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. That's not me then. I am not a proponent of 'mixed methods'. I just oppose the wholesale adoption of SP and the way it is being foisted on teachers and children currently. As they say this is a new approach, despite the fact that it has been around for at least a decade, the burden of proof is with the SP proponents, isn't it? You don't need to be a research scientist to marshall arguments against the phonics check! I've already posted them on here once today, so just look through today's posts. Have a look at all the phonics check threads and see many opinions and evidence from teachers who have been testing their children.
  2. All our strong readers passed easily. They did have a fair bit of practise at decoding (though not to the exclusion of all the other angles of reading) - but this cohort is I think going to be much stronger in reading by the end of yr 2 than previous groups, *because* they have learnt to be accurate right from the start. But we'll have to wait another year to see whether that turns out to be true. And it's a long time to wait to see the KS2 impact.
    I'd have wanted to know if a child of mine was an apparently strong reader but was not reading accurately, and I'd have wanted the school to put something in place before they got into KS2 (I've seen a lot of first-letter-and-context readers who are fine until the texts get more challenging in KS2, and it is much harder to sort out once the habit is entrenched).
    That doesn't necessarily mean that the OP's daughter has a problem with her readingat all - just that it would be worth finding out whether she does or not, rather than waiting to find out later.
  3. Anything for the initial teachimg of reading that isn't just structured, systematic phonics is 'mixed methods'. You don't believe in the exclusive use of phonics for the initial teaching of reading and now you claim that you are not aproponent of mixed methods. A bit of a search on your posts will show that you believe in cueing from pictures and context and reading words by analogy. That's mixed methods.
    You can't have it both ways, thumbie.
  4. Having noted the inadequacies of the SP-only approach, I can see they can be met by using some different methods alongside SP. If by your definition of an SP/ mixed methods divide, where folk are either in one camp or the other, that makes me a 'mixed method proponent', so be it. But I don't see myself as being in some sort of mixed method club. I don't belong to some sort of mixed method foundation. I just speak as I find, Maizie.Thank you for putting me right on where I stand. [​IMG]
  5. If your child is reading Roald Dahl at age six, forget the stupid tests – she is doing brilliantly not because of the phonics fundamentalists but in spite of them. I have no doubt she will continue to perceive reading as the very private, personal and confidential communion between herself and the author and not the sterile decoding exercise which phonics dogmatists would have people believe. They will concede that all children are different except when it comes to reading and then – they are all the same and one-size-fits-all. . Their pseudo-intellectual convictions are extremely damaging to a great many, usually less able children but a child who reads Roald Dahl at age 6 is safe from them.
  6. OK, Zigmania, I have browsed this article and searched it for references to phonics. At no point is synthetic phonics discussed. There is one short reference to a metastudy of research into methods for teaching reading which concludes that systematic phonics instruction is more successful in teaching reading than non-systematic phonics or no phonics. This does not actually mean that SP is the best or only method of teaching phonics or teaching reading, does it? The other reference to phonics in the article is about learning styles and evidence that using different methods of teaching reading matched to learning styles is not based on evidence, whereas the evidence shows that using phonics in reading instruction does have a good level of success. No surprises there then. This still does not mean that SP is the best and only method of teaching phonics or of teaching reading. The article seems to be mainly about evaluating and using research, not about phonics. So I'm wondering if I will find any evidence for SP being the best and only way of teaching phonics and teaching reading if I read the whole article. I'm sure it is a very interesting article, but perhaps not that relevant to the issues. Did you believe it would argue for the adoption of an exclusive SP approach of the sort currently recommended and rolling out to schools in the UK, Zigmania? I'm afraid I don't see any evidence of that, but if I have missed it please let me know.
  7. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    So Eddie how do you explain the fact that my son who could read Dahl in nursery was finally diagnosed with literacy difficulties at age 12? It's interesting people kept telling me not to worry because he was doing brilliantly all through primary school just because he was a precocious early reader with a high IQ matched by his high reading age and a NC level 6 in the Y 6 reading test.
  8. Msz, you have written about your son before. Am I right in thinking that he does not access reading through phonics at all, but remembers whole words? What happened when he was 12 to reveal that he had literacy problems? ( I hope you don't mind me asking).
  9. Thumbie. Go away and do some reading. Read the actual research which is listed in this article - and also apply some of the advice given about what ideas in education should be given credence. Stop demanding one short article that in some way proves everything. Such articles by their nature are a summary of all the research and so don't go into detail. I have spent many hours over the last three years finding out about research into reading - you clearly haven't. Go away and do some reading. Start by actually reading the articles referenced in the article I gave you then carry on and on and on. When you are actually KNOW what the research is then you might be in a position to debate its validity.

