DfE EXPECTATIONS FOR WORD MAPPING

Although validated SSP programmes may differ in their content and teaching sequence, the DfE describes a specific process for mapping between spoken and written words. If children and teachers are expected to use this process beyond the GPCs explicitly taught within a programme, there needs to be consistency in how words are analysed and mapped.
 

The Reading Framework states:

“The number of graphemes in a word usually corresponds to the number of phonemes – hence the term ‘grapheme-phoneme correspondence’ (GPC).”

It adds:

“In a few cases, one grapheme represents two phonemes”

(Department for Education, 2023, p. 41).

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, 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, 2025, p. 41).

The DfE is also explicit that the focus should be on individual phonemes rather than consonant clusters:

“The focus should be on phonemes, and not on ‘consonant clusters’ (/s/+/p/+/l/ not /spl/)”

(Department for Education, 2023, Validation of systematic synthetic phonics programmes: Supporting documentation, Note 1).

This means that a consonant cluster such as <spl> is not mapped as a single phonemic unit. The individual phonemes /s/ + /p/ + /l/ are identified and mapped to the graphemes that represent them. Similarly, a consonant blend such as <sp> comprises the separate phonemes /s/ + /p/, rather than /sp/ being treated as a phoneme.

The DfE's own 2021 example progression is particularly important when considering word-mapping consistency. It explicitly presents letter combinations such as:

<wr> → /r/ as in wrist
<kn> → /n/ as in knee
<gn> → /n/ as in gnaw
<mb> → /m/ as in thumb

(Department for Education, 2021, Letters and Sounds: An example progression, 2021).

This is important because the DfE is treating <wr>, <kn>, <gn> and <mb> as graphemes representing phonemes, rather than analysing one of the letters as a separate ‘silent letter’.

For example, within the DfE's published progression, knee is mapped using <kn> → /n/.

An SSP programme that instead teaches <k> as a ‘silent letter’ and <n> as the grapheme representing /n/ is therefore giving teachers and children a different analysis of the same written word.
 

Taken together, the guidance presents a clear underlying model: identify the phonemes in the spoken word and the graphemes representing those phonemes in the written word. Consonant blends and clusters are separated into their constituent phonemes rather than treated as phonemic units, while spellings such as <kn>, <gn>, <wr> and <mb> are presented as graphemes representing phonemes rather than being divided into a sounded grapheme plus a ‘silent letter’.

This raises an important question. If programmes analyse the same words differently, children and teachers may be given different models of the alphabetic code despite all of the programmes having been validated by the DfE.
 

Consistency matters. Children may move between schools, teachers may use resources from different programmes, and children encounter words containing GPCs beyond those explicitly taught within their programme. If teachers are expected to support children to map words throughout the curriculum, the underlying phoneme–grapheme analysis should not change simply because a school uses a different SSP programme.
 

There is also a further fundamental question: whose phonemes are being mapped?

Pronunciation varies according to accent. A word cannot be mapped bidirectionally without first identifying the phonemes present in the pronunciation being mapped. We therefore need to examine whether programmes tell teachers to map words according to a child's regional pronunciation, or whether teachers are expected to use the correspondences and pronunciation model taught within the programme.

There is also a need for programmes to explicitly denote the intended phoneme, rather than leaving its identity to be inferred from a keyword or example word. The International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) is already used in DfE documentation, including documentation relating to the Phonics Screening Check, and therefore provides a logical option for identifying phonemes unambiguously.

The programmes we have examined appear generally to have been developed around British English pronunciation, but greater clarity is needed about what teachers should do when supporting children whose pronunciation differs from that assumed by the programme.
 

The proposed Teacher Test of Phonological-Orthographic Mapping will therefore examine whether teachers can map words according to their own pronunciation and according to a specified reference pronunciation, for example Received Pronunciation. The purpose of the latter is not to establish one accent as the ‘correct’ pronunciation, but to ascertain whether teachers understand the alphabetic code sufficiently well to identify and map the phonemes in a pronunciation other than their own.

ISSUES TO RESOLVE WITH THE DfE

It does not appear that every mapping presented by the DfE is itself phonologically consistent.

