n % n %

8 I plan and teach with a balance 265 (95) 9 (3) 5 (2)

of picture book reading, play-
based writing and letter-sound
introduction (n 279)
2 I do much incidental teaching 262 (94) 14 (5) 3 (1)
about letters and sounds in the
course of everyday activities (n 279)
4 I dont teach the alphabet in 227 (81) 47 (17) 5 (2)
a structured way, but I do letter
awareness indirectly, e.g.
name cards (n 279)
3 Children need to have formal 101 (37) 138 (50) 35 (13)
pre-reading instruction (n 274)
18 I teach the letters of the alphabet 94 (35) 165 (61) 11 (4)
on a formal basis, e.g. formal as in a
separate group experience (n 270)
6 It is not appropriate to teach letters 34 (12) 230 (83) 14 (5)
and sounds in my context as they
will learn them at school (n 279)
Campbell et al. 379

Some early childhood staff reported using methods that are relatively more
structured, with 37% agreeing that children need to have formal pre-reading
instruction and 35% teaching letters of the alphabet on a formal basis, for
example in separate group experiences specifically for this purpose (Table 7).

Early childhood staff who are currently using a commercial

phonics programme
In this section we focus solely on the responses of participants who stated that
they are using a commercial phonics programme (n 103). This section
determines how staff use commercial phonics programmes.
The results suggest that although early childhood staff are using a commercial
phonics programme, they are adapting programmes in a range of ways that
they feel are relevant for the service, children and their own beliefs. For example,
74% of staff reported that they only used components they felt were relevant
for the children and 40% reported that they followed the commercial
phonics programmes suggested sequence of letter introduction (Table 8).

Table 8. Early childhood staff who are currently using a commercial phonics programme

Yes No Unsure

Statement item Response statement n (%) n (%) n (%)

12b I have a commercial phonics 75 (74) 17 (17) 9 (9)

programme but only use parts
of the programme because:
I have chosen to use only
components I feel are relevant
for these children (n 101)
9 I use all the major parts of the 56 (55) 37 (36) 9 (9)
commercial phonics programme
to teach letters and sounds (n 102)
16 I follow the commercial phonic 41 (40) 45 (44) 16 (15)
programmes suggested sequence
of letter introduction (n 102)
14 I use a commercial phonics programme 40 (40) 52 (51) 9 (9)
to teach letters and sounds only (n 101)
12a I have a commercial phonics programme 15 (17) 40 (47) 31 (36)
but only use parts of the programme
because I only have access to parts
of the programme (n 86)
Note: Some of the totals differ from 103 as some of the respondents did not answer all questions.
380 Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 12(4)

Discussion
This study provides evidence to suggest that commercial phonics programmes
are currently being used in over a third of prior-to-school settings with
children aged three to five years in the Sydney region. Furthermore, the use
of these programmes appears to be related to a range of factors including staff
qualifications, staff experience, type of setting and funding of setting.
Proportionally, long-day care centres are more likely to use commercial
phonics programmes than preschools, and for-profit centres are more likely
to use such programmes than community-based centres. Staff with TAFE
diplomas are more likely than university-qualified teachers to use these
programmes. Finally, less experienced staff are more likely to use the pro-
grammes than staff with over 15 years experience. This latter finding may be
due to the fact that university pre-service teacher training has varied over
time; however, the implications of this finding are unclear. In summary,
this study provides evidence of an emerging profile of where these
programmes are most likely to be used: long-day care, for-profit centres
with less qualified and less experienced staff.
Given the reservations about the pedagogical appropriateness and value of
using commercial phonics programmes with three- to five-year-old children,
and the growth of the multinational companies that produce the programmes,
it is timely to investigate further the reasons why early childhood staff
use these programmes. The results of this study suggest that educators often
use the programmes for pragmatic reasons, such as the fact that they are
already in use in their centre or the local primary school. Some staff cited
more personal reasons, such as childrens perceived interest and enjoyment
and their own preference. Only three educators noted pedagogical reasons, in
the form of school-readiness programmes for preschool children. A more
detailed understanding of why staff decide to use commercial phonics
programmes is important and will be the subject of future research.
The results from this study found that it was more likely for a prior-to-
school service that is run for profit to use a commercial phonics programme
than a not-for-profit service. In Australia, over three-quarters of long-day care
centres are run as for-profit services (Meagher, 2007). Such centres may offer
a readily visible commercially produced literacy programme for potential
and existing parents, as well as regarding this as a beneficial programme for
less qualified and experienced staff. Many for-profit services are part of
larger corporate organizations whose key drivers are to generate profit and
minimize costs of staffing, through providing standardized programmes
Campbell et al. 381