  10. This article is very good indeed at explaining why teachers so frequently hold views which are contrary to the research. I think Thumbie's approach is described very well on p108-9. I'm sure Thumbie would disagree! The whole article is very relevant when looking at why a screening check based firmly on research can be dismissed by teachers using it.
  11. Well, I'm very sorry if I misunderstood you when you referred me to the article. I don't expect one article to tell me all, but when you offered a suggestion of a bit of reading I guess I assumed it to be relevant. The problem with a meta analysis is of course that, as it is a summary of a body of research from different sources, it is not going to be detailed. But you can't criticise this study for not being detailed about reading approaches, as it is not a metastudy of reading approaches, but a text about using research effectively to make decisions in education. However, as far as it goes: the article does not say unequivocally that systematic synthetic phonics, taught exclusively without reference to other strategies, has been shown to be the best way to teach reading. What it says is pretty lukewarm and general (it's describing a meta study, so this is not surprising). Now , are you saying that this is not an accurate assessment of the meta study, or perhaps that it is not an accurate assessment by the metastudy, so I should be reading other things to get an accurate picture? Now, evidently you regard yourself as very well-read on the subject of reading research. Can't you recommend a good, well-written, independent summary of the evidence for SP. After all, you are the one recommending the method, you can't really expect readers of this thread to just blindly accept that you've read everything, assessed it correctly, compared it to counter- arguments and found that it proves that systematic synthetic phonics, used exclusively with other strategies outlawed, is the way to go. By the way, I have read articles recommended by SP enthusiasts on here, and read on and on, looking at materials that can be accessed for free or reasonably cheaply. I have also investigated counter claims and arguments. I have also used reason and logic in exploring the claims made for SP. I may be a bit of a novice at it, but you would imagine that, by now, with all these recommendations from people on here I would have stumbled across a well- substantiated claim, or at least one occasion on which the article/s recommended led to the conclusions claimed. That day is yet to come, Zigmania. But maybe, now you are posting, perhaps it Is coming a little closer.

  12. You haven't done much reading becasue you don't know anything about the research.
  13. Well, maybe this is it!On second thoughts maybe not, as it doesn't sound as if it's a defence of SP, just a reflection on teachers' attitudes to the research and change. However, hopefully it's worth a look.By the way, I do not have 'an approach', as I mentioned before. As a public servant I teach to the approach prescribed by the school.
  14. Are you Maizie under a new user name?
  15. So Eddie how do you explain the fact that my son who could read Dahl in nursery was finally diagnosed with literacy difficulties at age 12?
    I wouldn't dream of trying to explain the literacy difficulties of any child about whom I know nothing - I leave that to the numerous contributing pseudo-intellectuals. I do know of highly intelligent children with quite severe reading, spelling and writing difficulies - such children are not all that rare. Your past posts show that you are a phonics fundamentalist committed to the exclusive phonics dogma which means that any debate with you would be pointless.
    As a former head of an Observation and Assessment Centre, I have read literally hundreds of Educational Psychologists reports and yet never came across such a simplistic diagnosis as 'literacy difficulities.' If this was indeed the 'diagnosis' I would love to know what the 'prognosis' and the recommended 'prescription' were although I would not be surprised to learn that it had something to do with daily doses of phonics instruction.
    My own work involves continuous, practical research which focuses on children who, inspite of having completed the same phonics courses which delivered competence in litskills to their peers, did not do so in their cases. In these cases I always recommend that the non or near-non reading children taking part,should continue to complete the same phonics exercises as their peers and I have numerous reports that the phonics exercises which had previously failed them, became more productive after they had completed the PL intervention.
    My personal advice to the OP would be to ensure that her daughter continues to develop her love of reading and to try to ensure that no-one, however well-intentioned, robs her of this pleasure. The road to hell is certainly paved with good intentions.
    I have no personal experience of this particular phonics test but I would suggest that its purpose should be to inform teachers so that they could adjust their teaching. I think it is very sad that the test results were released to parents.

  16. Quijote

    Quijote New commenter

    I'm intrigued. A child achieved Level 6 in Reading at the age of 11 and was diagnosed with literacy difficulties at the age of 12? Who made the diagnosis, and had they been drinking?
  17. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    yet you happily told the parent of a child you know nothing about to ignore an effective and reliable diagnostic method of identifying possible literacy difficulties?
  18. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    2 separate Ed Psychs who looked beyond the fact that he was an excellent reader and began to wonder why he couldn't write.
  19. For every claim 'based on research' it is entirely possible for those with endless time to spare, to find a counter-claim also 'based on research.' We should perhaps take a leaf from the scientists who recently discovered the Higgs boson. They have had masses of 'eviidence' practical as well as theoretical, of the existence of this elusive particle but delayed making any claims for it until they were able to produce 5 Sigma proof.
    Decades of independent government statistic are 5 Sigma levels of proof (not evidence) that one child in five continues to leave school unable to read or write confidently. The almost universal proliferation of phonics courses in schools over the past two decades at the very least strongly suggests that this focus on phonics is having precisely the same impact on literacy standards as the Ladybird 'whole word' publications viz none whatsoever.

  20. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    I don't think maizie needs to create multiple names

Share This Page