1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Above average readers fail phonics screening test!

Discussion in 'Primary' started by ginger22, Jul 5, 2012.

  1. Your success doesn't annoy me in the slightest, eddie. It is obvious that sustained daily reading practice will lead to improvement.
    What annoys me are your wild and completely unfounded assertions about how reading is, and has been taught in the last few decades, your refusal to back them with evidence and your spiteful rhetoric.

    Perhaps you should refuse to engage with nerllybird too?
    Ironic that you should actually express a wish that SP were rigorously taught in all schools and believe that it would prevent future reading problems, particularly as you have repeatedly said that it won't make any difference to the '20%'.. We are in complete agreement on the first point.
  2. mystery10

    mystery10 Occasional commenter

    Can someone please give me some references to research showing that daily reading practice will lead to improvement ....... it seems obvious, and I do have some references, but I need some more for a crazy course.
  3. I'm glad success doesn't doesn't displease you Maizie so here's another one that came in this morning cut, pasted and italicised directly to this page.
    22 children in cohort4 dis-applied from SAT due to specific SEN
    18 children took test including 1 child who arrived new to school the week before the test.83% high level 4a or 5c+ (15 children) the 4a children were within 2 marks of a 5! all scored 30 marks +Therefore only 2 children who had experienced the project did not get high 4a or 5c+
    We had more 5b than EVERI

    I want SP not just to be taught to all early years children but much more importantly, I want it to be taught rigourously to all early years children. When that happens, we may well aspire to a situation in which every child gets at least Level 4 English at KS 2 and GCSE Grade C instead of just 80% as the indisuputable data from the past several decades shows to be the case. I am realistic and experienced enough in teaching, in educational management and research to know that that happy situation is still a very long way off. KS 2 data consistently shows that 20% of children are unfortunate enough to be in schools where SP is not taught with sufficient rigour. In the meantime, I am unwilling to have these children consigned to the dustbin of illiteracy because of either poor teaching or as in your case, by fundamentalist dogma.I am not content to sit back and cherry-pick the literature to find 'evidence' to support my beliefs - I choose a more practical route and one which will over the next term, involve about 100 schools from all parts of the UK - schools where the HTs have an open mind, reject dogma and have a willingness to experiment with new ideas.
  4. Ramjam

    Ramjam New commenter

    With you there Msz.
    Some very good readers seem to use phonic knowledge to decode strange words automatically, but i've seen some of those goodreaders skim over unfamiliar words because they lack the tools to deal with them.

    This was not a reading test. It was a check on whether teachers were teaching synthetic phonics effectively. So if they 'failed' and they weren't SEN, perhaps they need a bit more emphasis in SP next year.

    Our results were good, but didn't tell us anything we didn't know about the better readers. I was surprised in some cases how well the SEN and LA readers did. I knew they had been taught the sounds in R W I but some of them retained more than I expected.
    My biggest disappointment was that not enough children pointed out that the alien 'names' didn't have capitals.
  5. He doesn't need to. A person ignorant enough to make a remark like his about TAs is not someone whose opinions interest me to any significant extent. [​IMG]

  6. I think we must develop a test immediately to find out how many children are able to spot missing capital letters at the beginning(s?) of sentences and proper nouns. We could call it Foundations of Upper Case Knowledge: Identification Test. Oh no, wait. I think we already have that test in our school, I have heard several people mention it this week.
  7. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    Perhaps they realised (as the check stated) they were the names of types of creatures, like dog, cat, elephant not like Tom, Dick and Harry
  8. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    Then we agree Eddie
    The problem is Eddie the schools you quote don't have 20% failing to achieve level 4 or higher neither does the school where I teach which seems to me to indicate that some schools are failing huge numbers of children.
  9. At my school, about 50% of the Year 1 children passed the phonics screening. I too found that I had some 1a/2c readers who did not reach the expected level of 32/40. They are good readers and they do use their phonological awareness in context, to some extent, when attempting to establish meaning. However, they also read for gist, and when given phonetic words out of context, they did struggle as they could not use these other strategies. But when I looked at their writing levels there was a very clear correlation. In my class, ALL (bar one) of the children who did not meet the expected level in the phonics screening, I had levelled as 1b or below for their writing. ALL the children who scored 32/40 or above, I had levelled as 1a or above for their writing. Has anyone else found that the phonics screening is more indicative of the children's ability to write than to read? I actually found the screening useful: to have that one-to-one assessment opportunity, and to see individual and common gaps in the children's phonics.
  10. Ramjam

