The Phonics Test for 6 Year Olds

[WroxhamSchool]

Hello from me!

Just a little introduction, I am the Deputy Head of The Wroxham Primary, in Potters Bar. We are a one form entry Primary School with a Nursery. We work on the principle that our children are the most important part of the school and as a result, we include them in their learning. For example the children help work out where we are going to go with our topics and they select the challenge of work they feel confident with, which makes for a great learning environment and one where the children feel valued. The school has moved from Special Measures in 2003 to Outstanding in in 2006, where it has stayed ever since.

That is just a little bit of background information, now onto the main event! I emailed Rowan Davies, who suggested that I posted on here, so I hope that is ok?

As some of you know the Government has decided to bring in a new test for our six year olds in England, to check their phonic knowledge. We at our school and many other organisations (see list below) are against this idea, as it goes against everything that we believe in.

We feel that this test, which will be reported to OFSTED, will narrow the curriculum for the children in Nursery and Reception, as some schools will feel pressure to ensure that the children are ready for the test in Year 1. This is not a good thing as it will result in putting some of our children off reading, as not every child accesses reading through this method.

We have started a campaign, which is gathering momentum, with our base being readingshouldbefun.wordpress.com

On the Blog you will find lots of information about the test, in addition to this you will find a short video showing the real meaning of reading (which does include phonics, just not only phonics).

We would love to have the support of Mumsnet, as we know that you are key to our children's learning (we only have them 6 hours a day!).

I would be interested to hear from people and try to answer any of your questions. I will also direct some of the people who are backing the campaign to this site, as they have additional information to myself.

Below is a statement from The Cambridge Primary Review, which details their position, but I would like to emphasise that we do not have a problem with the teaching of phonics, just the fact that our 6 yr olds don't need to be tested, or have the data sent to OFSTED.

Thanks in advance

Roger Billing

One of the key recommendations of the Cambridge Primary Review, the most comprehensive research into English primary education for the last forty years, recommends that children should have an entitlement to a broad and balanced curriculum. Research evidence in this country and internationally shows that talking to and with young children is of great developmental importance. Telling stories, listening to stories and enjoying books is a vital part of learning throughout primary school. The following video clip shows that enjoying high quality literature at primary school is essential and that learning to read should be a varied and rewarding process.

Some of the Groups backing the Campaign

David Reedy ? President, UKLA

John Coe ? Chairman, National Association for Primary Education (NAPE)

Alison Peacock ? National Network Leader for the Cambridge Primary Review (CPR)

John Hickman ? Chair, National Association of Advisers for English (NAAE)

Russell Hobby ? General Secretary, National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT)

Christine Blower ? General Secretary, National Union of Teachers (NUT)

Professor Trisha Maynard ? Chair of The Association for the Professional Development of Early Year Educators (TACTYC)

Bill Goodhand ? Chair of The National Association for Small Schools (NASS)

maverick

"Oh for goodness sake, dolfrog, 'learning styles' is just pop psychology and has no place in the teaching of reading."

More from the marketing hype of the phonics industry, who have ignored international research to promote their income needs.

I would suggest you start a basic Neurology cause for beginners as you have no real idea of how the brain works or how we learn.
Time for you to use some of your free time to really begin to understand what you profess to try to do.

With respect dolfrog for the vast majority of children phonics is the best route to begin to read. For a tiny minority of children (your children and my son) phonics just doesn't click into place. Luckily for me my son learnt to read easily without phonics but this was at the expense of learning to spell. Phonics can be an incredibly enabling tool and to condemn it's use simply because it didn't teach your children and my son to read is for the want of a better word ...narrow minded to the extreme!

I have no personal agenda. And no wish to get into an ill-informed debate about language evolution and/or development, not least as it is completely irrelevant to learning to read.

I've just read the evidence. Phonics works (for the NT). It's as simple as that.

Even OP agrees phonics is key. Even "whole word" proponents aim to teach phonic awareness (through self discovery, rather than instruction). Unless, of course, you are going to teach every single word by rote.

