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?

I have to confess that I'm finding it quite amusing

pickledsiblings no one is saying that it is wrong to say capital letters have names

I am saying it is wrong to tell four year olds that capital letters only have names and lower case don't have names ... which is what these teachers are telling young children.

pickledsiblings your DS my DD any DC's being taught in such way, if they see custard or mustard all in capital print, might decide to spell it out, rather then to read it, that's what confusion does, never good idea unnecessary confusing four year olds.

Strictlovingmum, you would simply correct them, just as you would if they mispronounced a letter sound.

?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.?

I know the thread has wandered off but I agree wholeheartedly with this. Thanks Moondog.

I have certainly had to do that already with the word 'puts' in Floppy Phonics - but my teacher said 'u' is 'uh' 'yes darling, but in this case it's it actually oo' .

I must be in an argumentative mood because I don't agree with that Humphrey. The labelling of children as having 'special needs' is not due to the government's agenda but is more down to recent advances in neuroscience and experimental psychology. And until those same scientists can work out a way to successfully teach children with 'special needs', the government will continue to get the blame.

My DS2 is in reception and being taught phonics excellently by an NQT

I have certainly had to do that already with the word 'puts' in Floppy Phonics - but my teacher said 'u' is 'uh' 'yes darling, but in this case it's it actually oo'.

And your point is mrz...

The labelling of children as having 'special needs' is not due to the government's agenda but is more down to recent advances in neuroscience and experimental psychology.

Most of the children on our SEN register are there because they haven't attended school regularly not because they have any condition that a scientist or psychologist could diagnose.

excellent teaching pickledsiblings

Goodness! Very confusing! Never heard the name/sound capital/lower case thing before. think it would probably confuse my DD.

Back to teaching methods.... words like DIVER, BOOK, SNAKE, are tricky for DD. we are from the midlands, so it's buhk for us, and when DD is trying ti say booook and wandering what that is.

She also thinks snake is snak. that pesky e causing trouble again!

But to be fair, despite the naughty words that dont follow the rules phonics is working well for her.

Pity i cant type without hitting the wrong letters...sorry if last post inconprehensible!

Pickled - most of the kids on the SEN register don't have SN (special needs) only SEN (special educational needs)

You don't need any diagnosis of anything to be on the SEN register.

And certainly probably no child in your school has been seen by a neuroscientist or an experimental psychologist.

And they are mostly failed, very, very badly, by teachers who believe that because they're 'SEN' it's ok for them to not make adequate progress.

The low expectations of my 2 is absolutely shocking - despite everyone acknowledging they're very bright.

Most children will have SEN at some point in their school career and ideally most children will move on and off the register very quickly as their needs are identified and met.

yummymummyreally the "naughty" words do follow "rules" just not the same ones ...

She probably hasn't been taught a_e to represent the long a sound yet I've got 4 children in Y2 still having trouble with it

SEN and SN are both meaningless terms, which mean whatever people want them to mean and therefore have no useful or legal weight .
'Learning Disability' is anothe empty expression.

None the less moondog, there are children for whom the average classroom/teacher set up is far from the optimal learning environment, are there not?

pickledsiblings: good point, and it's precisely why a test of this kind will be so useful. The sooner such children are identified the better, especially as they are so few in number.

I think that would be all of them?

No-one believes our state education system is optimal do they?

"Optimal" is one-on-one teaching, IMO! My DD comes out of her one hour a week with her literacy tutor bouncing with pleasure and having learned huge amounts more than in the six hours of English literacy she gets at school every week.

I feel that many schools don't really understand how to teach synthetic phonics, even though they say they are doing it. Many schools start with a good programme like Jolly Phonics but then think they have "done" phonics and don't follow it up with more advanced phonic code learning. I tutor many children and have noticed the following:

a) Child is struggling to learn to read. She has not been taught sf for long enough/thoroughly enough/at all beyond single letter sounds. S/he is reading non-phonic reading books and is guessing (eg aeroplane for acorn - there is a pic of a plane on the page). In general these children need a lot of "overlearning" to retain the sf information and this just hasn't happened at school. Once they are taught the phonic code they begin to make progress with reading.

b) Bright child can read at or even above chronological age level but is misreading many words. Often has mild to moderate dyslexia that has not been spotted in school. Makes lots of mistakes that lead to problems with reading comprehension - eg reads diagram for diagonal in a maths question and then understandably does not know what the question is asking. This can cause really significant problems at GCSE level where they might be asked to select a correct multi-choice answer from, say, glycogen and glucogon in a science exam.

This could all be much better if sp was taught much more thoroughly in KS1 (in schools that don't already do this - which seems to be most of the ones I have come across btw) and if those children who were struggling were identified effectively so that they could be given more opportunity to learn the phonics before the end of KS1. I think this is what the year 1 "test" is aimed at.

In a good school, following a good SP programme, this testing will probably already be being done in some shape or form anyway. The national phonics test will hopefully force those schools who don't teach sp very well (or at all) to do it better and pick out those who are struggling for extra help.

I agree that one-on-one teaching has a lot going for it.

Children with 'disorders' such as dyslexia, ADHD, autism, APD and short term memory problems will continue to struggle enormously until research points us in the direction of how best to teach them.

Unlike moondog, I think teaching in this country has made decent inroads into teaching children as individuals and I believe that this is the way forward. The more neuroscientists and experimental psychologists learn about how the brain works, the more it becomes obvious that we are not all the same and we do not all learn in the same way (and I'm not talking about 'individual learning styles' here btw).

After another 10 years or so we will probably all have a few more labels to hang around our necks.

Children with 'disorders' such as dyslexia, ADHD, autism, APD and short term memory problems will continue to struggle enormously until research points us in the direction of how best to teach them.

Couldn't disagree more - from my personal experience. These 'disorders' are not educational problems - and neither the problem nor the solution is better teaching.

My DS with ASD doesn't need to be taught differently - although it would help if work was differentiated better, because most of it is far too easy for him.

My DD with Dyslexia doesn't need to be taught differently - she needs to complete another cycle of vision therapy and neuro-development therapy.

Nobody is going to solve these problems at school. But there are lots and lots of very effective therapies for these problems available.

There are loads of problems with the system. Teachers aren't trained to spot problems, parents trust teachers, nobody helps parents, nobody trusts therapies that aren't marketed by drug companies, low expectations, etc, etc.

But waiting for scientific advances is not the solution - and is a very dangerous myth to peddle, because it stops people being proactive now. Stops parents from helping their children, because it absolves them of responsibility.