To not feel happy about 6 year old ds being 'tested' on fake words? Phonics.

[OHforDUCKScake]

And is this something all year one pupils have to do?

So the children learn the phonics, 'oa' 'air' 'ng' and so on.

Now, the government, since last year, want to test them on it. If they get a certain amount wrong, they fail and have to do it again.

The thing is, the way they test them is to give them fake words to check they really do know their phonics.

They will be given 20 real words and 20 fake workds and they have to get 34 out of 40 or their fail.

So, as long as they can read toast, fair, treat

As well as taim, roaf, rait

Then they will be ok.

I dont know where to start, honestly. First of all, testing them just so the government can see what the deal is, using them as guinea pigs it feels like. They are only 6!

Secondly, the weeks leading up to the test they have been teaching them fake non-words.

A test? At 6? That they can fail?

I asked if we were obliged to do this? Teachers are, and parents are. I have no choice but to let my son have the bullshit test.

If AIBU then thats fine, but he is our first so we dont know the drill and he is already struggling in some areas so possibly a little more sensitive than usual to him being taught bullshit words and being tested on them.

They are not LEARNING nonsense words. They're learning the strategies and processes of reading. I haven't sent home nonsense words but I have sent home "buried treasure" type activities- and not just recently in a panic about the test.

Has op come back on here to see her responses?

Magichouse, please don't tell everyone that 'we' teach children to guess words using picture cues because you can speak for yourself - most of us know that the searchlights model you describe is discredited in research and actually damages weaker readers.

You also seem to be very confused re the teaching of the alphabetic code - some up to date training would help you teach the alternative spellings you describe - children taught this well cope very easily and are not confused.

"Would you rather children learned letters' names rather than the sounds they represent?"

I would rather they learnt both. Oddly enough.

Yoni - because you have no way of knowing which children will fall into the 20% until it's too late and you have to also pick their self-esteem off the floor, which takes much longer than correcting the teaching which led the confusion for those 1 in 5 children - who could be anyone, regardless of ability or whether they have been read to since the day they were born or not.

But using phonics to teach decoding damages no one, apart from the teachers who still don't read the research, stick to outdated methods, shrugging and saying 'some children will always be confused', instead of finding out what works properly.

Makes me cross. [cross]

it is a screening test like a hearing test _ do you object to your children doing that too? Some children memorise a huge bank oe words and their inability to decode only becomes apparent much later on.without using nonsense words how do suggest isolating de coding skills . In my experience teachers tell the kids they are made up words io fact at our school they told then it was robot language and asked them he they could read any robot words

Perhaps I haven't expressed myself very clearly. I would not want my kids saying cat is spelled kih ahh tih because it isn't. It shouldn't be too hard for a moderately able child to learn that the letter is called J and the sound is juh. I have heard of kids being taught the sound the letters make and not the names of the letters as it is seen as too complicated and I think that that is dumbing down.

YABU - it's a system that works. And how on earth do you think they can make sure the kids are learning what they need to learn if they are not tested?!

It seems ridiculous to me. For a start, yes, as somebody said earlier, it does muddy the waters.

Second, phonics is a useful strategy, but only up to a point. There are lots of situations where it doesn't much help - look the different pronunciations you can have of words ending in "-ough", for example. Only a couple of weeks ago there was a lively debate on one Mumsnet thread about how you should pronounce the word "bowed". At some point the child who has learnt to read using phonics is going to come up against a whole load of words that don't follow the pattern.

Third, and most importantly, lots of children can't read at six. It's not because they're badly taught or not very bright - it's because they just haven't picked it up yet. Reading is one of those things that children learn at vastly different rates - some perfectly bright children don't get the hang of it till they're about 8.

At some point the child who has learnt to read using phonics is going to come up against a whole load of words that don't follow the pattern.

Very, very few words do not follow the alphabetic code. Again, this shows a lack of understanding as to what phonics is.

Alphabetic code

It is complex, and needs teaching well. It is far from dumbing down! Most of us who were taught using sight methods use it, but we worked it out for ourselves. Teaching phonics arms all children with this knowledge.

Which research, mirai - how to teach phonics, or which strategies make weaker readers struggle? The above link is a helpful start with the former.

Exactly, feenie: those of us who have done well in life have generally taught ourselves the strategies that we are now teaching everyone in order to make sure as many children as possible pick up basic skills.

"have" is a "tricky" word that is taught as such. Some words can't be sounded out, and this is one. There is a list of 100 high frequency words that we teach alongside phonics, some if which can be decoded and others that can't, such as "have".

Good teaching includes letter names too, by the way. Our foundation stage children learn "the name is A (ay) and the sound is a (ah)".

Mirai - www.dyslexics.org.uk/main_method_2.htm - this page is another good start for research links and help.

Also try rrf.org.uk/

Oh and we teach the spelling of tricky words using letter names as they can't be sounded out.

Yoni I didn't learn the names of letters until year 2 which was standard then. Its not dumbing down, is incrementing knowledge gradually so pupils can become familiar with the sound then add the name of the letter.

That's not what Letters and Sounds recommends, Blackholes - they should be taught as partially decodable with a 'ticky bit', i.e. a correspondence which they haven't yet been taught.

e.g. s - ai - d

Here 'ai' is code for the /e/ phoneme, but /s/ and /d/ are phonemes the children know at this stage. So no need to use letter names only - and not quite true to say they can't be 'sounded out'.

cornor rocks, they managed for years and years and years and years to know that their method was working. They started this 'test' last year.

The child moving up in reading books is just one way of knowing they are progressing and able to read phnoics.

Do you seriously believe tests are the only way you can see a child is progressing? How very odd.

OP, this check is used on a day to day basis by good schools anyway - the national element makes sure that poorer schools also use it, but they damn well ought to be checking the children's decoding skills anyway. This check ensures ALL schools teach properly and pick up the children who need better intervention.

Do you seriously believe tests are the only way you can see a child is progressing? How very odd.

It's a check - teacher assessment. Do you imagine teachers don't use this, day to day to, you know, actually find out what they NEED to teach, and what the children already know? How odd.

I suspect a better way (maybe alongside phonics etc) to teach children to read is to teach them to speak properly first.
(Yesterday was a bad day when it came to this)

Of course tests aren't the only way to see if a child is progressing!

But the phonics testing breaks it down and is a tool for teachers to identify exactly where some children need help.

The fact that this phonics test exists doesn't mean children are not also taught letter names, tricky words and spellings of words that don't follow any rule. It's just one part of a bigger picture.

Blackholes You are showing a lack of understanding of phonics.

'Have' is perfectly decodable- h-a-ve. My DD1 is not yet 5 but has been decoding that word for months. She knows at least the top 300 high frequency words by sight now- but I think the only ones I taught to her 'by sight' we're 'I' 'the' and 'one'. All the others she practised decoding using her phonics skills until she knew them (sometimes with help for the 'tricky' bits, but not nearly as often as people seem to believe).