Why is MN so obsessed with reception reading?

[skiphopskidaddle]

It's a marathon, not a sprint. It doesn't matter if Johnny is on red and Amy is on lilac as (a) different schools go at different paces and (b) children develop different skills in different order.

I can't quite believe the number of reception reading threads I've seen this week along the lines of "what colour book is yours on?". I'm going over to the behaviour/development board now to check for obsessive posting about when children learn to walk. Cos it doesn't matter either, in general.

No mathanxiety that is your understanding which may be coloured slightly

4.4 The evidence shows phonics is a more effective teaching strategy than using picture prompts and other cueing systems to help children read individual words.

4.5 We do not underestimate the importance of teaching wider reading skills. All children should be taught to read for meaning and pleasure throughout primary school. The evidence shows phonics teaching is most effective when taught as part of a language-rich curriculum. Introducing a check of phonic decoding in Year 1 does not mean that schools should delay teaching children wider literacy and comprehension skills.

So what is more likely to happen, Mrz, everything will proceed exactly as before, or parents will demand that their children be taught for the test? Once an element of testing is introduced, nobody will want to hear about language rich blah blah, or anything except methods that will directly relate to the tested skills.

When you start talking about 'crucial skills' and the context is testing, then those skills are the skills that will be taught. When you state that decoding using phonics is the only skill that will be tested and imply that decoding using phonics is a crucial skill, then that sounds to me like a manifesto for SP and the death knell for everything else.

'4.3 'The check will continue to assess only decoding using phonics because this is the crucial skill which enables children to become effective readers.'
I see no ambiguity here, or any room for doubt that SP is the preferred method of teaching decoding. This is borne out by Annex C. There's a little waffling about language and some lip service to other methods, but SP is clearly policy and will be firmly cemented in place once testing begins.

Honestly? I think nothing will change. Instead of testing 6 year olds phonics knowledge he should be testing their teacher's phonics knowledge.

What other method of "decoding" words by 6 year olds would you suggest is tested mathanxiety?

I would be inclined to forget about the testing, especially where the tests themselves seem to be so poorly thought out. However I think this is about getting all teachers marching to the same drum so essentially it doesn't really matter how the test is composed, as long as there's performance anxiety generated...

It is quite funny to see a department of education basically making a dog's dinner out of reinventing the wheel though.

Obviously I think there is more than one way for individuals to learn to read, and maybe even several operating at the same time, with SP being one among many. You could administer a whole battery of tests (see links) to gauge individual progress, if feedback was what you wanted, or to ascertain what path to literacy a particular student was following.

Actually the Department for Education seem to have adopted an existing test rather than inventing another.

I didn't ask about "reading" (as I think this is a much wider skill) I asked about methods for decoding mathanxiety.

Even the Dept says
(1.2) 'Phonics is a prerequisite for children to become effective readers, but it is not an end in itself. Children should always be taught phonics as part of a language rich curriculum, so that they develop their wider reading skills at the same time.'

I don't agree with the basic assumption that phonics is a prerequisite for children to become effective readers. So it follows that I think the testing of decoding skills is something of a waste of time.

I haven't said there are other methods for decoding that could or should be tested...

The discussion of whether to give a mark for sounding out of words vs. reading them correctly at first shot reveals a level of muddled-ness that is very alarming. My DCs would all have passed with flying colours, despite never having a formal phonics lesson.

And I think you are mistaken that they imported a pre-existing test:
'How we will develop the screening check
4.1 Taking into account the consultation responses, findings from the pre-trialling and the academic evidence, we propose to continue to develop the phonics screening check. The screening check will have the same purpose as set out in the consultation document.'

'4.2 Through the piloting we will determine whether the check can be reported in two levels. If reported in two levels, the check would show which pupils are able to segment and blend the most common grapheme-phoneme correspondences in shorter words, as well as the number of pupils who have reached an appropriate level in phonic decoding for the end of Year 1.'

That looks like a work in progress to me... See 4.21 also. The whole consultation and trialling process is designed to fine tune the test.

I have never claimed it is an end in itself. The ability to decode new words is the staring point for children to become readers and the foundation to develop the other skills needed to become proficient readers. Children who can't decode words aren't going to want to read and will never find the joy of losing oneself in a book.

mathanxiety the test they are using has been in use in schools for at least 5 years ... so I would call that using an existing test not inventing a new one

My DCs would all have passed with flying colours, despite never having a formal phonics lesson.
Learning to decode, or figuring out new words by attending to the letter/sound correspondences does not necessarily require 'formal phonics lesson'. The phonic element in words can be pointed out during lap-reading, without a single formal phoncs lesson, and many children piece it together with that type of exposure. It's not unusual.
As I understand it the decoding test will require children to read the words - some may sound them out,some may not. It would be odd if a fluent 6 year old reader were required to revert to out-aloud blending if they have already left it behind, for the test.

