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)

Our school (good levels of reading, highly literate families and area, but still stragglers) has finally invested in Read Write Inc training. And what do you know? The LSA who normally delivers ELS in Y1 has said she doesn't need to do it anymore!

Bruffin, my older son was 'taught' Jolly Phonics in Reception. Except he wasn't. He was taught the first sound represented by the alphabet letters with some actions; he wasn't taught di- or trigraphs and he was given 'look and say' books to bring home and high frequency words to learn. That nonsense is what got me interested in reading teaching.

If x % of the population can only learn to read by sight reading because of something in their mental make-up, it makes you wonder how those countries cope who (thanks to the simple orthography of their language) teach exclusively by phonics- and those countries often have the highest literacy rates in the world.

Which would seem easy to understand if you assume that straightforward phonics are actually easier, but would be incomprehensible if it was all about learning styles. I have never seen anything to suggest that there is a higher number of dyslexics who never learn to read in Finland or Italy- which is what you would expect from dolfrog's argument.

As for the Chinese system, my Chinese SIL has often expressed amazement at how many people in the West of all classes read for pleasure, how you see them on trains and buses and in parks with thick paperbacks, even people who are not academics. According to her, getting to a level where you can read literature easily in Chinese is mainly reserved for the intellectual elite- because it takes such a long time to master enough signs to make the exercise feasible.

Maizie wrote,
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.

Indeed. But the ease with which children can learn and can be taught to read and write depends very much on the simplicity or complexity of those sound/symbol relationships. In languages with very simple sound/symbol relationships (e.g. Finnish, Korean, Italian, Spanish, Russian) children learn to read and write very easily. Progress in others depends on the level of their orthographic complexity.

In other words, speed and ease of literacy progress depend on the amount of learning involved. Because Finnish uses just 38 spellings (or graphemes) for its 38 sounds, all of which have just one pronunciation, Finnish children learn to read and write very quickly, and hardly any Finnish teenagers leave school functionally illiterate.

Learning to read and write English, by contrast, is harder and takes longer than any other alphabetically written language, because it uses 205 spellings for its 43 sounds, with 69 of those graphemes having more than one sound (ear - earn, bear) - englishspellingproblems.blogspot.com/2009/12/reading-problems.html

Learning to write some other alphabetically written languages (French, Polish) is quite difficult too, but not as hard as English. No others use quite so many unpredictable spellings as English does -
englishspellingproblems.blogspot.com/2010/11/english-spelling-rules.html . Many English sound/symbol relationships are so random that they do not really deserve to be called 'relationships' (too - to you gnu blue shoe flew through).

But English is totally unique among alphabetic languages in posing very serious reading as well as writing difficulties. In all others at least learning to read is easy.

Given the difficulties of English literacy acquisition, it seems very unlikely that testing the phonic knowledge of 6-yr-odls is going to help more children to learn to read and write better. The only thing that can do so is more help for those who need it. Schools are already very good at identifying the children who need it. They just need more money to pay for it.

The one thing that everybody should understand very clearly is that all the endless debates about how best to teach children to read and write, how much to test them, how much extra help to give, when to start literacy teaching, keep going on decade after decade because nothing has been done to make learning to read and write English any easier than it was 250 years ago. No other European country has been so negligent and therefore they do not have the literacy teaching problems that all English-speaking ones have.

Masha Bell

maverick - as I said he reads very well. The school used a variety of reading schemes not just one, we are talking 12 years ago.
He can often spell words out loud but not write them correctly on paper. He can spell the same word 3 different ways on the same page. He is classed as highly intelligent

My DH had similar problems but unfortunately was taught to read using Look and Say and didn't learn to read until he was 10 and was finally sent to a remedial phonics teacher. The Headmistress of his school told his mother that he would never learn to read using Look and Say but at that time they were not allowed to use any other ways.
I know very well if DS hadn't been taught well he wouldn't have learnt to read, we are just left with the other difficulties.
My DD learnt very differently and just absorbed reading and could read words like architecture within the first term of starting school.

meditrina
If you can actually find a child who "cannot use phonics" then there might actually be something to discuss.

