Can someone PLEASE tell me how many high frequency words there are??????

[propercheesed]

DS is currently KS1 at school, I have requested a copy of any high frequency words he should be learning(along side his reading) but surprise surprise access denied!!. Anyone would think I wanted to help my son .

I have googled and googled and I keep getting different answers, please could any teachers or up to speed parents tell me where to find the answer?

Since sight words are being dismissed by people claiming that phonics is a superior method, then research supporting phonics that turns out to be an extended advert for one particular phonics method is hardly evidence that phonics is superior to sight word teaching....

Good heavens, do you really think that the Sounds~Write figures are the only piece of research to support phonics instruction? How strange

Cancer treatments are not allowed on the market unless pretty thoroughly reviewed by more agencies and scientists than just the company that developed them you know. I wouldn't fancy being a guinea pig, cancer or not.

MaizieD it is the only piece of research that supports the Sounds-Write product, which is all the so-called 'evidence' that Maverick posted was about. Did you read it? It is about the SW phonics programme, not phonics in general.

www.belb.org.uk/Downloads/lp_report.pdf

100 years of 'sight word' methods in the classroom - how education practice continues to promote reading failure:

Dr Diane McGuinness makes it clear that there is not a single research study in the world to support the use of the methods now being promoted to help poor readers.

A Comparison of Results for Synthetic Phonics and Other Reading Programmes

CLASSROOM

Beginning Readers.

Jolly Phonics: Au: Sue Lloyd

1. Published Study. Johnston and Watson, 1997

Age ?Reception? (4:8). N = 54
Study type: Experimental. Two type of phonics programme
Treatment: Synthetic Phonics vs. Analytic Phonics
Time: Daily class lessons + individual tasks (+/- 1 hour per day).
Duration: 10 weeks, 50-60 hours
Tests: British Ability Scales

Results: Years:months BAS
First test (10 weeks)
S-P 5:9
A-P 5:0
Second test (62 weeks)
S-P 6:7
A-P 5:3

1. Published Study. Stuart, 1999

Age: 5 years, 1 month. N= 112
Study type: Experimental. One hour each day
Treatment: Synthetic phonics vs. Whole Language
Time: One hour per day
Duration: 12 weeks/60 hours
Tests: BAS Reading. Schonell Spelling

Results: Years/months BAS Schonell
J-P 7:1 6:9
W-L 6:3 5:9

1. Published Study. Stuart, 2004

Follow-on study. End Key Stage 1

Age: 7:5 N= 101

Results: Years/months
C.A. BAS Schonell Neale Neale
Accur. Comp

S-P JP 1 (original) 7:6 8:2 7:11 7:7 7:2
S-P JP 2 (late trained) 7:5 8:0 7:6 8:0 7:5
W-L 7:5 7:6 6:11 7:5 7:3

JP groups significantly ahead of W-L group in BAS and Schonell. No significant
differences between any groups on the Neale tests.

Sound Discovery (JP based + new materials) Au: Marlynne Grant

1. Unpublished study. Data collected from 1996-2004

Age: ?Reception? N= 680 Multiple schools.
Study Type: 1 Year Longitudinal (multiple cohorts 1996-2004)
Controls: National norms)
Treatment: Jolly Phonics + new material + advanced spelling code
Classroom time: 20 minutes per day + reading decodable texts.
Duration: 10 months
Tests: Burt Reading, Schonell Spelling

Results. Years:Months/Gains Burt Schonell

End of year scores: 1:2 1:3

1. Unpublished study. Data collected from 1997-2002.

Age: Reception. N= 500 Multiple schools.
Study Type: 1 Year Longitudinal (multiple cohorts 1997-2002)
Treatment: JP + new material + advanced spelling code.
Time: 20 minutes per day + reading decodable texts.
Duration: One school year
Tests: Burt Reading, Schonell Spelling

Results. Burt Schonell

Gains: Years:months 1:2 1:6

1. Unpublished study (2005). Follow-on data at Year 6.

Age: Reception to Year 6. N= 90
Study type: Longitudinal + interventions for slower readers at Key Stage 2
Treatment: Snappy Lessons (M. Grant ? Decodable text).
Time: Intervention only: 2 sessions per week.
Duration: Reception to Year 6
Tests: Key Stage 2 English SATs 2004

Results: SATS Levels 4 and 5.

