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.
Discussion in 'Primary' started by s7ace, Mar 17, 2012.
and is that not what we refer to as phonics?
I wrote that we collectively agree that certain graphemes will represent specific phonemes. and is that not what we refer to as phonics?
Of course it is but that makes it phonics - not language. I pointed out, unsuccessfully it would seem, that the Chinese communicate with each other in both their spoken an writtten language.
I think this thread is a little silly and in danger of becoming very silly.
funny how often you do that Eddie.
No we don't. That is a non-sequiter.
The 80% figure is based on the national results of the KS2 English NCTs which show that 80% of children achieve L4 or above. There is a significant number of schools which achieve 90%+. They must be using a more effective strategy than the schools which pull the over all result down to 80%. So saying that any strategy is only 80% successful is clearly incorrect.
There is no necessary connection between method of teaching and successful schools. There are many factors that make a school successful. We could look at their methods and curricula but we would also need to look at intake, ethos, social circumstances of pupils, resources including teaching staff, commitment and training of staff, stability of staff group, effectiveness of leadership, quality of premises and environment, class numbers and staff-pupil ratios, pupil mobility, attendance, SEN provision etc. etc. before judging the significance of the teaching method.
The Y1 teacher at my school has done nothing but make a massive fuss off this and stress and panic about it. I don't know why I wrote that, I think i wanted to share it. lol.
Last week I had a lovely time on a phonics course in another LEA but there was one poor teacher who was in such a state about the test. The problem seemed to be down to school leadership rather than the actual test
I had two year 1 children who got 2a's in the year two sats reading test...(they enjoyed it but i didn't want to torture them with the level 3...) and they failed the phonics screening test. They're not using phonics as their main strategy. Shall i take them back to sounding out/blending. er..no...
The only word any of our children tried to change was shurbs ...and a few said brush<strike>e</strike>s
I think, if you look at schools with very high reading SATS results in wealthier areas, you will find lots of schools with great results who used mixed methods - mine being one of them! We do teach phonics fairly rigorously (more so than my own children's school) but also use context cues. Not my personal preference, but I am only one of our Literacy Co-ordinators!
Do you think intensive SP is more necessary in areas with higher levels of deprivation? Do those children need SP more than children from more middle class demographics? Genuinely interested by the way!
I don't think social class comes into it, but children who have been exposed to books have a better chance of having worked out some of the rules themselves
Yes, that's true. I also think our children (middle class, educated demographic) come to school with a much wider oral vocabulary which also has a massive impact on early reading.
I am interested in why many middle class children appear to learn to read above the statistical level of other children (i.e. our school has around 98% level 4 and above when they finish primary) and yet are not taught using exclusive SP in the EY. There's obviously something else going on that these children are exposed to, that has benefited them when it comes to learning to read (with or without exclusive SP).
Can part of the reason be that once they have started learning to read these children get far more actual reading practice at home than would some children from deprived backgrounds? I don't subscribe at all to the 'you learn to read by reading' theory but I do think that once you have learned the mechanics of how to read that learning is consolidated and extended by lots of reading (if you don't use it you lose it!)
Having said that, I would agree with Msz that it isn't completely a class thing. We are in an area of high deprivation but the children I get to work with represent a fair cross section of 'classes' and we have children from deprived backgrounds who are perfectly competent readers.
How did you do?
segmenting and blending is still a key strategy to use for reading tough words - at any level. You should still encourage it, especially as the government will be judging children's reading on this test - it does not matter what the reading level is, the child still failed.
as an experienced KS1 practioner and headteacher, i was very interested to read your response!
We have implemented the test this week and i came across your thoughts whilst searching for any information on line as to how schools are finding the results in terms of % passing? we are a large first school in an area of social economic poverty with good ofsted and we are looking at a 60% of our children having met the required level.
any thoughts if this is good or not would be welcome from other colleagues
V34, if these children really couldn't pass that easy-peasy check they need to improve their decoding skills somehow, despite being able to get a 2a by getting through a very simple reading passage and answering some very simple questions.
I didn't learn by phonics and I could have read all the stuff in that test at that age. Whatever your views on SP why do you think this result has not told you something. I'd be hopping mad if I was their parent and you had that attitude I can tell you!
Socio-economic status would not affect the results of a simple decoding check like this in the same way that it might affect the results of a verbal comprehension test. It is teaching method and amount of practice that is most likely to affect it. To a degree socio-economic might affect the results in so far as it is possible that a higher proportion of children of higher status might have intuited the code whilst reading at home than those of lower economic status. However as teachers of reading in year R and year 1 presumably you all hope that you would be able to teach the vast majority of children to do basic decoding by the end of year 1 whether or not there is any reading going on at home -- kind of in the same way that you would expect to be able to teach the vast majority some simple arithmetic too?
IQ should have very little effect on a test of decoding except at the very low end.
I've just seen this, Millibear. I agree with what has been said but children from middle class families do have a huge advantage by being introduced to books from an early age. When you're starting from a very low base focused SP is by far the most effective way to progress quickly into 'real' reading and have a chance to catch up.
Could you give me a list of these schools, Thumbie. I've been looking for a long time.It would save me a lot of time. Thanks.
PGCE students play a part in local schools and presumably bring their student 'knowledge' into play in the schools There has been an anti-phonics approach in Oxford and in spite of the advantages that a city with two universities has, it has dismal literacy rates.
Sorry, gcf, I don't have a list. I was using my common sense. As some schools have always been successful, even before the current emphasis on SP, I was inferring that schools can be successful without JP. My own experience of this was from inner city schools I visited during my training. They had good results, using schemes such as '1,2,3 and Away' which was popular at the time.