I can not use phonics, my children can not use phonics, parents who contact the APDUK helpline have children who can not use phonics.
So children who can not user phonics are there and easy to find the problem is that you and others prefer to deny our existance so that you do not have to consider our learning needs.
And if there all teachers were trained to use use all reaching methods according to each childs cognitive learning needs and not really on a single program, what ever program that may be, then the better of all children will be.
I can find children who can not use phonics, it is you, the present government and others who prefer to deny our existence, and who prefer to promote disability discrimination.

bruffin, this isn't the thread to discuss this -but I'm a specialist reading tutor and teaching dyslexic/ struggling readers and spellers is my 'bread and butter'.
My suggestion is that your son is has a sight word reader with a good visual memory.

No he is not maverick- His visual memory is crap. he had problems copying sums from the board because he can't remember what he has read between looking at the board and down on the paper.
He is not a sight reader, he always sounded out words when he was learning to read. He had problems with music as although he knew what the notes were and name them if asked. He can't process them fast enough to read music and had to learn all his pieces by memory by ear or someone actually showing which notes to play.

cory
As you say the Chinese logographic writing system is not suitable for all, but such a system would best suite those who share my disability.
The issue is not about the most ideal system, but how you adapt teaching methods to meet the learning needs of all.
The purer Latin Alphabetic languages are still a problem for those who have APD and similar problems, but because the languages have a more predictable structure it is much easier to develop coping strategies to work around our cognitive processing problems.
Dyslexia is a man made problem, about having cognitive problems using the visual notation of speech used by the society you were born into, or join later in life. There are two types of dyslexia, Developmental Dyslexia and Alexia (acquired dyslexia). And is from Alexia research the the psycholinguistic models of how we learn to read have evolved. Currently the leading researchers in this field are debate at least two models of how we learn to read; the dual-route cascaded model of reading, and the parallel distributed processing triangle model of reading. Alexia is concerned with those who are loosing or have lost their ability to read resulting from a brain injury, substance abuse, stroke, dementia or a progressive illness. Those who have Developmental Dyslexia have the same cognitive problems but due to a genetic difference. Dyslexia is also langauge dependent due to the orthographic differences and the different cognitive skill sets these differences require for processing. If you would like to read some research papers regarding these issues then I have a web page devoted to listing my PubMed Dyslexia and related issues research paper collections. during the last decade there were more than 2,500 research papers published about various aspects of dyslexia, and the advances in technology to try to understand how we learn to read, and the problems experiences by dyslexics who have cognitive problems learning to read.
So it is overly simplistic to claim any teaching program can resolve the issues that international research still fails to adequately explain

Alexia is not relevant to this thread. I really wish that it hadn't become cluttered up with extraneous issues and had stuck to the point of the phonics check proposed for year 1. This check - which, as has been repeatedly pointed out, is what good teachers do spontaneously - will show up those who are failing to benefit and causes can be investigated. It is a complete nonsense to suggest that an NT child cannot learn to read on a phonics based programme (any such programme - there are lots, and they are only part of developing wider literacy skills (tested in SATS): I hope any readers who have bothered to come this far have noted that the thread is about learning to decode in order to be able to go forward with wider literacy and access the rest of the curriculum. It is emphatically not the unimaginative straitjacket that detractors seek to portray it as)

A phonics programme is suitable for all. Children may struggle if it is badly taught. I would never want to defend poor implementation of any of the phonic approaches) But in order to be able to read, one needs to be able to tackle words you have never seen before. Learning a whole lexicon by heart has consistently been shown as ineffective in an alphabetic system. (It has of course to be done in non-alphabetic systems, by rote learning, but as dictionaries are organised differently in such systems the disadvantage to the mature reader in a system which cannot be phonic is mitigated).

The metasurvey of reading recovery programmes, all of which are phonics based, demonstrates clearly how it is the sine qua non.

I am, frankly, amazed that there are still such dogged proponents of second-best approaches to the early stages of reading in the classroom setting, especially when such little awareness is shown of either what phonics is or how it is used by the competent.

I've often wondered what the Rolls Royce remedial look and say programme for readers with dolfrog's disability would actually look like?
Does one exist? How do they get Chinese children to memorise all those logographs? Do they have time to do anything else?

Here is the survey of remedial schemes in use in UK. It's a few years old, so perhaps there is now a "look and say" one available. The results from these phonics programmes speak for themselves. And the range amply demonstrates what a nonsense it is to think there is a "single programme".

meditrina

As you say a survey or market research not based on nuerological research, very subjective. Recent research over the last decade has moved on for the need for such subjective hearsay evidence , which Greg Brooks loves. I have never found any objective investigative laboratory research by Greg Brooks yet.

