Are teachers in England being supported to map the alphabetic code consistently?

In reading, pupils are taught to decode by identifying graphemes in written words from left to right, saying the corresponding phonemes, and blending those phonemes to say the whole word (Department for Education, England, 2023, p. 47).

In spelling, pupils are taught to say a word clearly, segment it into phonemes, and select graphemes to represent each phoneme in writing (Department for Education, England, Writing Framework, 2025, p. 41).

Why I Asked How a Practitioner Would Map the Word Dinosaur

A short video clip was shared on LinkedIn showing a child reading from Baby Dinosaur Can Play by Jay Dale. The sentence on the page is:

‘We can play,’ said Baby Dinosaur.

I asked how the practitioner would map the word dinosaur in their clip.

That was the whole question. Simple, yes? Or maybe not.

I wasn’t asking which phonics programme she used. I wasn’t evaluating her teaching method, and I wasn’t suggesting how she should teach the child. I wanted to know how she herself identified the phonemes and graphemes in the word dinosaur.

The discussion became a long conversation about teaching methods, but my research question is much narrower:

How do practitioners in England bidirectionally map the words children encounter when reading and writing?

What is bidirectional word mapping?

Bidirectional word mapping describes the connection between the phonemes in spoken words and the graphemes used to represent them.

It operates in both directions.

For reading:

Identify the graphemes.
Give their phoneme values.
Blend the phonemes to say the word.

For spelling:

Say the word.
Identify the phonemes.
Represent those phonemes with graphemes.

The DfE may not consistently use the phrase bidirectional word mapping, but explains that it requires these processes.

PRINT → SPEECH

That requires teachers to know:

Which letters form the graphemes?
How many graphemes?
Which phoneme value does each represent?

SPEECH → PRINT

In spelling, pupils are taught to say a word clearly, segment it into phonemes, and select graphemes to represent each phoneme in writing (Department for Education, England, Writing Framework, 2025, p. 41).

That requires teachers to know:

Which phonemes?
How many phonemes?
Which graphemes represent them?

The DfE’s criteria for systematic synthetic phonics programmes state that children must be taught to read printed words by identifying and blending individual phonemes from left to right, all through the word. They must also learn to segment spoken words into phonemes for spelling, which the DfE explicitly describes as the reverse of blending phonemes for reading.

What does the DfE expect when children are learning to read?

While children are learning to decode, the books they read independently should be closely matched to the grapheme–phoneme correspondences they have already been taught and know securely.

The DfE says that children should read and reread books that match their phonic knowledge. These books should not require them to use pictures, context or other guessing strategies to identify unfamiliar words.

Baby Dinosaur Can Play is an Engage Literacy Red levelled reader. Its title, reading level or inclusion within a reading scheme doesn’t automatically establish that every word is decodable for a particular child.

Whether the book is appropriately matched depends on the grapheme–phoneme correspondences that child has already been taught and can use securely.

A word such as dinosaur shouldn’t be treated as decodable for a child merely because it appears in an early reading book.

What should happen if the child cannot read dinosaur?

If the child hasn’t yet been taught the relevant grapheme–phoneme correspondences, the book may not be appropriately matched for independent decoding. We have analysed every GPC the DfE suggests explicitly teaching and are analysing which the 44 DfE validated programmed do teach. The children would not have explicitly been taught all GPCs in the word dinosaur.

If the child cannot read the word, the appropriate support is to work through the alphabetic code:

identify the graphemes
give their phoneme values
blend through the word
connect the pronunciation with the word’s meaning

The child shouldn’t be encouraged to identify dinosaur from the picture, the context, its first letter or its overall visual appearance.

The DfE expects phonics to be used as the route to reading unfamiliar words before comprehension strategies are applied. And yet no-one seems to be checking if teachers are doing this, or how they are doing it.

Does this expectation end after Year 1?

No.

Children are expected to become increasingly automatic readers, so most won’t need every word explicitly mapped for them. However, pupils who haven’t secured the phonics knowledge and skills they need must continue to receive appropriate phonics support.

The national curriculum states that teachers should return to the earlier word-reading programme of study when an older pupil doesn’t yet have the necessary phonic knowledge and skills. It also states that phonic knowledge should continue to underpin spelling beyond Key Stage 1.

That means teachers throughout the primary years may need to support children with the phoneme–grapheme connections in words used across the curriculum, not only the words presented during a Reception or Year 1 phonics lesson.

Why practitioner knowledge matters

Many children can read:

‘We can play,’ said Baby Dinosaur.

Other children will need additional support to read or spell words within that sentence, including said, baby or dinosaur.

To provide that support, the practitioner must be able to identify how the phonemes and graphemes connect within those words.

That is why I asked the practitioner how she would map dinosaur.

I wasn’t asking her to defend her teaching programme. I wasn’t comparing teaching methods. I wasn’t asking whether the child should have been reading that particular book.

I was asking a question about practitioner knowledge.

How practitioners themselves bidirectionally map words may affect the support they provide when children struggle to read and spell them.

That is the focus of my research.

Emma Hartnell-Baker MEd SEN

DfE sources

The Reading Framework
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-reading-framework-teaching-the-foundations-of-literacy

Validation of systematic synthetic phonics programmes
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/phonics-teaching-materials-core-criteria-and-self-assessment/validation-of-systematic-synthetic-phonics-programmes-supporting-documentation

National curriculum in England: English programmes of study
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-english-programmes-of-study

English Appendix 1: Spelling
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7ccc06ed915d63cc65ce61/English_Appendix_1_-_Spelling.pdf

Calculating the Code

The Reading Framework explains “why teachers themselves also need to understand the alphabetic code: evidence supports the key role of phonic knowledge and skills in early reading and spelling.” (Department for Education, 2023, p. 5)

Teachers identify the phonemes in a spoken word.
Teachers identify the graphemes that represent those phonemes.

They can then guide children in both directions:

Speech-to-print: identify phonemes and select graphemes.
Print-to-speech: identify graphemes and identify their phoneme values.

Our suggestion that teachers be offered more support aligns with the DfE’s expectations, and yet even DfE guidance can send conflicting messages. Is a Word Mapping Standard required?

How are you determining the phonemes and graphemes? Is there a clear word-mapping formula?

We check how children are mapping words, so why are we not asking teachers how they map words?

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:

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:

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.

We offer a pre-course check on ShowTheCode.com

Phonics reform question:

Perhaps we’ve focused too heavily on:

How much can we explicitly teach children?

A more useful question may be:

How quickly can we give children the knowledge, tools and access they need to start teaching themselves?

Teach what they need.

Show them the rest.

Follow the child.

Moats (2020) highlights limitations in teachers’ knowledge of phonology and the structure of written language. Yet in England, teachers are expected to understand how phonemes and graphemes map for reading and spelling and to highlight new correspondences as they arise throughout the day. That creates an obvious problem. How can teachers reliably show children unfamiliar correspondences if they aren’t themselves certain how every word maps? This is why technology that shows the code is so important for everyone. To design this for teacher use, however, we need a Word Mapping Standard. That means that the DfE must be clear about the formula used to calculate the code