(Wannan, 2006). By implementing a homogenous literacy programme,

through the use of a commercial phonics programme across all settings,
they provide a uniform one-fits-all approach, thus demonstrating or creating
a sense of consistency of all the staff in their service, regardless of qualification
levels. This will enable for-profit services to demonstrate to parents that they
are providing a literacy programme for children.
This study found that early childhood teachers with a university qualifica-
tion were less likely to use a commercial phonics programme than staff with
a technical or private college certificate or diploma. Possible reasons are that
early childhood teachers may be more informed theoretically and more
confident in planning and programming for individual children than less
qualified staff.
The results of this study also found that a majority of early childhood staff
reported that they believed it was appropriate to teach phonics in the prior-to-
school years. Although some staff are following a more structured approach to
teaching phonics, by including a commercial phonics programme, they adapt
the programme when they consider it appropriate to do so.

Limitations
Like all surveys, this study has both strengths and limitations. The findings are
important in establishing that there is widespread use of commercial phonics
programmes in prior-to-school settings, especially in for-profit services and
amongst less experienced and qualified staff. Yet the actual beliefs, motivations
and reasons for using or not using these resources are difficult to establish
via survey methods alone. Furthermore, the survey was sent only to Sydney
metropolitan services, so the situation in rural and remote areas, and among
different cultural groups, cannot be determined from this study.

Directions for future research

This study has implications for early childhood teacher preparation
programmes, professional development of staff, the implementation of the
first Australian National Early Years Learning Framework (Department of
Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, 2009) and the underlying
beliefs about what is considered important in early childhood programmes.
Future research will explore in more depth the reasons why early childhood
staff may or may not use commercial phonics programmes. Underpinning
these decisions are beliefs about what literacy is and how it is learnt.
382 Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 12(4)

Acknowledgements
We gratefully acknowledge and thank all the dedicated early childhood staff who
took time out of their busy days to participate in this survey and the academics
who provided feedback on the survey. We also thank the reviewers for their helpful
feedback and advice.

References
Baruch Y and Holtom BC (2008) Survey Response Rate Levels and Trends in
Organizational Research. Human Relations 61(8): 11391160.
Beecher B and Arthur L (2001) Play and Literacy in Childrens Worlds. Newtown, Australia:
Primary English Teaching Association.
Brennan D (2006) Home and Away: The Policy Context in Australia. In: Hill E,
Pocock B and Elliott A (eds) Child Care: A Better Policy Framework for Australia. Sydney,
Australia: University of Sydney Press.
Brooks G (2007) Rationality and Phonics: A Comment on Wyse and Styles (2007).
Literacy 41(3): 170173.
Cambourne B (2009) The Sound and the Fury about Making Sense of Written
Words, The Sydney Morning Herald, 30 March, http://www.smh.com.au/national/
the-sound-and-the-fury-about-making-sense-of-written-words-20090329-
9fm8.html (consulted July 2011).
Cunningham PM and Cunningham JW (2002) What We Know about How to Teach
Phonics. In: Farstrup A and Samuels S (eds) What Research Has to Say about Reading
Instruction. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (2009)
Early Years Learning Framework, http://www.deewr.gov.au/EarlyChildhood/
Policy_Agenda/Quality/Pages/EarlyYearsLearningFramework.aspx (consulted July
2011).
Department of Education, Science and Training. Teaching Reading: Report and Recommendations:
National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy. Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth of
Australia.
Devine M (2009) The Crazy Politics of Learning to Read, The Sydney Morning Herald, 21
March, p.11.
Dombey H (1999) Towards a Balanced Approach to Phonics Teaching. Literacy 33(2):
5258.
Duncan-Owens D (2009) Scripted Reading Programs: Fishing for Success. Principal
88(3): 2629.
Ehri LC and Nunes SR (2002) The Role of Phonemic Awareness in Learning to Read.
In: Farstrup A and Samuels S (eds) What Research Has to Say About Reading Instruction.
Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Ellis S (2007) Policy and Research: Lessons from the Clackmannanshire Synthetic
Phonics Initiative. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 7(3): 281297.
Campbell et al. 383