It is from the research into Alexia that we have the only scientific models of how we learn to read, anything else us pure speculation. So to ignore Alexia is to ignore trying to understand how we learn to read.

The real false assumption is that all humans are the same, clones of each other, when genetics demonstrate that we are all different, with different skills and abilities, which need to be identified prior to the beginning of the formal education process. So that children are taught using the teaching methods that best match their specific skills and abilities with special regard for any specific skill disability.

Have you read it? What exactly is wrong with the evaluation methodologies? Which parts are "hearsay" - or do you thus categorise all referenced studies? (putting you rather out of step with standard methodologies).

But it is interesting to see that you wish to discount all Chomskyan research ad theorem. I think that puts you significantly at odds with current linguistic research.

I'll be bowing out of this thread now - it has gone so far beyond reason there is indeed no purpose.

Malaleuca

There is no "Rolls Royce remedial look and say programme for readers with dolfrog's disability" and this is not because researchers have not been trying.

When i first started to research Auditory Processing Disorder (APD) to get help for my eldest son in 1999 Fast ForWord (FFW)was being marketed as the cure for APD, and many audiologists in the USA were almost printing money diagnosing APD and then providing FFW as the so called cure. However later is wa confirmed that the published supporting research paper for FFW did not include all of the "less favourable" data which was part of the origianl research program. (a bit like the Ruth Miskins web site small print phonics was successful for all who completed the program. No mention of how many did not complete the program or why)
Further research over the last decade has shown that FFW is not an effective support program for those who have APD.

The real issue is that all of these cognitive disabilities are as yet not fully understood, mainly because we still do not have the research technology to investigate the detailed neurological workings of the brain, and how the various genetic variations influence our sensory information processing abilities.

Back in 1999, the leading APD researchers were talking about 4 models or subtypes of APD, and last year APD researchers are now talking about 13 different subtypes of APD as they have grained a better understanding of the issues involved. There is no cure for APD, living with APD is about each individual understanding the nature of their degree of APD, and developing their own alternative compensating cognitive strategies using their own cognitive strengths, to work around their own disability. There is no magic bullet or marketable program.

meditrina

So far you have not produced a single peer reviewed research paper only a political survey.

I think you will find that I have included the best linguistic research regarding reading which is based on Alexia research. Which is the leading research with regards to how we learn to read, using current scientific investigative technologies.

You know, dolfrog , some of the programmes you criticise , like Jolly Phonics have been wrritten by teachers because there was nothing commercial available and they have become widespread because they work. Perhaps a more productive use of your energy would be to write your own instructional programme. Not many teachers would have the inclination to develop a programme for such a small group of potential users. In 40 years of teaching I have not yet had a child who could not learn by phonics.

A few genuine questions for Dolfrog.

I gather from your posts that you learnt to read by memorising whole words at a time, rather than learning the sound or sounds that each letter or group of letters make.

Did this mean you also had to learn to write each word one by one, or could you split the words that you knew into letters/phonemes?
How did that translate into touch typing? Did you have to learn the finger pattern of each word, or can you type any word, once you've learnt where they all are on the keyboard.?

that should say "where all the letters are on the keyboard", though I do sometimes think certain oft used words should have a single key.

Malaleuca

I have heard your "I have not yet had a child who could not learn by phonics" so many times before. Most children who share my disability has learnt to read despite phonics, which make the whole process more difficult. If you repaet anything often enough memory takes over, just like talking parrots. But unless you have the technology to examine who each individual learns using the various neuroimaging technologies you will never know exactly how each individual learns, which cognitive skills they are able to use, and which cognitive skills they are not able to use. This is the realm of Neurologists, Audiologists, Optomotrists, Speech and Language Pathologists, Psychologists, etc.
Which is why I have been advocating an Educational Research Council which could independently carry out peer reviewed research into the various issues involved with learning, cognitive ability, cognitive disability. ETC.

Jolly Phonics and a wide range of other phonics programs will help all who are able to effectively process sound based information. I have no problem with that. I have a problem when you force others who do have problems processing sound based information to use exactly the same program. So for those like me who have to rely on our visual abilities we require a visually based program to help us work around our sound processing disabilities. Currently this is only done using a whole word approach.