I have to say, having foolishly restarted the thing, I am rather sceptical here. Partly, although I use non-words to formatively assess and reinforce GPCS in certain contexts (proper nouns, alien 'speak', games to distinguish between them and real words) I'm not wild about telling readers by this stage in YR1 that in any other situation they need not to worry if a word is known to them-developing self-correction and vocabulary building skills is so essential to turning them into those learning to read, and a greta many are already on that road.

I really don't see what the point of having a single national test is. It does what teachers have done anyway, which is test whether GPCs have been developed by learners. But it doesn't allow any research into why or show anything about teaching quality because it is not linked to teaching method or other confounders (especially pre-school attainment). Neither do I have any confidence in how it will be used - this allows ranking of schools, and governments of all political hues are obsessed with choice and legally required to provide information asked for. It will be seen as a measure of YR1 reading and league tabled accordingly, even if its own developers wish it to be no such thing.

And the figures are bizarre, the repeated stress on Clackmannanshire unadjusted, and all raise questions about the whole exercise-consultation it was not.

Just another waste of time in which I sacrifice the time and ability to usefully formatively assess learners in order to be assessed myself on shitty criteria. So am cross, although basically defend the principle of the methods used.

It's the bottom 20%-30% who need to be absolutely secure in their decoding abilities before moving on. It's these children who end up, in most cases, with unnecessary labels, or end up in Youth Offending Centres, or in prison, unable to take up work that requires reading accuracy.

Is it really too much to spend 3-4 minutes checking each child? It's all very well saying that teachers assess their pupils all the time. Why then do we come across 7 year olds unable to decode m a t, reverting to guessing, unable to work out the code for m a t when the class is working on split digraph m a t e. There are thousands of non-words that can be used - that's why you can't 'teach to the test'. Last week, I wrote out 7 non-words for a child - 5 were o.k. but words zup, and blus weren't. Why is a child near 7 unable to recognise /u/ 'u'? This child will bomb between 7-8 when reading becomes more extensive (the US grade 3 glitch),. Why deny him the foundational skills he needs?

Many, many teacher training courses would agree with mathanxiety - after all they aren't responsible for the left-behinds. Of course 'our children can do it ...' without alphabetic code knowledge and practice. Is this true of teachers of the periodic code, genetic code, musical notation? Do they emphasise complexity, before simplicity?

No response to criticisms of alternative schools - ie Steiner- mathanxiety. Or to the Inner London progressive experiment in the 1970s-1980s - which produced massive numbers of children whose lives have been blighted by semi-literacy.

No urgency expressed for these children - just the self-satisfied 'my children didn't do phonics' repeated endlessly. Yes, we understand that at least 1/3 of children manage to internalize the 'code' without specific instruction, and that includes children from very challenging, book free homes. You have absolutely no answer, mathanxiety, for the majority of children who need specific, focused, logical instruction.

Many of us did OG courses similar to the programme that you use for your adult students. When we found that SP was far more logical and focused, we changed. I know of no-one who has taught SP who has then switched to an Orton-Gillingham programme. For a private tutor,this can result in a considerable loss of income - it does not take years to teach someone synthetic phonics - unlike Orton-Gillingham - which can take up to 10 years (nice little earner).

The question is not whether we need to check each child, which we surely do anyway, but whether we need to produce a standardised series of tests to do it, the content of those tests, and the way the data is used.

Note, for instance, the inclusion of YouGOv polling which showed people wanted a test of reading, and how that became a test of decoding. Or the way 30% who like the tests have spelt out reasons, and the majority that don't do not. Suggests either some seriously muddled or some willfully stupid governmental thinking.

Malaleuca my point in my reference to my DCs potentially passing the test was that a test of the effectiveness of phonics teaching cannot accurately gauge what it seeks to measure by hearing a 6 year old read fluently. That child may have arrived at fluency without exposure to phonics. The test really does not assess what methods have been used or what paths to fluency a particular child may have trodden.

The anxiety generated by testing is apparent in teachers asking for selections of non-words for practice. The fact that children are relying on methods other than SP or any systematic phonics method alone is suggested by the account of the surprising number of mistakes made in reading the non-words.

Allchildrenreading, you seem intensely annoyed by references I have made to my DCs and seem to have misread my purpose in mentioning them, which was initially to illustrate a point that SP is not the only way to teach reading, and never to disagree with the statement that SP is an effective means of teaching decoding or to disagree with the assertion that SP (or any systematic phonics programme) is necessary for some children.

I assure you there is no self satisfaction intended, or smugness or lack of concern for others. Please read the post where I described the sort of school where I paid to send my DCs. I am getting tired of your continued inability to understand what I am saying about SP as it is used in UK schools -- basically, it is done too early and at the expense of other skills and social and emotional milestones, and it would be every bit as effective for all students if taught at a later age. There is no urgency in my posts because there is no sense to an attitude of urgency about teaching 4 year olds SP, no suggestion in any but very faulty studies and reviews based on them that this should be mandated.