Sound Discovery group: 94% Level 4+ 65% Level 5.
LEA average: 82% Level 4+ 29% Level 5

[Author quote: ?Since working with synthetic phonics, --no pupils in the school required a Statement for dyslexia. Whatever their Special Educational Need or background, virtually all the children learned to read and write.?]

Sounds-Write (linguistic phonics) Au. Susan Case, David Philpot, John Walker

1. Unpublished study. One School.

Age: Reception to Year 2. N= 50
Study type: Longitudinal
Treatment: Linguistic/synthetic phonics. Advanced spelling code. Classroom/small
groups
Time: Est. 1 hour/day
Duration: 10 months (school year)
Tests: Unknown

Results: Chron. Age Read. Age Spell. Age

End Year 2 7:3 9:0 9:9

1. Unpublished study. Many schools

Age: Reception, Year 1, Year 2 N=1,781
Study type: Longitudinal
Treatment: Classroom. Small groups
Time: 1 hour/day reception only
Duration: 10 months
Tests: Young Spelling Test/or Parallel Spelling Test

Results (end of year): Chron. Age Spell. Age

Reception 5:4 6:6
Year 1 6:3 7:3
Year 2 7:3 8:6

Sound-Steps to Reading (New) Au. Diane McGuinness

1. Unpublished study: U.S.. Two reception classrooms (Pilot)

Age: Kindergarten (US) Ages 5 -6 N=32
Study type: Longitudinal
Treatment: Comprehensive Linguistic phonics. Advanced spelling code.
Scripted lessons. Integrated materials: reading, spelling, writing. Lessons
include only what has been taught. Whole class plus small group work.
Time: 1 hour/day
Duration: 10 months
Tests: WRAT-3 Reading (Grade-level converted to ?age?)

Results (June 2006 ):
Chron. Age WRAT Read. age
At Pre-test: 30 were non-readers.

End year: June: 06 6:4 8:1
Average Percentile Ranks 91.2 %tile

NOTE:

1. 42% of children scored at the 99th percentile or higher.
2. 75% scored at the 90th percentile or higher.
3. Lowest score: 50th percentile (average)

Remedial Tutoring

School-Based Tutoring.

Reading Recovery Au. Marie Clay.

Unpublished study (2006). Institute of Education. Au. S. Burroughs-Lange
Title: Evaluation of Reading Recovery in London Schools: Every Child a Reader 2005-2006.

Age: 6:3 8 worst readers/classroom. N= 145 Treatment group.
N= 147 Control group.
Study type: Experiment: Treatment x No-treatment control.
[This is first RR study with a control group since 1995 ? Au. report.]
Treatment: Book series/whole language, etc. Unknown --small group or 1-to-1(?)
Time: tutoring time unknown.
Duration: Sept. to July (10 months)
Tests: British Ability Scales

Results: British Ability Scales
Pre-Test Post Test
Stan. Score Yrs:mos Stand. Score Yrs:Mos

Controls N=147 99 4:10 N=147 94 5:5

R. R. (N=145) 101 4:9 N= 85 111 6:7

[NOTE: This study purports to have 145 children in the RR group in all parts of this report up to the Results section. At Table 7 (results) only 87 RR children remain in the sample. No explanation given. The 58 missing children reappear in Table 9 (last page) as the ?children in schools with RR who did not receive RR.? As research reports are always written after the fact and never while a study is ongoing, this report seems intentionally misleading. It is curious then, that Burroughs-Lange reports Johnston and Watson as having ?no success with the very lowest achieving children,? and alleges: ?in some cases these were deliberately excluded from studies.? (page 3 of report)]

N.B. This programme has received large amounts of funding from private donors and foundations, as well as from the DfES (taxpayers). It is the most expensive programme available, requires the most training time for teachers, takes the longest amount of time to administer, reaches the fewest students, and has the poorest return on investment in terms of results. A decade of analysis of RR ?results? by the scientific community (external to the school system) shows that 30%-40% of children are routinely discharged from RR lessons for lack of progress. This study is no exception.