If you read the nuerological research of the last 5 years you will discover that there are two parrallell processes involved in the task of reading Lexical and Sublexical. Which indicates the need to develop both the Lexical (whole word) processing abilities of a child and the SubLexical (phonics) abilities of a child, or potential reader. So to only help develop one of these required processes is failing all children and not just those who may have a disability.

So it may have to be come a training requirement for all practicing teachers to have a short term license say 3 years which is only renewable when they have demonstrated that they have kept pace with current research advances. Much like the Speech and Language Pathologists do in the USA.

Reading research papers is one thing, translating this into effective curricula is something else. Few teachers are trained in curriculum design, and if they were they are hardly well placed to trialand test such programmes. This is not their job. Their job is to deliver effective instruction, choose the best that is available that is shown to work. You have still not answered the question dolfrog, where is the programme that is best for atypical learners such as yourself?

choccyp1g

"I gather from your posts that you learnt to read by memorising whole words at a time, rather than learning the sound or sounds that each letter or group of letters make."

correct. I memorise the shape of the word, and the order in which the letters appear, which can cause problems as auditory and sequencing abilities are related and at the age of 49, I was informed that I have the sequencing skills of the average 4 year old. Spellchecker helps with most of my initial spelling errors, but manual writing for me was more about crossings out, and a huge pile of waste paper.

"Did this mean you also had to learn to write each word one by one, or could you split the words that you knew into letters/phonemes?"

writing words for me is about creating the correct pattern of letters for a specific word. phonemes are an abstract concept others talk. I match the whole sound of a word to the whole shape of its visual notation.

How did that translate into touch typing?
I am still not a touch typist, just a very quick visual typist.
I did try a touch typing course but it became too stressful, I have to see what i am doing so that i can begin to correct the errors I know I will make.

"Did you have to learn the finger pattern of each word, or can you type any word, once you've learnt where they all are on the keyboard.?"

some words, high frequency words that I use, I can type automatically sometimes, but then at some stage the same error will keep repetitively occurring "waht" is my current offending typing error. So each time i type a word is like typing it for the first time, trying to get the word on screen to match the image i have for the word in my mind. Not ideal but i can get by just.

Malaleuca

"You have still not answered the question dolfrog, where is the programme that is best for atypical learners such as yourself?"

The real answer is that there is not one, but the best option would be a visually based program, as Jolly phonics is a phonics sound based program, which includes multi-sensory instruction including phonics, and kineasthetic input.

I could only advise on any project to produce a program to help those who share my disability, I see or understand the whole picture, and can have real problems with the finer detail. Which is why as I have suggest previously we need an Educational Research Council, which could develop the various programs to meet the various learning needs, and where they could retain and compare data from various trials etc and so formulate a range of teaching programs to help all childrens needs.

bruffin,

One of the problems with 'dyslexia' is that the word means different things for different people. The original meaning was 'trouble/problems with words (i.e written words)' and was used to describe difficulties with reading. It has since then had a vast range of 'difficulties' attached to it and what one person understands is 'dyslexia' is not necessarily what another person understands. For myself, I would confine it to difficulty in learning to read (which is probably how the primary school understood it) but the secondary SENCo is clearly looking at the 'add ons'! The whole subject is an absolute minefield.

I like to keep it simple because I like to know the real cause of a pupil's difficulty so as to know how best to help them. A blanket label of 'dyslexia' tends to get blanket 'dyslexia' remediation, not all of it necessary or appropriate.

bruffin I could almost have written your post about my son ...almost. Unable to copy from the board or indeed from a text book - (but amazing visual memory) my son read at 18 months with no formal teaching - never grasped phonics - had a reading age much, much higher than his chronological age -unable to write/spell. Primary rightly said he wasn't dyslexic ... secondary said he was - tests confirmed he wasn't.

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."

Well, precisely. Now you can imagine what it's like for a kid in a school that relies on phonics only!!

I think what some people are saying, including the OP, is that a multi dimensional approach is best, NOT exclusively relying on phonics or visual learning or whatever else is out there. A phonics test will make the reliance on phonics teaching even greater.

Some kids do learn reading better by other methods and then it seems it's up to the parents to teach them by this method. Since I am not a trained teacher and was reluctant to 'undermine' the school system by teaching something else, my ds1 is now behind, lacking in confidence, lacking in enthusiasm. And I am cross about it! I believe a phonics test will make it worse for all children like him.