The DfE acknowledges that there are a small number of cases in which a letter or grapheme can correspond to two phonemes. Its validation documentation gives examples including <x> in box, corresponding to /k/ + /s/, and <qu> in queen, corresponding to /k/ + /w/ (Department for Education, 2023, Validation of systematic synthetic phonics programmes: Supporting documentation, Note 1).

The Reading Framework similarly gives <u> in uniform as an example of one grapheme representing two phonemes (Department for Education, 2023, p. 41).
 

There is an important distinction here. A single letter such as <x> can represent /k/ + /s/, and <u> in uniform can represent /j/ + /uː/. However, the treatment of <qu> as one unit representing /k/ + /w/ requires clarification because the two letters can instead be mapped individually: <q> → /k/ and <u> → /w/.

The DfE's treatment of <nk> raises an even clearer phonemic issue. In its 2021 example progression, the DfE states:

“One important phoneme, /nk/, that was not included in the original has now been added.”

(Department for Education, 2021).

However, in a word such as rink, <nk> corresponds to two phonemes, /ŋ/ + /k/. There is no single /nk/ phoneme. The DfE's description of /nk/ as a “phoneme” therefore conflicts with a phonemic analysis of the word.

This distinction matters when evaluating programmes. The comparison must not assume that matching a DfE example automatically makes a programme's word mapping phonologically accurate. It must distinguish between:

one grapheme representing one phoneme, for example <kn> → /n/ in knee;

one letter or grapheme representing two phonemes, for example <x> → /k/ + /s/ in box and <u> → /j/ + /uː/ in uniform; and

letter sequences treated as single units where the phonemic analysis itself requires clarification, including the DfE's treatment of <qu> and its description of /nk/ as a phoneme.

The reason for the DfE's treatment of <qu> cannot be established from the guidance itself. It may reflect established conventions within phonics programmes, but without documentary evidence this should not be presented as the reason.

Before a nationally consistent standard for phonological-orthographic mapping can be established, these issues will need to be resolved with the DfE.

WE ALSO NEED TO EXAMINE THE PROGRAMMES TEACHERS ARE USING

For each DfE-validated SSP programme, we therefore need to ask:
 

How does the programme map words?

Does it consistently identify the individual phonemes and the graphemes representing them?

Does it treat consonant blends and clusters as sequences of individual phonemes, rather than as phonemic units?

Does it analyse spellings such as <kn>, <gn>, <wr> and <mb> as graphemes representing phonemes, or does it leave individual letters outside the mapping by describing them as ‘silent’?

Does it explicitly identify which phoneme is represented by each grapheme, or is the intended phoneme left to be inferred from a keyword or example word?

Whose phonemes are being mapped?

Does the programme tell teachers how to map words according to the child's regional accent or pronunciation?

Where a programme's analysis differs from the DfE's published GPC analysis, what is the difference?

Where the DfE's own published analysis appears inconsistent with its stated phoneme–grapheme principles, this will also be identified rather than treating the DfE analysis as automatically correct.
 

The purpose is not to require validated SSP programmes to use identical teaching sequences. It is to establish whether, regardless of programme differences, children and teachers are being given a consistent and phonologically accurate phoneme ↔ grapheme analysis of words, and to identify where and why those analyses differ.
 

This work is essential to the development of the Teacher Test of Phonological-Orthographic Mapping. Before teachers can be tested nationally, there must be an agreed standard against which their knowledge and mapping can be assessed. Where inconsistencies exist between programmes, or within DfE guidance itself, these will need to be resolved with the DfE.

The Teacher Test will then assess whether teachers can apply that agreed knowledge independently of the SSP programme they use, including whether they can identify the phonemes and graphemes in words, map bidirectionally for reading and spelling, and account for differences in pronunciation.

The goal is a nationally consistent standard for teacher knowledge of the alphabetic code, regardless of which SSP programme a school uses.

References

Department for Education. (2021). Letters and Sounds: An example progression, 2021: Including guidance for publishers and systematic synthetic phonics programme developers. London: Department for Education.

Department for Education. (2023). The reading framework: Teaching the foundations of literacy. London: Department for Education.

Department for Education. (2023). Validation of systematic synthetic phonics programmes: Supporting documentation. London: Department for Education.

Department for Education. (2025). The writing framework. London: Department for Education.