Y1 phonics check

[piellabakewell]

You can see it in action here so you know what we are putting them through!

lockets, we cross-posted...I'm sorry you've had such trouble getting the necessary support. I also have a very late summer DD, but she managed ok luckily. However, four of the weakest five readers in my class are autumn born. They have all been receiving considerable support since September and also extra small group support since January.

So the test doesn't really test reading as such.

It's not intended to be - it's purely a check to see if children can decode, and also a check to ensure schools put in place help for those who cannot.

Of course reading is about many other aspects - but none of them are accessible if a child cannot decode in the first place.

Well, yes, if a child can't make out any words then it can't read. But if it can make out words and uses a word's position in a sentence to work out what it says then that is copying what adults do. Adults don't work out what a word says by consulting lists of random nonsense words. (At least not in my dictionary.)

lockets - I'm concerned for you / your DD :(

But I'm not concerned that she can't read alien words. I'm concerned that not being able to do something the teacher asks her to do, 1:1 in a nice cosy atmosphere, would cause her such distress.

Surely all of school must be awful for her at the moment? Surely she frequently has to attempt stuff she's not good at?

No, but adults are usually proficient readers, learnandsay, with decoding skills already in place.

A bit of a day for weird ranting posts?

Surely learnandsay you read 'blow' by reading 'blow'. You don't need it to be in a sentence to know it says blow. It always says blow, always.

All the time we read words not in sentences. Names of shops. Texts. etc.

The child has been told 'this is a word - what does it say'. They either read it correctly, or they don't.

Feenie, when you say decode all you're saying it seems is plausibly utter a string of letters. It seems to me that this depends on your world view. Because people who focus on the meaning of words (rather than the structure of how words sound) would say that simply uttering words that you can't understand isn't useful unless you're reading single printed words like toilet, exit, lorries and so on that you find on signs without context in a sentence (they still have situational context). But what would be the point of reading/uttering these words if you didn't understand them?

There's a level of dogma involved in the theory that uttering random strings of nonsense words isn't a complete waste of time.

And if you can't utter them how will you know what they say?

I am looking forward to her teacher realising the extent of her struggling though - exactly

If the teacher realises how much she struggles, it's got to be a good thing.

And also - they have to report the results of the test to you. So they will not be able to tell you she's doing fine. School will have to admit (to you) that she's struggling.

This is a good thing. :)

Because tackling nonsense words regularly using phonics helps children when they later read a word which is unfamiliar to them. Helps them to read it. Using context helps them to guess what it might be.

You look them up in a dictionary. You may then know what they mean and still not be able to pronounce them. But you'll understand them. Achaean is an example.

Not you, lockets. There has been lots of er....ranting on Primary Ed today. But not from you.

lockets - there's just been a number of weird threads today. And I'm finding learnAndSay a bit ranty about how learning to decode helps you to learn to read.

We've had this discussion many many times before (not necessarily with L&S). Not really sure why I'm engaging with her......

But reading involves more than uttering printed letters. Uttering and reading aren't the same.

Quite, learnandsay - the dictionary helps with meaning. But not with actual decoding.

Yes , reading is more than decoding, yes.

But decoding has to be proficient or all the other aspects of reading can't be accessed at all.

No one has said that reading only involves decoding, or that this check involves anything other than decoding.

All I'm really trying to do is get phonics adherents to admit that there's a certain amount of dogma and make it up as you go along in phonics. I'm not saying that's a bad thing. But an admission would be nice.

lockets
Provided that both you and the year 1 teacher relax your little girl will not know she is being tested. Getting children to read nonsense words has been part of phonics teaching for several years. Its nothing new. My son was given nonsense words to decode in reception six years ago.

I am glad this test is being brought in. It will actually benefit children to be taught to this test. I think it will help to reduce literacy problems in the future.

I wouldn't be admitting any such thing, since it's not true, learnandsay.

It depends on what you mean by decoding. The look and say method doesn't contain decoding of the type you're talking about and yet people who learn to read using it can still work out meaning. So your decoding isn't necessary. It might be useful but it isn't necessary.

learnandsay - How much training have you had in teaching children to read? How many children have you taught to read?
How much research into teaching reading have you done?

What makes you qualified to slag off phonics?