Morph Mastery, a Morphological Intervention for Reading and Spelling Difficulties, by me, Louise Selby, was published the same month as the pivotal Department for Education (DfE) Reading Framework, July 2021. Since then the two have worked side by side beautifully, but there is still some misunderstanding about how Morph Mastery complements a systematic synthetic phonics approach. Let me explain.

Morph Mastery adopts a morphological approach to reading, spelling and vocabulary. It uses the system of language called morphology, by which words are constructed by units of meaning (prefixes, roots and suffixes). 

The Reading Framework recommends systematic synthetic phonics (SSP) in the early teaching of reading. SSP is based on phonology, the system of language by which words are made up of units of sound.

Morphology or phonology – so there’s a contradiction, right? Wrong.

“Can we use Morph Mastery in school – it isn’t Systematic Synthetic Phonics?”

I am regularly asked by SENCOs and local authority advisory teachers across the country how they can convince their schools to use Morph Mastery, when they believe Ofsted and the Reading Framework tell them to do phonics, and only phonics, for all children, forever. These experienced teachers know through their training and experience that a morphological approach works well as a complement to phonics. It’s concerning that school leaders feel their hands are so tied. In this blog I’ll offer ten reasons why Morph Mastery can be considered alongside government advice, including the research and evidence base.

10 reasons why Morph Mastery may be considered alongside Systemic Synthetic Phonics

1. Morphology does not replace phonics or SSP. Our written language is morphophonemic; in other words, there are both morphological and phonological rules. For example, to read or write untreated, you’ll need phonics to read/write the letters u + n. Your phonics will tell you that e + a makes the sound ea in treat. But you’ll also use the morphological knowledge that -ed means past tense in order to correctly spell untreated, rather than untreatid. 
   
   
2. The Reading Framework states that “literacy is as important for (children with SEND) as for their peers… These children have to navigate the same written language”. As we see in point 1, this written language is based on morphemes as well as phonemes, however those children with SEND often need more explicit instruction via intervention than their peers to learn these morphemes.
3. The Reading Framework also states that “Under the Equality Act 2010, (schools) are required to make reasonable adjustments to enable pupils with disabilities to have full access to the curriculum.” The English spelling curriculum contains morphemes from Year 1, e.g. un-, -s, -es, -ed, and complex spelling rules are involved in using these from Year 2. Weak spellers often struggle with these long after Year 2, for example writing happyness, runing and moveing. 
4. The study cited in the Reading Framework to evidence the “growing consensus” that the best reading instruction for children with SEND is SSP is in fact French¹ “In a 2021 French study of children with learning disabilities, Sermier said: These findings suggest that students with [special educational needs] benefit from phonics-based programs integrating research-based approaches and techniques.” –  this is a problem! English is different to French, which is much more phonetic. Addressing literacy difficulties in French using systematic synthetic phonics alone makes sense. But in English, it’s only part of the story. For example, signal and sign are related by their morphemes but sign is phonetically irregular (it should be sighn or sine). The sion/tion/cian words which confuse so many weak spellers are explained by their morphemes (process + ion, music + -ian, edit + -ion). And this spelling opacity does not just apply to these more advanced spellings: plays, for example,should be spelled playz if truly phonetic, but learning the meaning and function of the suffix -s helps with correct spelling. Phonics does not provide the full code.
5. In fact, many of the SSP programmes endorsed by the Reading Framework include systematic morphology instruction. 
6. The Framework states that “Every child is unique… but when it comes to reading, we all have roughly the same brain that imposes the same constraints and the same learning sequence.” Absolutely true. But specialists will know that this tiny word “roughly” is very significant. For the child with dyslexia, there is usually a phonological deficit; the brain does not work in exactly the same way as the neurotypical brain. Phonics can be learned (and it absolutely should be) but it may never be automatic or fluent for that learner. Some dyslexics even reach upper Key Stage 2 reading fairly well, but they are still sounding out every word in their heads, and this impacts speed and comprehension. Teaching these children morphological strategies lightens the cognitive load and to help with spelling too.
7. It is in fact well researched that a morphological approach supports literacy skills, especially for those with literacy difficulties. There’s a summary of this research on my website here
8. The Morph Mastery pilot, which I ran in Hertfordshire in 2020 before writing the book, offers compelling evidence that it works. ALL pupils on the pilot had persistent and significant literacy difficulties and ALL made accelerated progress. More data is again on my website, but here’s the overview:

9. In addition, at the end of the pilot, staff interviews about pupil progress revealed that Morph Mastery not only helped with word reading and spelling, but it improved confidence, vocabulary and comprehension. It ignited a love of the English language. All these comments are on the website, but here are some snippets:

I never expected such a clear, overt change. I could see in the sessions how much he was really getting into words.

