New phonetics screening tests; testing the use of the method, not the skill of the 6yr old reader surely?

[yummymummyreally]

So why is the Department of Health so obsessed with testing young children's reading "method", rather than their ability to read... Or, or I don't know, maybe checking if they have an interest in stories, are engaged with the written word? But no. The new phonetics screening tests for 6yr olds check if they are specifically decoding words with phonetics, rather than using other methods like "context" for example.... Gggrrrr. I don't understand this!

What do you think? Is method that important?

To read, children use a series of cues. Often they are described as searchlights - the more you can use/ switch on, the easier reading is. Phonics is only one of these cues - the others are Context, grammar And word recognition.

Of course, this method was a cornerstone of the NLS and this government is out to rubbish everything that the NLs achieved, systematically removing materials which have been tried and tested and successful. Hence a new test which focuses on one method only.

Yes, the NLS had flaws, but making up bloody words for a reading test is just bollocks. Or glomp. Or dij. Or any other made up word meaning stupid!

Literacy is tested though, in the year 2 SATS.

This is a check with an entirely different purpose - to see if the child has reached the expected standard in ability to decode phonically. It's what good teachers would do anyhow. If there is a problem, it is a good thing to know about it early on, to maximise time for appropriate intervention. And if whole classes are failing, then yes that might mean action of the teacher's skills, and quite rightly so.

Its not so much the making up of words that bothers me, as long as you use the test 'only' to report how much the child uses that one phonetic method and 'not' as a measure of their reading ability.

Though the whole test seems pointless in that case. why bother? Why police 'method' so tightly?

And if good teachers do it anyway... why the extra test before sats?

Let's see - maybe it's because the 'method' has been proven to teach the most kids to read

And maybe the govt actually wants most kids to read?

And maybe it's because a lot of teachers are not good at teaching all kids to read that the govt decided to intervene?

GetDownNesbitt - what's so stupid about checking decoding ability using made-up words? When DD plays this game she loves the made-up words. "Glomp? Glomp?! That's not a word! hahahaha! I've never heard of that! I'll give it to that red dragon, he loves that glomp!" Sometimes we talked about what the made-up words sounded as if they might mean. Anyway, she thought it was great fun, and it really helped her blending because she wasn't thinking about the context - she was free to focus on the word (whether real or made-up) itself.

When she's reading actual books, of course she uses context and word recognition - but decoding is the basic building-block, the one that has to be properly taught and properly tested.

You're so right, Vesela.
See this, too: literacyblog.blogspot.com/2011/11/please-miss-whats-grinch.html

From the pilot studies it appears that only 27% of schools are teaching phonics and the others are clinging to the searchlights which according to recent research seem to have failed a whole generation (now adults)

yummymummyreally the "test" involves 40ish words and takes 5 mins

It's not just about testing the children, it's about the government wanting data to show whether schools are teaching phonics and if it's working. Of course reading is about using all the cues, but if children don't have secure phonics as a building block, then they witll struggle with spelling if not reading.

The year 2 reading SATs doesn't test a child's ability to read very well. They are given a passage to read and then write answers to comprehension questions. The child is never heard reading.

It is perfectly possible for a child to pass it by only being able to read half the words, and making a lot of lucky guesses.

For example my DD was given a 2b on a sats paper - but only a 1b when someone listened to her read. That's a massive difference, and gives me no confidence at all in SATs reading tests.

It'll just be like a Red, Write, Inc, assessment sheet, which is not really surprising as I think Ruth Miskin had a hand in it. For each assessment level of RWI, children have to read the stand alone sounds, 'real' words with those sounds and some nonsense words, again with the same sounds.

Of course reading is about using all the cues,

I'm afraid it isn't. Research by Stanovich and West in the 1970s demonstrated that it was poor readers who 'used all the cues'. Good readers dedoded rapidly and automatically and only used context to check the meaning of a word, not what it 'says'.

IndigoBell, EVERY yr2 child is heard reading during the SAT. There is a reading task, where they choose a book from a small selection, read it (with support if necessary) and are encouraged to discuss the text.

BUT TeamSledward - the advice is to use either the test or the task, not both.

So Indigobell is right - if the test is used, the child is not heard for the reading assessment.

Sorry TeamSledward the school can use either the task or the test so Indigo is correct a child may not be heard reading at level 2/3.

from the 2012 ARRA

Use the level 2 task or the level 2 test.
Teachers may decide that different children will benefit from different approaches. For example, the task might be more appropriate than the test for children working at the lower end of level 2.

Yes, Maizie, but the more cues you have available to you the easier it is to read. Decoding is fine but in some situations you need the context to help you, too.

If anything, we should be focusing on the first 100 words and sight vocab because that would help an awful lot.

I would be amazed if it was really true that only 27% of schools were actually teaching phonics - maybe only 27% are teaching the chosen method exclusively, but off the top of my head, in the 20 or so primaries I know fairly well, phonics is taught in all of them!

And actually, most of my poor readers - say L2 or 3 at KS3 - are not too bad at decoding. It's the context that gets them every time.

For beginner readers, phonics is absolutely vital. But quite why a new and separate test is needed I cannot see.

but is it taught well GetDownNesbitt?

I know lots of schools/teachers say they teach phonics but when you look closely they are passing on lots of wrong information ... like lower case letters represent sounds and capitals the letter names ... like you need to teach the HFW by sight because they can't be decoded ... like look at the picture and what do you think that word says....

I was just looking at a Mr Thorne does phonics video for what he calls silent l and many of the words he includes are or words spelt al

GetDownNesbitt - the odds are that those 20 primaries you know teach phonics and other methods. The odds are they teach phonics but send home 'look and say' books.

ie - they don't actually teach phonics at all, they teach mixed methods.

Two answers - yes, for the most part it is taught well

And of course it is taught alongside other methods. Why would it not be? I have yet to read anything that convinces me that teaching phonics exclusively has long term benefits.

But, then again, as a parent I am quite happy to trust my son's teachers on this. They know what they are doing - they are professionals. I get mightily annoyed when someone suggests they know how to do my job better than me and I guess they would too.

I'm sure the parents of the pupils who were in the 72% trusted the teachers too.

GetDown Nesbitt, you say: "I have yet to read anything that convinces me that teaching phonics exclusively has long term benefits."

Of course you use context to help you understand words but you have to decode them first don't you? And if only Teachers did know what they were doing when it comes to teaching reading. Which is why so many children leave school not being able to read.