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?

Your son may well be one of the lucky 80% that learn to read easily, however they're taught.

The phonics debate is not about your son.

It's about trying to work out what is going wrong that means you know kids at KS3 who can't read.

If you don't work in MS secondary school, all kids you know entering Y7 should be able to read properly.

I have had a look at the new test and it's really fine. They are putting the made up words in context by showing them next to a picture of an alien! As long as the year one teacher is teaching phonics it will be pretty simple for the average child I think.

Yes, let's not forget that in English schools, 1 in 6 children are classed as having 'special needs'.
That is frankly appalling.

The fact the a large proportion of these children can't read adds sunstantially to these figures.

If you can't decode, you will be trapped into faulty and ineffectual reading pattersn which rely on you learning words rather as one does pictures-as a whole hieroglyph if you like. Which means that every time you encounter a word you haven't read before, you are probably stuffed.

'as a parent I am quite happy to trust my son's teachers on this. They know what they are doing - they are professionals.'

That's the most worrying ocmment of all.
A vast swathe of teachers (not all of course) don't know their arses from theri elbow. It attracts some frrighteningly incompetent people whose capacity to teach children is further compromised by the staggeringly ineffectual teacher 'training' they then undergo.

Yes, Maizie, but the more cues you have available to you the easier it is to read.

Well, I will go with a very highly regarded cognitive scientist who ran a scientific study which was actually intended to confirm that 'multi-cueing' was the most efficient way to read and discovered that his results told him exactly the opposite. Multi-cuers were POOR readers.

But then, I suppose that opinion trumps evidence every time...

department of health ?!!

GetDownNesbitt

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

Where on earth do you get your information from? I've rarely seen so much misinformation as you have produced on this thread.

It's exact the wretched teaching of sight words, including high frequency words taught as sight words, that causes 20%+ to fail. Most remedial teachers spend their time picking up the pieces of those children who haven't intuited the alphabetic code from a diet of sight-words - these children can't do it - period. It doesn't matter whether they have an IQ in the 70s or one of 140+, whether they come from book rich homes, or not, around 20% need the skills that underpin our alphabetic code. As for context, guessing, learning from first letter of the word, syntax, prediction - it's all been tried for many years and it continues to fail this 20%.

We don't teach children how to play musical instruments in this scattergun way - we expect their teachers to be rigorously trained, to understand musical notation and not to bombard young children with multi-strategies : major and minor keys, rhythm, quavers, semi-quavers, dynamics, interpretation, expression and so on in the FIRST place. Of course music is not about learning musical notation and the way it relates to a specific instruction. However, without that knowledge most emergent players will founder.

So why do our teachers receive little or no instruction? Many, in recent years, have been given an eclectic mixed strategy, a splash of phonics in their one, two day training by the very advisors who were part of the problem in the first place.

Well, my information comes from 20 years of experience in primary and secondary and a Masters in Literacy.

But I guess that means I am part of the problem.

At no point have I said that I am against the teaching of phonics. I am against the test because it will prove nothing.

Surely it will prove whether children have been taught the skills to decode unknown words

GDN - Do you teach 100% of your students to read? 98%?

Out of interest how many of those years did you spend teaching children to read in a reception class?

GDN, that you say the things you do and talk of your experience and qualifications is worrying.
As an s/lt, analogies with understanding spoken language can be drawn.
In real life situations, our understanding is aufgmented by use of context, environmental cues, facial expression, intonation and so on.
Excellent news, particularly for peopel with communication ddifficulties.

However, when assessing them formally I need to know how to strip away all of that scaffolding to ascertain how much of the actual language is being understood, separately to these other factors.EWithout such knowledge, I am not able to help them in the areas in which they need the most help as they will have learnt how to mask the issues.

95% of the time, a teacher or a parents is amazed (and saddened) to know how much lower receptive language skills are than was assumed.