This proposed check should give succour to those who are concerned about those who fall through the net. This test will identify them and allow tailored intervention whilst still in KS1. Though of course the information will contain no surprises whatsoever to good teachers who will know how their pupils are progressing.

mrz

If you have followed my postings on various forums over the last 10 years , you will have noticed that I have never said that phonics does not work for a large group of children, but that there is also another large group of children for whom it does not work.
The more recent Nueroligical research has indicated that learning to read requires multiple skills to work at the same time. To perform the task of reading requires both Lexical and SubLexical processes to perform the task of reading.
The Lexical process is a whole word visual process, and the SubLexical is a phonic process. So in an ideal world all children should experience both a Whole Word and a Phonics approach to learning to read. The Lexical system is related to our comprehension abilities.
In the past we have experienced marketing war between the Whole Word and Phonics industries which has been detrimental to our children developing the different cognitive skills they need in later life. It has also meant that the children who have not been able to use one of these programs have been made to feel as failures because their real learning needs have not been met. Or they have been cognitively discriminated against.

So I am only against the use of a single one size fits all teaching system which discriminates against those least able to advocate for their learning needs, purely on monetary grounds and a lack of understanding from those who run and work in the education system

meditrina

The problem is that there is no scientific evidence regarding a specific program, Only hearsay evidence, and marketing hype.
Researchers are still trying to work out how we neurologically learn to read, so how any one program can claim to be the only way to learn to read is not scientifically possible, just pure marketing hype.
As i have said we need all teachers to be trained to use and have access to all programs so that thye can use the program best suited for every childs needs

Normal does not exist, normal is a concept created to conceal your differences from others. So what is normal will change each time a person joins or leaves a group.

meditrina
If you do not understand how and why we use a communication system, then you are merely an instructor and not a teacher. Like a Driving Instructor.

dolfrog I haven't followed your postings so I'm afraid my response is to what you have said here.
In my school we were chatting about readers (could be because the SAT papers arrived in school today) and we commented that in the last 20 years one child had left us unable to read well. So I would argue there is a large group who do very well with good phonics instruction and a very small group who have other problems which make learning to read using phonics difficult or impossible.

I am now completely lost. I have no idea what programme you are on about.

But nice to see my driving example being reprised!

mrz

The real problem has been the lack of an Educational Research Council, which should run along similar lines as the Medical Research Council. In the last decade of so research technology has improved vastly, and using the various types of neuroimging it is possible to identify how each individual responds or does not respond to various forms of sensory information stimuli.
So for instance where there is a familial risk of dyslexia, it is possible to identify potential dyslexics from as young as 6 months old.
So we need to move away from the hearsay "what works" approach to education and more to a system built around peer reviewed scientific research, independent of the various program providers and other lobby groups.
If you have time you might like to have a look at my PubMed Reading research paper collection, which you could use to start your own similar collection.
I have a web site that has three web pages of different categories of research paper collections and the reading collection is listed on the Communication and Neurology web page.

I must apologise for any spelling errors but I am dyslexic, and replying to this many posts in a short space of time, due to my APD is causing me quite a bit of stress.

meditrina

I think you have a single program complex "either" "or" rather than which is mot appropriate for each childs neurological learning needs

I am promoting a multiple program approach, using the program that best suite any childs learning needs at any give time during their education.

So I am anti nay form of any single one size fits all approach.
as I have said before each teachers needs to be able to identify the cognitive learning needs of each child and be trained and be able to use the most suitable teach program that each child needs regardless of what you term NT needs, which is really an excuse for education on the cheap.

What single programme are you on about? Your posts are making less and less sense.

meditrina
you are the one promoting a single program

I am advocating for multiple programs or all programs so that a teacher can select the most suitable program to match each childs learning needs, which can vary during different stages of their development.

I am not advocating any one size fits all program, this is would seem to be your own preference.

I am promting meeting each childs cognitive learning needs so that all children can learn to read in a way best suited to their cognitive abilities so that they can have life long benefits, and not be forces to use a learning program which make reading a chore, and a stressful activity. Which is what you seem to be advocating by only wanting to use the program of your choice or the limit of your training.