If you would take the trouble to read back through my posts you will find I have nothing good to say about Steiner schools. If you can find previous MN threads wrt Steiner where I have posted you will note that I have many objections. Wrt the progressive experiment, its appeal at the time can partly be explained as reaction against the routine humiliation, punishment and slapping down of children that often existed in school culture up to then. The academic results were terrible for the most part, but they were hardly stellar in the system that preceded them in inner London. Educational outcomes in British school shave always been characterised by gross disparity between the achievers and the non-achievers. There is a long 'tail' of non-achievers and it predates the 70s by many decades.

I suggest that the experiment can be seen as an example of what can happen when schools focus narrowly on only one age inappropriate aspect of children's development -- at an age when the children should have been encountering structure and required to apply themselves academically they were instead stuck in an early childhood idyll/cul de sac. But what is under way now is just as much an experiment and there is just as much at stake.

I am a literacy volunteer, Allchildrenreading, not a private tutor. I have never earned a penny from it. No-one I have taught has had to pay a penny for their classes.

Adela, that document shows both seriously muddled and willfully stupid government 'thinking'. Even as a PR exercise it sucked.

AdelaofBlois the government carried out a consultation which very few people responded to and then ignored what the majority of respondents said anyway for once I agree with mathanxiety a disaster of a PR exercise!

The test really does not assess what methods have been used or what paths to fluency a particular child may have trodden.
In a sense I agree with you Mathanxiety. Are you suggesting that what is really needed are performance indicators, (something akin to the swimming tests we have here in Australia,) where the level descriptors are very explicit, and the teaching is 'to the test'. Children are not permitted to progress to next level unless they have successfully completed the previous level. Grade music tests are similar. DI programmes and some others are similar in this sense. A decoding test is the bottom line and does not, I guess, presume to assess the things you mention.

I'm afraid that is what is happening in some schools following L&S Malaleuca. Teachers aren't allowing children to learn the 44 phonemes until they have mastered phase 2 and they can't do ccvc and cvcc words until they've mastered all 44 phonemes and then they can't learn the alternative ways of writing the 44 phonemes ... madness!

I have a question - why are children taught to read and write at the tender age of 4 but for the rest of the time they are given a pointless 'creative curriculum' where they learn absolutely nothing unless it is a topic relevant to them? Education is much more than reading and writing. What about geography, history, science etc etc? Or are they not important now? I don't understand why they children are pushed to work at a young age but the rest of the time they just 'rest on their laurels'. The problem starts with primary school education and is carried on to secondary school education. When children start school at 6 or 7 elsewhere, they REALLY start to learn!!! That's why they have 6 or 7 years of PROPER play beforehand. Ah, what's the point? We can always get people from abroad to study Chemistry, engineering etc etc. As a nation we just can't compete if we are not providing our children with the education they deserve. It is a crime.

You seem to have a very odd idea of what happens in English schools magdalene.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/primary/1178898-Thinking-of-skipping-reception-year-cant-be-the-only-ones-surely?pg=3
I found Bonsoir & Anaxagora's posts interesting

magdalene - I agree, 4 is too young. DS enjoyed the jolly phonics though but I wish they would do it later, Y1 might be more appropriate to start. Do they do nothing in reception? Now in Y1 DS seems to learn about electricity, geography, science ... all in a lovely playful and experimental way with lots of songs thrown in.

So when we watched the frogspawn in our pond develop into tadpoles and finally into frogs we weren't doing science? When we watched caterpillars turn into butterflies we weren't doing science? When we hatched our ducklings we weren't doing science? When we made electrical circuits and investigated which materials made the buld light up we weren't doing science? When we investigated melting and freezing ice and snow we weren't doing science? When we make toast we aren't doing science? When we melt chocolate and use Pudsey moulds we aren't doing science? When we experiment with magnets we aren't doing science? When we watch our shadows lengthen and shorten according to the position of the sun we aren't doing science? When we drop ink onto chromatographic paper to watch the colours separate we aren't doing science?

When Jess's 92 year old granny brought in her doll and told stories about her childhood we weren't doing history? When we sing traditional songs from our area and learn about the lives of the people mentioned we aren't thinking about the past? When we visit a castle ... not history? When we look at how our school has changed since parents or grandparents went to school?
When we visit the shops and make a model of our route we aren't learning map skills for geography?
When we taste exotic fruits and see where they came from on a world map we aren't doing geography?
When we look at the seasons and weather we aren't of course doing geography? When we visit the beach and explore how the sea has eroded the cliffs not geography?

When we use rocks and materials we find on the beach to make pictures art perhaps? When we weave grasses and leaves could it be art? When we listen to the Firebird and dance with flame coloured ribbon ?

and I completely forgot running with kites and feeling the power of the wind... blowing bubbles and watching the colours ... dropping oil on a puddle and watching the way it floats ... using ramps and toy cars ... seesaw fulcrums ... bouncing balls ... floating and sinking ...

no you are right children don't do or learn anything other than phonics and counting in reception