Fang Z, Fu D and Lamme LL (2004) From Scripted Instruction to Teacher Empowerment:

Supporting Literacy Teachers to Make Pedagogical Transitions. Literacy 38(1): 5864.
Ferrari J (2010) Syllabus Confused on Place of Phonics, The Australian, 7 June, http://
www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/syllabus-confused-on-place-of-phonics/
story-e6frg6nf-1225876211439 (consulted July 2011).
Goouch K (2007) Understanding Educational Discourse: Attending to Multiple
Voices. In: Goouch K and Lambirth A (eds) Understanding Phonics and the Teaching of
Reading: Critical Perspectives. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
Goouch K and Lambirth A (2007) Introduction: Sound and Fury. In: Goouch K and
Lambirth A (eds) Understanding Phonics and the Teaching of Reading: Critical Perspectives.
Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
Johnston RS and Watson J E (2005) The Effects of Synthetic Phonics Teaching on
Reading and Spelling Attainment: A Seven Year Longitudinal Study, http://
www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2005/02/20688/52449 (consulted July
2011).
Jolly Learning (2005) http://www.jollylearning.co.uk (consulted July 2011).
Letterland International (2009) Letterland Child-Friendly Phonics, http://www.letterland.-
com (consulted July 2011).
Lloyd S (2005) The Phonics Handbook: In Print Letters, 3rd edn. Chigwell, UK: Jolly
Learning.
Manson J and Wendon M (2007) Letterland Early Years Handbook. Cambridge, UK:
Letterland International.
Marcon RA (2002) Moving Up the Grades: Relationship between Preschool Model
and Later School Success, Early Childhood Research and Practice 4(1), http://ecrp.uiu-
c.edu/v4n1/marcon.html (consulted July 2011).
Meagher G (2007) Contested, Corporatised and Confused? Australian
Attitudes to Child Care. In: Hill E, Pocock B and Elliott A (eds) Kids Count:
Better Early Childhood Education and Care in Australia. Sydney, Australia: Sydney
University Press.
Morrow LM and Tracey DH (1997) Strategies Used for Phonics Instruction in Early
Childhood Classrooms. Reading Teacher 50(8): 644651.
National Childcare Accreditation Council. QIAS Service Progress Statistics. Canberra,
Australia: Australian Government.
Neuman SB and Roskos K (2005) Whatever Happened to Developmentally
Appropriate Practice in Early Literacy? Young Children 60(4): 2227.
New South Wales Department of Community Services. Annual Report 05/06 Preschool
Funding Report. Canberra, Australia: Australian Government.
New South Wales Department of Education and Training (2009) NSW Public Schools,
http://www.schools.nsw.edu.au/gotoschool/preschool/adjusting.php (consulted
July 2011).
Reeves J (2010) Teacher Learning by Script. Language Teaching Research 14(3): 241258.
384 Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 12(4)

