Are your children’s vaccines up to date?

Set a reminder

Please or to access all these features

Primary education

Join our Primary Education forum to discuss starting school and helping your child get the most out of it.

"Ministers are planning a new reading test for six-year-olds to identify struggling pupils earlier. "

43 replies

Spingsummer · 27/08/2010 12:31

Here is the link for the article www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1306316/Thousands-pupils-unable-write-properly-struggle-basic-maths.html

OP posts:
Are your children’s vaccines up to date?
Saracen · 28/08/2010 00:47

@Spingsummer: "I have read on the MN comments about the Steiner system and it looks as many children still struggle to read by the age of 8 because of their laid back approach to reading and studying in general. There were mentioned many other bad points which I did not like. Looks like a rip off business."

I'm not a fan of Steiner, but I am in favour of late introduction of reading (unless a child is particularly keen to start early). This New Zealand study suggests that the Steiner method has no long-term effect on children's reading abilities: www.literacytrust.org.uk/news/1478_new_zealand_research_into_children_s_reading_released

I don't see "struggling to read by the age of 8" as an issue in itself. My older daughter is home educated and was allowed to decide for herself when to start reading; she was still "struggling to read" at eight but I could see she would get there in her own time. She has, and it has been an entirely painless journey. Within our school system, the inability to read at eight is a problem only because instruction is often given in writing and there is a stigma attached to being a so-called "late" reader. In Steiner schools, presumably neither of those applies.

It seems to me that a huge amount of effort could be saved if the teaching of reading were begun at seven or eight. By this time, most children would be developmentally ready and perhaps more eager to try it and would pick it up quite easily. The few who found it very difficult would be easier to identify and help, without the mass of "false positives" you get when you try to identify learning difficulties in six year olds. Many of these false positives are just children who aren't ready to read this year but will be next year or the year after.

maverick · 28/08/2010 08:35

There's discussion of that study here:
www.rrf.org.uk/messageforum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4328

UK educational psychologist, John Noble, comments on this study:

''All state educated children in NZ are first taught by the language based methods of Marie Clay which are akin to Reading Recovery Methods used here. Using a picture vocabulary test to assess 'receptive vocabulary' as one of his 'controls', the study compared the later reading comprehension scores of about 50 children at 11 and 12 attending Steiner Schools (which also stress the importance of language methods) and State Schools. No differences were found at 11 and 12.

This study has absolutely no implications whatsoever for the first teaching of reading in the UK using synthetic phonics, because no such comparison was included in the Otago study. After working in NZ a couple of streets away from Otago University and having assessed some dreadful cases of all round literacy skills failure in the 2 Steiner Schools sampled in this study, as well as witnessed similarly appalling cases of reading and spelling failure in NZ state schools, I think we need to advise great caution in this country about proposals about precipitous changes in the timing of first literacy teaching derivable from this amateurish bit of research nonsense from NZ''

restlessnative · 28/08/2010 14:35

great post maverick

The Otego study is flawed for the reasons elaborated in the above link. It should be treated with caution.

Learning to read at 7 or 8 is too late. Some Steiner school children don't learn at that age either. It is worse than a rip off business, though frankly that's a pretty good description from Springsummer.

AlgebraRocksMySocks · 28/08/2010 14:44

oh goody. yet another bundle of bureaucracy to take up teachers' time.

oh, and yet another way for children to be labelled as failures.

sigh.

BeenBeta · 28/08/2010 15:31

mrz/feenie - you and I have had long heated discussions about SATs testing in the past. As a parent, I like testing but even I think this is mad because surely any half decent teacher knows which children can read and which cant. We dont need a testing architecture to prove it. Anyway, dont we have SATs at the end of KS1 already?

Agree about some boys being slow and reluctant readers to begin with - I have one but he came on in the end.

mrz · 28/08/2010 15:41

BeenBeta the proposed testing is at the end of Year 1 not KS1 so after a year of compulsory education as with SATs teachers are assessing continually all year not just a single test. In my school we do reading tests twice a year in every year group so I imagine the new test would replace one in Y1.

Feenie · 28/08/2010 15:42
Grin
mrz · 28/08/2010 15:44

and for the record I'm not against SATs (national curriculum testing) just the purpose it has been used for

BeenBeta · 28/08/2010 15:55

mrz - yes that is the point I am making. I know you are not against SATs.

Formal testing at the end of Yr 1 as well as at the end of Yr 2 is way over the top though.

Mind you, DS2 had a teacher in Yr 1 who didnt seem to know he couldn't read very well and just left him to 'read on his own'. He logically decided he didnt need to bother - as the teacher wasn't that bothered. Clever lad!

Grin
cornsillky · 28/08/2010 15:59

I wonder which type of reading test they are considering and how it will be administered. Anyone know?

TheCrackFox · 28/08/2010 16:10

It will be quite a simple exam where the child will have to read a one word sentence:

"vote Tory"

BeenBeta · 28/08/2010 16:23

Nah - it would be dummed down.

They just have to read the word 'Tory', tick a box next to it and put the paper in a special box with a slot in the top. Grin

TheCrackFox · 28/08/2010 16:23
Grin
cornsillky · 28/08/2010 16:41

lol crackfox Grin

pointythings · 28/08/2010 18:49

@BeenBeta:

Grin

mrz - Purely out of interest - if you had the absolute power to decide, how would you manage SATs testing and how would you use the data it provided? Since you're a teacher, I'd really like your perspective.

Feenie · 28/08/2010 19:07

I'm happy with the way KS1 teacher assessment works - a wealth of different evidence backed up by one test, hopefully completed as a normal classroom activity.

After these changes to KS1 assessment were brought in in 2005, I really thought KS2 would follow suit. It's so much more accurate and makes so much more sense. And I don't have to sit for hours appealing marks for papers that have been marked so appallingly every year, as in KS2.

mrz · 28/08/2010 19:30

I would be quite happy to do summative testing at the end of the KS alongside all the day to day assessments teachers make but I would not use the information to compare "bog standard" primary school with "leafy suburb" primary or "silver spoon" primary. Instead I would use it for the purpose that assessment should be used to plan for the needs of each child to see where their strengths and weaknesses lie so that they can succeed and progress

Feenie · 28/08/2010 19:31

Agreed. Any comparisons should be made using value added scores only.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page