?Catch-Up? programme. Au. DfES personnel.

1. Unpublished Summary Report. No Authors given. Date: Jnly 2003

Age: Year 3 N = 53 (1 or 2 per school)
Study Type: Intervention.
Treatment: Unspecified content, method, or progression.
Unknown if small groups or 1-to-1.
Time: 2 weekly sessions. Hours unknown.
Duration: 8 months
Test: Hodder Reading Progress Test Series

Results: Average scores +15 months above baseline. Minus 8 months time = 7 months gain above age norms.

1. Unpublished. No authors on this report.

Age: Years 2-6. N=200 (9 schools)
Study Type: Intervention/Longitudinal.
Treatment: DfES programme. No specifics given.
Time: unknown
Duration: 10 months
Test: Salford Sentence Reading Test

Results: Gains above test norms.

Intervention Periods:
At 10 weeks: Average scores + 6.5 months. Minus 10 weeks = + 2.5 months.
At 10 months: Average scores + 14 months. Minus 10 months = + 4 months.
After 3 terms: Average scores + 11 months. Minus 15 months = - 4 months.

[Students dropped out of this programme at various times based on gains. No details provided.]

Sound Reading System (Adaptation: Sound Steps) Au. Fiona Nevola

1. Unpublished study. Data: 2003-2007

Ages: 6 to adult. N=140
Study Type: Individual tutoring. 7 Tutors combined data.
Treatment: Syn. Phonics + Advanced code. All components ? including
reading materials, spelling, etc. - controlled by learning sequence
Time: One hour per week. Parent-supported homework.
Duration: Range 6 to 30 hours. Average: 18 hours.
Tests: Nelson NFER Reading Test, Schonell Spelling, Parallel Spelling

Results: Gains in Years:Months

NFER Read. NFER Comp. Schonell/Parallel Spelling

All students: 2:4 2:7 2:3
(all tutors)

1. Unpublished internal report. L. Stewart and D. Sherwood. Directors of Training: Thames Valley Probationary Services. 2006

Ages: 20 to 54 years. N=16
Study Type: Individual tutoring on site. Subjects self selected.
Time: One hour session per week plus homework.
Duration: 4 to 11 hours. Average = 6 hours.
Tests: WRAT. Pre and post test scores.

Results: Average reading age at pre-test was 7:5 years (range 6-11 years). Spelling age range was 5-7 years.

Gains in Years:Months on the WRAT

Reading: 2:2
Spelling: 3:6

[N.B. Learning speed is critical for this highly transient population. Half the original group of 31 people could not complete lessons and were unavailable for post-testing.]

From the report: ?The majority of our learners cannot believe that reading and writing is actually as simple as it is.? -- ?Learners often broke down and cried because they can finally see how the reading or spelling process works.?

www.vasresearch.com/page12/page12.html

The whole language method and use of sight words, Dolch words, etc are not synonymous. It is clear from even the OP's question that there is at least one teacher out there who uses a combination of hf words alongside phonics for average ability classes, and not just for children who are having difficulties (OP didn't mention any special circumstances).

I have no objection whatsoever to phonics. I do object to the obtuseness of posters who insist it has to be all phonics all the time when that is manifestly not the usual practice, and also to those who can't see the difference between sites whose purpose is promotion of one particular product or line of products and actual research.