One of the things that has surprised me is that the intervention has supported my learner to develop his vocabulary, not just his spellings. It’s bringing words to the fore that he wouldn’t usually use.

Morph Mastery gave her a new spring in her step and both her reading and writing improved significantly.

She has absolutely flown in her writing since working with Morph Mastery.

10. Children love Morph Mastery! This is very significant! Not just for fun (though that’s important) but because research shows that motivation is foundational for learning and metacognition. The Reading Framework advises the use of “materials that are age-neutral or age-appropriate”. While SSP can be used at any age, as long as the materials are right, it’s simply fact that by age 10 upwards, many learners who have failed, failed and failed again will throw the book at you if you try the same approach – even if you know it would work. This is the real experience for so many schools across the country, and Morph Mastery has been a very welcome alternative. 

Children on the pilot said: 

I love the handshake. I know what the real parts of the words are. It helps me to know what the root is because I know the real bit. I read more quickly and my reading is definitely better. It’s really fun.

I really like the games. I’ve learnt new things about words. It’s helped me learn spelling rules. My writing is better and I can do more in class.

An Emerging Paradox

What is lost in the “do phonics and only phonics” message reveals an emerging paradox. In fact, Ofsted and the DfE advise us that, for learners with SEND, it is the method of intervention for that matters most. In essence, this is:

• structured, small and cumulative steps 
• multiple opportunities for overlearning
• instructional routines that become familiar.
• suitably slower pace through the programme than for their typically developing peers

There are no quick solutions! These principles are all paramount, and Morph Mastery adopts them all. But the paradox is that if we throw phonics interventions at learners because that is what we think we’re told to do, we miss out on careful consideration of methodology – at the risk of pupil progress.

Are our hands really tied?

My concern with our current approach is that schools feel their hands are tied, and that this is to the detriment of our pupils’ learning. Many of the SSP “catch up” programmes move too fast for learners with persistent and significant difficulties. Perhaps most importantly, the Reading Framework recommends that good intervention for learners with SEND “take(s) full account of the child’s individual strengths, weaknesses, knowledge and understanding, and profile of needs”. This is the heart of the paradox. In the drive for more systematic synthetic phonics to teach reading, I am hearing first hand that schools feel less able to consider the child’s full learning profile. In spite of advice and experience from professionals who are paid to understand this better, they feel tied to SSP intervention forever.

Ofsted’s publication in October 2022 about reading in the secondary school “Now the Whole School is Reading, Supporting Struggling Readers in Secondary School” states the importance of a joined up, informed approach to addressing gaps in reading in secondary school. The findings of its research were that, where whole school reading is taught well: 

• pupils’ weaknesses were assessed in a thorough way, to ascertain the root of the problems. 
• there was a “carefully thought-out and implemented strategy behind improving reading,” 
• individual reading profiles were considered and assessment “built up a complete picture of their barriers to reading”. 

This is the very opposite of doing SSP interventions because we are told to. Of course, the methodology we are advised to follow may well lead to SSP interventions, but not exclusively so and not without assessment and understanding. I’m excited about schools who, having implemented SSP effectively, are now looking for Morph Mastery training to complement their strategy; this reflective practice is what our learners need.

The summary is the challenge. The DfE and Ofsted encourage systematic teaching of reading using SSP; this should be taken seriously at a whole school level in Key Stage 1 and in intervention in Key Stage 2 and 3. However, we know that pupils with SpLD and dyslexia often struggle with phonology; they need additional, and sometimes different, support in order to read and spell fluently. For pupils with SEND, the recommended methodology is crucial: highly structured, multi-sensory, cumulative approach to intervention which meets individual learners’ needs, and a whole school approach to using assessment to identify different needs. Morph Mastery meets all these methodological criteria and it complements a SSP approach. 

Let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater in our desire to do what’s right.