Read Reading by six: how the best schools do it

A sample of 12 of these schools finds that their success is based on a determination that every child will learn to read, together with a very rigorous and sequential approach to developing speaking and listening and teaching reading, writing and spelling through systematic phonics. This approach is applied with a high degree of consistency and sustained.

The diligent, concentrated and systematic teaching of phonics is central to the success of all the schools that achieve high reading standards in Key Stage 1. This requires high-quality and expert teaching that follows a carefully planned and tightly structured approach to teaching phonic knowledge and skills. Pupils are given opportunities to apply what they have learnt through reading ? including time to read aloud to adults to practise their decoding skills ? writing and comprehension of what they are reading.

If these 12 schools can do it, and MRZ's school can do it, and Feenie's school can do it - why can't all schools do it? Why can't all schools teach all kids to read :(

I think, Indigo Bell, the answer would be that not all schools do teach all children to read, even the ones that teach phonics at the expense of anything else. Just went to interesting presentation about reading today by deputy head. She basically said that the school is moving to a more multi dimensional approach as part of reading is being able to do it, and part of it is instilling a love and enjoyment of reading into kids. In my opinion (and clearly hers), the phonics only method bleeds the fun out of reading, especially for kids who learn in different ways (eg. visual memorising).

I do not know what this programme is that you keep banging on about.

Please say.

'In my opinion (and clearly hers), the phonics only method bleeds the fun out of reading, especially for kids who learn in different ways (eg. visual memorising).'

It would bleed pretty much everything out of everything for me if I was a child in a school that allowed me to rely on 'visual memorising' to read.

She basically said that the school is moving to a more multi dimensional approach as part of reading is being able to do it, and part of it is instilling a love and enjoyment of reading into kids. In my opinion (and clearly hers), the phonics only method bleeds the fun out of reading, especially for kids who learn in different ways (eg. visual memorising).

Sorry, but a multidimensional approach certainly bled the fun out of reading for the children I work with. It hasn't done a great deal for their confidence, self esteem or attainment either.

moondog, I do apologise profusely for getting you mixed up with A.N Other poster a page or two ago. I'd had a long, hard day

dlofrog says:
The problem is that there is no scientific evidence regarding a specific program, Only hearsay evidence, and marketing hype. Researchers are still trying to work out how we neurologically learn to read, so how any one program can claim to be the only way to learn to read is not scientifically possible, just pure marketing hype.

Cognitive pschologists have been involved in reading research for many years now. All the evidence, based on hundreds of research projects, points to the most efficient and effective way to teach reading being to teach the sound/symbol relationships of the written language and how to use this knowledge to 'decode' words. The majority of the world's written language systems are based on sound/symbol relationships. Strangely enough, this is because they are the easiest to learn for the greatest number of people. Even the Chinese and Japanese orthographic systems which you love to quote have a phonetic element to them.

To claim that the results of decades of scientific research into reading are merely 'marketing hype' discredits much of what you have to say.

Several people on this thread have very sensibly pointed out that a phonics check at age 6 will identify children who are struggling to learn to read and will give them faster access to support than often happens now. I have frequently pointed out to you that rigorous phonics teaching will eliminate many of the children from SEN registers who are there at present because of poor instruction, thus freeing up time and scarce resources for the few children who really need more help. Sadly you choose to ignore this in favour of hysterical and ill informed tirades about phonics teaching.

I'll forgive you Maisie.
It was my fear of being branded an ill informed nutter.

maizieD

As you are well aware over the long discussion we have had on many forums, you have advocated a phonics only policy of teaching reading, but there are many children who can not process phonics for a variety of cognitive reasons.

I notice that you have changed your arguements in your post above in which do you not mention a phonics only approach.

"All the evidence, based on hundreds of research projects, points to the most efficient and effective way to teach reading being to teach the sound/symbol relationships of the written language and how to use this knowledge to 'decode' words. The majority of the world's written language systems are based on sound/symbol relationships."