Mrz the link to 'products' is on the home page, which also contains at least one grammatical error and evidence of poor proofreading-- . The book is one of the products. The excerpt from it that you linked is an opinion not supported by any references visible in the text.
('After 4000 years of learning to read, there are still peoples on earth who can speak but cannot read a word. The evidence of failure [of the whole language approach]] was there for all to see.' And rather a poorly thought out opinion at that)

From the 'Products' link:
'Byron Harrison initially qualified as an optometrist but has many other interests.
He has been an honorary probation officer, a board member of Lifeline, a professional potter , and local government councillor. He has co-authored a book of prose and poetry and is one of the state's top public speakers.
He has written papers and lectured to teachers on literacy throughout Australia, New Zealand the USA and the United Kingdom.
He is Managing Director of VAS Research and a Director of VAS Systems, an educational software development company.
His web site can be found at www.theharrisontest.com

So something of a renaissance man

'Jean Clyde has a background in textile design and a current interest in Celtic painting and web page design.
She has a masters degree in Education with a special interest in the neuro-anatomy of memory. Jean was the co-founder of 'Basic Concern', Tasmania's leading remedial centre and is regarded by many to be one of Australia's finest remedial teachers.
She has lectured throughout Australia and New Zealand but is currently designing teaching tools.

COST: $35 Aus (includes postage)

Order by e-mail to Byron - include

• How many copies you require
• Name
• Postal address

We will send an invoice via e-mail. On receiving your cheque/money order we will post the resource to you.'
There you have it.

From the Stranmillis Queens Univ report:
'Schools using intervention strategies to improve pupils' reading should be made aware that Linguistic Phonics, used in isolation or along side other approaches such as Reading Recovery, has a positive affect on pupils? reading ability. Moreover it is cost effective.' - a conclusion of the Stranmillis report wrt the LP method.

Also from that report, on th esubject of sight words and their place in a phonics programme: 'Some common words, of course, are not phonemically regular and a small number will always need to be taught as sight words, but this should not take away from the need for the child to be an active problem-solver when it comes to the large majority of words that can be worked out phonemically.'

A very interesting finding in the report about writing and gender:
'Within the LPA schools there appears to be a gender difference, as girls showed an ability to write longer, more complex stories, use punctuation other than the full stop, and use a wider range and complexity of words. This gender difference occurred only in the higher reading ability group.

− However, across all three ability groups within the nLPA schools, girls were writing longer stories and were more proficient in their organisation and in the use of connectives.
− Girls, in all three groups by May, were also using a greater range of vocabulary than boys, including good use of adjectives and adverbs. For example, in the lower reading ability group, 2 out of 3 girls were using a range of vocabulary in their writing in the final writing sample and none of the 3 boys in the sample were deemed to be demonstrating this in their writing.'

This is also interesting:
'In schools A, B, C and D, spelling difficulties with words of 2 or more syllables were persistent. There was continuing confusion about homophones (are/our, to/too, there/their etc.), and little confidence about using connectors or about punctuation. In the middle group, some progression in confidence, in spelling and in ability to structure a piece of writing was evident, but pupils with severe literacy difficulties or chronic spelling problems showed very little discernible advance in any area of writing skills. Of the third who showed the most progression, the majority were from the middle reading ability group.

(fwiw - From the pov of someone who is familiar with the NI accent, some of the spellings in the example of children's writing make complete sense - 'sastr' for sister.)

The report makes it clear that it assesses one method of teaching phonic decoding, NLP, and not any others.

'Dr Diane McGuinness makes it clear that there is not a single research study in the world to support the use of the methods now being promoted to help poor readers.' - Maverick.
Dr McGuinness made it clear in her Phono-graphix meths that there are about 55 words that are not susceptible to decoding. Her concept of sight words is different from the idea of combining phonics with tackling the Dolch words or hf words in order to make the process of reading less laborious for early readers, but even she conceded that there are words that cannot be decoded and must be learned.

The focus of all the controversy is really the 20% of children who underachieve. 80% of children, give or take, will become more or less proficient readers, and have done so since reading acquisition was first measured back in the 1930s, despite being subjected to the horrors of non-synthetic phonic methods.