Rose J (2006) Independent Review of the Teaching of Early Reading. Nottingham, UK:
Department for Education and Skills.
Savage JF (2007) Sound it Out! Phonics in a Comprehensive Reading Program, 3rd edn.
New York: McGraw Hill.
Seymour P, Aro M and Erskine JM (2003) Foundation Literacy Acquisition in
European Orthographies. British Journal of Psychology 94(2): 143147.
Siraj-Blatchford I and Sylva K (2004) Researching Pedagogy in English Pre-Schools.
British Educational Research Journal 30(5): 713730.
Snow CE (2006) What Counts as Literacy in Early Childhood? In: McCartney K and
Phillips D (eds) Blackwell Handbook of Early Childhood Development Malden, MA: Blackwell
Publishing.
Snow CE and Juel C (2005) Teaching Children to Read: What Do We Know about
How to Do It? In: Snowling M and Hulme C (eds) The Science of Reading: A Handbook
Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Soler J and Openshaw R (2007) To Be or Not To Be?: The Politics of Teaching Phonics
in England and New Zealand. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 4(3): 333352.
Wannan L (2006) Getting the Basics Right Goals that Would Deliver a Good National
Childrens Service System. In: Hill E, Pocock B and Elliott A (eds) Kids Count: Better Early
Childhood Education and Care in Australia. Sydney, Australia: Sydney University Press.
Wren S (2002) Ten Myths of Reading Instruction, SEDL Letter, Putting Reading First
XIV(3), http://www.sedl.org/pubs/sedl-letter/v14n03/2.html (consulted July
2011).
Wyse D and Goswami U (2008) Synthetic Phonics and the Teaching of Reading.
British Educational Research Journal 34(6): 691710.
Wyse D and Styles M (2007) Synthetic Phonics and the Teaching of Reading: The
Debate Surrounding Englands Rose Report. Literacy 41(1): 3542.
Campbell et al. 385

Appendix
The beliefs of early childhood staff about children learning alphabetic literacy
Survey
There are many different questions in no particular order.
Please circle the number that best matches your response to each statement.
If the question is not relevant to you, please circle the Not Applicable box
(0).
There are no right or wrong responses.

Applicable
Disagree

Disagree
Strongly

Strongly
Unsure

Agree

Agree

Not
1 Children learn letters and sounds incidentally 1 2 3 4 5 0
I do much incidental teaching about letters and sounds in the
2 1 2 3 4 5 0
course of every day activities
3 Children need to have formal pre-reading instruction 1 2 3 4 5 0
I dont teach the alphabet in a structured way, but I do letter
4 1 2 3 4 5 0
awareness indirectly, e.g. name cards.
I Like to use commercial phonics programmes *
*A commercial phonics program is usually in a kit form and
5 may have multiple elements e.g. charts, books, word cards, video 1 2 3 4 5 0
and audio tapes. Examples of commercial phonics programmes
include Letterland and Jolly Phonics.
It is not appropriate to teach letters and sounds in my context as
6 1 2 3 4 5 0
they will learn them at school.
7 Parents want me to use a commercial phonics programme 1 2 3 4 5 0
I plan and teach with a balance of picture book reading, play
8 1 2 3 4 5 0
based writing and letter/sound introduction
I use all the major parts of a commercial phonics programme to
9 1 2 3 4 5 0
teach letters and sounds
I would like to teach letters and sounds but Im not sure how to
10 1 2 3 4 5 0
do this
Some parents at my service take their children to after - school
11 1 2 3 4 5 0
pre-reading tutoring services
I have a commercial phonics programme but only use parts of the
12 programme because:
(a) I only have access to parts of the program, or 1 2 3 4 5 0
(b) I have chosen to use only components I feel are
relevant for these children 1 2 3 4 5 0
Sometimes children can recite the letters of the alphabet, but
13 1 2 3 4 5 0
dont know what they mean
I use a commercial phonics programme to teach letters and
14 1 2 3 4 5 0
sounds only
386 Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 12(4)