I have never taught reception which is why I trust the teachers. But I have worked with a number of reception teachers across a range of settings and LAs and all have been excellent. Maybe I am just lucky.

Moondog, specifically which bits worry you so much?

'I have never taught reception.'

That figures.

Year 1 perhaps?

or Y2?

abcdoes.typepad.com/abc-does-a-blog/

Youth is a wonderful thing. I should have said no thanks and left, as I had no idea at all how to teach a) young children or b) reading and writing, as I had done a middle school teaching course. We knew we didn't know how to teach reading and writing but had been told not to worry as children who couldn't read and write weren't our responsibility. They were obviously special needs.

Here's a real favourite quote of mine

?Amazing how the liberal/left who dominate our education system condemned the 11-plus because it ?stigmatised? those who failed it yet they have no compunction in labelling 1 in 6 primary school children as having ?special needs?. Like a bad workman who blames his tools, having virtually destroyed the role of active teaching, replacing it with an amorphous idea of child centred learning, these same people, rather than accept what they have done, have to find an excuse for the failed system they have created.
If children are not learning it's because they have ?special needs? - simple! As with so much of the liberal/left agenda there is a total inability by those who pursue it to even contemplate, let alone admit, they could possibly be wrong. Their theories are always correct. Only people and human nature prevents the dawn of their brave new world and if necessary they will hammer as many square pegs into as many round holes as it takes to prove them right.?

Ok, apologies. I got it wrong.
We've always done both for L2 children, dotting i's and crossing t's so to speak.

So teachers, would you agree that if a child has a very strong YR phonics base/foundation, secure in decoding of unfamiliar words, if given books/texts in Y1 based on "look and say" should continue decoding unfamiliar/compound words?
I am very confused in this matter, DD spent whole of the last year YR blending and then decoding, only to start bringing books home in Y1 that are not reinforcing phonics and which are deliberately trying to teach a child to memorise words, instead of decoding them.
Surely that can be very confusing for a child, even more so for children who did not get a good grounding in phonics, surely such swapping and switching between the different methods can delay some children/prevent them from learning to read all together.
Or am I wrong, is it that different methods should be mixed and matched for successful reading?
Do good teachers mix and match successfully, or stick purely to phonics?

Personally I would hope children have access to high quality decodable books until they develop the necessary level of knowledge to decode any word they may encounter ... up to turquoise band I would be looking at using phonic reading schemes

This is where I am slightly confused, DD orange band, since yellow has been on books that are not decodable, but rather teaching key words, why is that?
Is it the case of her school not investing in new high quality decodable books, using the old method schemes and hoping for the best?

It could be just a case of different teachers teach different methods .

Unless there is a whole school policy on the teaching of phonics it could be quite usual for the YR teacher to teach rigorous phonics and the Y1 teacher to teach 'look & guess'. If the HT has no experience of Early Years they frequently don't know much about the teaching of reading themselves, so aren't aware of the contradictions implicit in this.

If it is shortage of money to replace outdated reading schemes they have no excuse now that they can buy 'approved' phonics resources, programmes and training at half price as a result of the Match Funding scheme...

We were out yesterday so havent had chance to sit and reply to some of the really interesting comments. but its all really interesting stuff. I originally posted the question because i was concerned that money was being spent (i am an accountant, so like to ensure pennies arent wasted), on a new additional test of method. With limited resources could that money have been better spent on teacher training to improve teachers methods. ( just one alternative suggestion, not the only one or probably best one).

I dont doubt that everyone wants to teach our children to achieve their maximum reading potental. i dont have an issue with the test in itself.

I do have two worries . one- the cost, at the expense of other possible investments.
two- the reporting of the test results in the media as a direct indicator of overall reading ability.

I dont agree the result should be taken and used as a blanket headline on how poor we are doing, when some children who are good at reading might get thrown by the sole focus of it.

i do agree the test would make a good tool for teachers to help review individual pupil performance.

I do agree teachers should know best for each child.