As the Stranmillis report concludes: 'As all the pupils were lower achieving in general, the gains made with the Linguistic Phonics approach are certainly noteworthy. However, pupils with severe literacy difficulties or chronic spelling problems showed very little advance in writing ability in both groups.

At secondary level, it may be that pupils at the lowest ability levels need more time and more individual attention in order to make any significant progress. Further investigation of the use of Linguistic Phonics for these pupils is needed before any reliable conclusions can be reached for this group with severe difficulties, particularly using Linguistic Phonics in a way that is specifically targeted towards the individual needs of each child.'

Incidentally, Mrz, what do you see as the role of spelling tests?

Sorry, v long.

mathanxiety if you mean the traditional sending home a list to be memorised then tested on Monday morning ... I see it's role to cause family disharmony and parental frustration

''Dr McGuinness made it clear in her Phono-graphix meths that there are about 55 words that are not susceptible to decoding. Her concept of sight words is different from the idea of combining phonics with tackling the Dolch words or hf words in order to make the process of reading less laborious for early readers, but even she conceded that there are words that cannot be decoded and must be learned''

Phono-graphix is not Diane McGuinness's programme. It was written by her DIL and DS. I know her personally and I can assure you that she would never have said that, ''there are about 55 words that are not susceptible to decoding'', in fact, if you read her book, 'Why Children Can't read', she makes a great deal of the fact that all words can be decoded.

There are 7-9 HF words that may be better taught as sight words.

Sigh -- without the input of Diane McGuinness, the method would quite possibly not exist all the same, right? And seemingly, for the purposes of actual application in classrooms, the 55 words are treated as sight words.

(Seemingly it is the input of Geoffrey and Carmen McGuinness that has made it into a Florida registered for profit corporation)

Sigh back at you, maverick - sigh at the 20% of kids who fail to learn to read using mixed methods and the schools who insist on using them.

Sorry, maverick - my sighs were of course aimed at mathanxiety

Please ask MNHQ to remove that link - Sparklebox is a twice convicted paedophile and I have just made him cash by clicking in your link. I can't believe your school are recommending you use it.

PLEASE DO NOT CLICK ON THE ABOVE LINK!!!!!!!!!

really?????????????

Yes! news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8462650.stm

eeek SORRRY FOLKS>> have plressed the link to MNHQ

He is now out of prison and still listed as its director.

Thanks NeverKnowingly, have reported it too.

shame really as the resources are super any recommendations as to alternatives?

www.twinkl.co.uk/

thanks

That 20% has been constant from the first time reading progress was measured, way back in the 1930s, way before 'mixed methods'.

It is clear from even the little research that has been done on individual phonics approaches or methods, as in the Belfast study, that there are groups that are relatively impervious to pretty much every method.

A truly silly video, Mrz, inaccurately equating use of wight words with the whole language approach, inaccurately alleging that the sight words are taught according to grade levels, and also a wild exaggeration of the effect of teaching sight words. 'Pretend you're five years old. Prepare to be tortured.' Puhleeease.

And dyslexic is 'a fancy medical term coined especially to describe the perfectly normal, intelligent youngster who can't learn to read by the whole word method' ?? Do you believe that, Mrz?

'The intense sound track suggests what it must be like to be made illiterate by your own school.'
LOL

There is a difference between a screed and an intelligent opinion.

Bruce Deitrick Price bio:
'Aside from the arts, main activity is Improve- Education.org, which is now up to 60 articles and 110,000 words of original content about robots, sophistry, Latin, phonics, 1984, Pavlov, birds, English usage, design, and the foolish things that our education establishment does. '
A professional gadfly.

Can you please tell me the difference between identifying or recognising words and reading? When you read, do you sound everything out?

That 20% has been constant from the first time reading progress was measured, way back in the 1930s, way before 'mixed methods'.

Not in my school, where we teach phonics exclusively - and not in mrz's school.