Commercial phonics programmes are written by literacy

15 1 2 3 4 5 0
development experts
I follow a commercial phonics programmes suggested sequence
16 1 2 3 4 5 0
of letter introduction
One of the ways children learn about letters and sounds is by
17 1 2 3 4 5 0
sharing picture books with adults
I teach the letters of the alphabet on a formal basis, e.g. formally
18 1 2 3 4 5 0
as in a separate group experience
The children in my service love using the commercial phonics
19 1 2 3 4 5 0
programme

Applicable
Disagree

Disagree
Strongly

Strongly
Unsure

Agree

Agree
Not
20 I would never use a commercial phonics programme 1 2 3 4 5 0
Without the commercial phonics programme, the children will not
21 1 2 3 4 5 0
learn pre-reading skills
There was a commercial phonics programme already in place at
22 1 2 3 4 5 0
the centre when I started and I continued to use it
I am currently using a commercial phonics programme, but I
23 1 2 3 4 5 0
would prefer not to use it
24 Most of the children in my service can already read and write 1 2 3 4 5 0

25. If you are currently using a commercial phonics programme at your service, which
programme are you using?

_________________________________________
(name of the commercial phonics programme)

26. What influenced your decision to use this particular commercial phonics programme?
(For example, it was already in place at the service, or a higher level decision,
e.g. corporate office, or Director, the marketing of the programme, you know
someone else using it, the local school is using it)

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

27. Which of the following commercial phonics programmes have you used (either in a prior-
school or school-based setting)? (more than one box may be ticked for this question)

In prior-school years In a K-6 classroom

(a) Letterland
(b) Jolly Phonics
(c) Ants in the Apple
(d) Spalding
(e) THRASS
(f) Other _________________
(please list any others)

(g) I have never used a commercial phonics programme

Campbell et al. 387

Please tick the box that best describes you and your service

28. What type of early childhood service do you work in?

Long-day care which age group do you work with? _____________

Preschool (e.g. 3-5 year olds, 9am3pm)
Prep/early learning centre in a primary school setting
Other _____________________________ (please specify)

29. Is your service?

Community based stand alone

Not for profit organisation (e.g. KU, SDN)
Local government (e.g. Council)
Privately owned
Corporate(e.g. ABC, CFK)
Department of Education preschool
Independent / Private School (e.g. Prep to Year 6 / Year 12)
Other _________________________ (please specify)

30. What is the postcode of your early childhood service? ___ ___ ___ ___

31. What is your highest early childhood qualification?

University Bachelor or Masters in Early Childhood, Year

attained_________________
TAFE/College Diploma or Advanced Diploma, Year
attained_________________
No formal Early Childhood qualification
Other tertiary qualification (e.g. Primary, Secondary, Business)
____________________ (Please specify)

32. What is your original home language?_____________________ (please specify)

33. What other languages do you speak?______________________ (please specify)

34. How many years have you been teaching in early childhood since completing your
highest early childhood qualification (if no qualification, list how many years you have
been teaching):

Less than 1 year 14 years 59 years 1014 years Over 15 years

If we have overlooked asking you something important, or you would like

to express your views about literacy teaching and learning in early
childhood, please comment:
388 Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 12(4)

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________
INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE IN AN INTERVIEW
We would like to know more about your views on phonics instruction and its role in early
childhood programmes.

If you would like to participate in an interview (about 30 minutes) to be conducted at your

centre or at the university, please complete the following information below and return it
with the survey.

We are looking for a range of early childhood staff to participate who DO AND DO
NOT use commercial phonics programmes.

Everything you say will be completely confidential.

Literacy learning is important for young children, and your contribution to this research
will assist in helping to develop quality literacy programmes.

If you would like to participate, please complete the details below, otherwise leave this
section blank.

YES I would like to participate in the research into the use of phonics in early
childhood.

Your name: __________________________________________

Name of service: ______________________________________

Centre postal address: __________________________________

____________________________________________________

Centre phone number: _________________________________

Centre email: ________________________________________

Your signature: _______________________________________

If you fill in this form, then change your mind, you can do so without having to give a
reason.