The next step is to identify the cognitive skills required to perform these tasks in view of the writing system being used, and the cognitive abilities of the child being taught. Some may be able to use phonics and others will not be able to use phonics this what neurological research has been demonstrating over the last decade. so may be your "Cognitive pschologists" should start talking to the psycholinguists, and neurologists about the ideal methods in a n ideal world, and the practical needs of those who have differing cognitive abilities.

So a phonics only program is pure marketing hype from the phonics industry which has no peer reviewed research to support its claims.
Provide the research and I will read it, but over the years you have failed to provide a single research paper to support your claims. Where as i have provided endless links to research papers and research paper collections.

So the provide the body of supporting research papers to disprove that your claims are not just marketing hype.

moondog
"It would bleed pretty much everything out of everything for me if I was a child in a school that allowed me to rely on 'visual memorising' to read."

For most children this is true, and which i have always said that for many the combined use of phonics and whole word is the best way to teaching reading.

But for some like me and many others phonics is not a cognitive options so i have to rely on my memory to "visual memorising' to read."
So this may not be ideal but for many it is the only option available.

Unfortunately maizieD does not want those who share my disability to learn to read and want to read because she advocates phonics only for all, even for those like me and millions of others who are not able to process phonics.
So the whole basis of our disagreement, over many years, is not about forcing all children not to have access to phonics, which is what many seem to think i am saying.
My arguement is that phonics is fine for those who can use phonics but there needs to be adequate provision for those who can not use phonics, which is what maizieD does not want to recognise.
Because maizieD arguement is that all have to use phonics regardless of any cognitive disability which prevents them from using phonics, and she is unwilling to discuss any alternatives to work around these cognitive disabilities.

So going back to your earlier post, about my knowledge of APD. Well if I were to give into to maizieD policies I would be advocating discrimination against those who share may disability. Which maizieD does not wish to understand, because it conflicts with her agenda.

When maizieD and her colleagues at the Reading Reform Foundation accept that Auditory Processing Disorder (APD), ADHD, and may other cognitive issues can prevent many from being able to use phonics, and that an alternative mehtod of teaching is required, and they will recognise the real size of this population. Then and only then can we have a sensible and balanced discussion regarding the teaching of reading for all the various ranges of cognitive abilities, strengths, weakness, and disabilities.

So maizieD put your dogmatic approached behind you and lets begin a realistic discussion about helping all children to read, including those who can not use phonics.

If you can actually find a child who "cannot use phonics" then there might actually be something to discuss. (Higher up the thread, it was specified we were talking about NT children - if you want to go into SEN, then I think you might be better off starting a separate thread, as it is so much bigger a subject).

But it's also worth noting that reading recovery programmes (look! plural!) -are phonics based. (And for those with SEN who are likely to become readers, these are very useful. Especially for in SpLd like dyslexia, and also ADHD).

When you understand how English is taught in the classroom, then you might stop banging on about this "single programme" rubbish - which only you seem to think is part of the landscape, and which you have been unable to explain.

You seem to be accusing everyone else on the thread of being dogmatic (or of having commercial interests). But the posters have quite a range of views if you look at them (and quite a range of places they are coming from). And they know that phonics isn't a straitjacket, nor the goal, nor a mysterious panacea for everything about literacy.

Please would you cease trying to characterise phonics as something it isn't.

As you are not however looking at what the other posters are actually saying, I am not sure this thread has much going for it now.

"Schools that use genuine synthetic phonics programmes as designed, and with enthusiasm, don't have 'dyslexics'. They teach all children how to read before they go on to secondary school."

I don't necessarily agree with that. Phonics solves half the problem. My DS was taught "jolly" phonics from the age of 4 at nursery. He didn't really and truely click until yr2 when his reading took off. He reads very well. His primary school said he can't be dyslexic because he reads well, but he was on the register for Spld and has problems with writing which is mainly spelling and some short term memory problems ie copying from the board. He started secondary school and his SENCO said he is almost certainly dyslexic but reads well because he was taught phonics.

bruffin, sadly, the use of Jolly Phonics, or any other synthetic phonics programme, is not evidence that your son received well-taught synthetic phonics. I also doubt that he was initially given decodable books to read...