    Ramjam New commenter

    Perhaps I should be more positive and say how pleased I was that some children did notice the lack of capitals. They were cute enough to notice that some aliens appeared twice, with different names.
    I like the acronym for the recognition of capitals test!
  11. Hi, I have just found this thread and would like to add my own thoughts. I carried out the phonics screening test and in my class, a girl who is an excellent reader 2c+ at six years old, fluent and expressive etc - scored 1 mark over the pass mark. The only words she didn't get were the 'alien' ones. Perhaps she was trying to link a nonsence word to one from a similar word family.
    Knowing the sounds in the test is not the issue - they only score if they blend it correctly. Children use a range of skills to support their reading, not just the words on the page.
    I think it was a ridiculous exercise especially when some teachers sent home 'alien' words for children to practice on. Why on earth would they need that skill? Or even worse allowing children to have a practice run with the test! Teachers used to teach to the test for SATs - are we now expected to do the same for the phonic assessment so parents do not pile on the pressure and judge us as failing their children?
    Your daughter cannot be failing as a 2b reader at 6 years old. In fact I would say she is a high achiever. You should be very proud of her, yourself and her teacher for supporting her.
  12. I want it to be taught rigourously to all early years children.
    Then we agree Eddie
    But we only agree on what is superficial - on the things that the vast majoirty of teachers agree about - we disagree on what is critical in bringing about change. I asked you if you would not concede that it is commonsense to offer children predicted to achieve Level 3 English an alternative, time-limited strategy that could seriously enhance their essential appreciation of the phoneme/graphem correspondences and you declined to answer. This means either (a) that you disagree with that commonsense position or (B) you agree with it but cannot bring yourself to concede that it is commonsense.
    The problem is Eddie the schools you quote don't have 20% failing to achieve level 4 or higher neither does the school where I teach which seems to me to indicate that some schools are failing huge numbers of children.
    The percentages of underachieving children are an irrelevance - if a Year 6 class has just one child expected to achieve Level 3 English and they decline to adopt any alternative strategy which might restore that one child's diffiiculty - that school is in denial and that child's rights are being sacrificed on the altar of fashionable dogma and that is wrong. Some of the schools in my study were in special measures and some of the ones I quoted from the 2010/11 did indeed have 20% or more predicted to achieve less the 80% - one was predicted to achieve 54%!
    The harsh reality is that it will be many decades before every HT and every Early Years teacher is convinced that rigorous SP or similar phonics teaching will resolve the vast majority of literacy difficulties and it is folly to ignore that reality. You make your own choice - there is no way I will ignore this reality and agree that vast numbers of children will have to accept illiteracy because SP dogmatists consider it apostasy to contemplate the use of anything other than their preferred strategies. That to me is a real 'head in the bucket of sand' approach to Education.Its just not for me!
    I have one HT who has recently taken PL on board for three years. She says her Years 1 and 2 are now rigorously taught SP and will have no need of the PL exercises to secure their reading skills but her Years 3, 4, 5 and 6 children did not have rigorous SP teaching and she regards the PL strategy as their saviour. This lady expresses my own aims very precisely.
    I think a time may come when parents will be bringing civil actions against local authorites who fail to deliver literacy to children who, had they been appropriately taught, would have been spared the ignominy of illiteracy. I repeat that to become literate it is essential that the graphme/phoneme correspondences are learned - however they are learned. Whether they are learned ritually as a consequence of formal lessons or perceptually as a consequence of appropriate experience is unimportant and your silence on this point would suggest that we do not agree when it comes right down to the nitty gritty.

  13. Your daughter cannot be failing as a 2b reader at 6 years old. In fact I would say she is a high achiever. You should be very proud of her, yourself and her teacher for supporting her.

    Don;t go away. Commonsnse of this type is all too rare in this discussion.
  14. Exactly. Reading and decoding are two different things. Obviously when you read something there is decoding involved, but there is a lot else as well. I've had no direct involvement with this test, and since I work in KS2 I'm afraid I haven't even participated in any staffroom discussion about it. But it seems to me that its potential to stir up pushy parent panic should by itself render the thing defunct. Despite my best efforts to elicit information, I've seen nothing in this thread to convince a reasonable, intelligent person that the narrow-minded approach represented by phonics-only is workable. It's regrettable that whilst everyone seems to agree that phonics teaching is effective, extreme views have allowed the development of a schism which is potentially detrimental to the provision of child-centred teaching of reading.
  15. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    yes one little boy asked if they were the same breed [​IMG] and I had lots of comments about hairstyle and teeth and a long discussion about one leg being longer than the other (with demonstration of how the creature would limp)
  16. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    What would that strategy be Eddie?
  17. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    Have you had any phonics training or even observed phonics being taught ?
  18. Is it not possible for you to concede that the one or two children in your school who did not achieve Level 4 just might possibly have benefitted from a relatively short, time-limited intervention which just might have made the phonics exericses more accessible and hence more productive - or is that kind of thinking just too far outside your comfort zone?

    The question did not specifify or restrict the answer to any paricular strategy as you are of course well aware. Where a child was predicted to achieve only Level 3 English at KS2, a person of integrity woud try ANY practical alternative - whatever that might be. Your obvious attempts to avoid answering the question, indicates that you would prefer to remain in the comfort zone of your dogma and that you would persist with the same strategy that had already failed the child.

    PS To those who have contacted me about the Grammar course, I already have a full quota of schools for the main literacy project - I am seeking now to create a list of those who might be interested in a parallel project focused on the new Grammar test.
  19. mystery10

    mystery10 Occasional commenter

    I have PM'd you Eddie. Thanks
  20. Sorry.I have never used the PM facility and dont know how to access it! An email is the best way to contact me.

Share This Page