This 'adventure' example alone raises important questions about what principles are being used to determine grapheme–phoneme correspondences, especially when the same DfE document later discusses schwa separately.

In reading, pupils are taught to identify graphemes in written words from left to right, identify the corresponding phonemes and blend those phonemes to say the whole word (Department for Education, 2023, p. 47).

In spelling, pupils are taught to say a word clearly, identify the phonemes and select graphemes to represent those phonemes in writing (Department for Education, Writing Framework, 2025, p. 41).
 

The table presents:

ch - meaning /ʧ/ as:
<tch> match
<ture> adventure
 

This implies that <ture> is being treated as a grapheme representing /ʧ/.

However, if a child is identifying the phonemes in the word adventure using British IPA, which underpins synthetic phonics, the pronunciation is /ə d v ɛ n ʧ ə/ 

The Reading Framework notes that “the number of graphemes in a word usually corresponds to the number of phonemes” (Department for Education, 2023, p. 41). 

The initial <a> in adventure also represents a schwa /ə/.

/ə/ /d/ /v/ /ɛ/ /n/ /ʧ/ /ə/

A speech-to-print mapping would therefore be:

<a> <d> <v> <e> <n> <t> <ure>

even if the child does not pronounce the word with the schwa.
 
In this mapping:

• <t> represents /ʧ/, as it does in words such as picture /ˈpɪkʧə/.

• <ure> represents the final schwa /ə/. 

This creates a wider inconsistency because the same DfE guidance explains that schwa is not presented as a GPC because it can be represented by many different graphemes, and children are expected to read the underlying vowel before adjusting to the schwa in speech.
 

For example, the same table includes:

Schwa at the end of words: actor

where the spelling is treated as:

<a> <c> <t> <or> 

So the principles still apply ie 4 phonemes, 4 graphemes.  The question, therefore, is one of consistency.

If the principle is that children identify phonemes and select graphemes to represent them, why is <ture> in adventure treated as a single grapheme for /ʧ/ when the same guidance treats other schwa-containing sequences differently?

This matters because the Reading Framework states that teachers themselves need to understand the alphabetic code. Yet teachers are often taught to map words only through the examples provided within phonics programme content. When examples appear to apply different principles, it raises a genuine question: how are teachers expected to determine which letters function as graphemes and which phonemes they represent in unfamiliar words? 

In England, phonics teaching may be viewed as restricted to the grapheme–phoneme correspondences (GPCs) included within a synthetic phonics programme. The DfE’s SSP validation guidance is clear that programmes should restrict the GPCs taught in the early stages, so it may be assumed that the challenge of determining unfamiliar correspondences does not arise.
 

However, children encounter words throughout the school day, across all subjects and across all year groups. The statutory spelling guidance also states that teachers should draw pupils’ attention to grapheme–phoneme correspondences that both do and do not fit with what has been taught so far. This raises an important question: how are teachers making these word mapping decisions beyond the explicit content of their phonics programme, and how consistent are those decisions?

How is your staff team in KS1 and KS2 mapping words when they contain grapheme–phoneme correspondences (GPCs) that are not taught within their synthetic phonics programme?
 

The statutory spelling guidance states that teachers should draw pupils’ attention to grapheme–phoneme correspondences that both do and do not fit with what has been taught so far (Department for Education, Spelling Framework, p. 75).
 

There is an assumption that they will carry on applying the same principles when mapping words, without any additional training.

But who is monitoring this? How do we know whether the way teachers are calculating the code is impacting the support children receive and therefore their outcomes, if we do not start talking about this?

This is the focus of Emma Hartnell-Baker’s doctoral research, which explores how KS1 teachers determine which letters are functioning as graphemes and what sound values they represent when mapping words beyond their synthetic phonics programme content.