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?

But ANYTHING that works should be considered and it is short-sighted and dare I say foolish to declare one method the only way to do something.

You have a choice between a method which supposedly teaches 80% of children to read (I say 'supposedly' because I end up working with some of that 80% in Y7; nice, intelligent children who read confidently until they come to a word they don't know and then sit staring blankly at it as they have absolutely no idea of how to work out what it 'says), or, a method which teaches 95% of children to read.

1. You can't teach them both together. (Because if you do, Method 2 becomes so like Method 1 that you can't easily tell them apart)
2. Method 2 is not at all harmful to children; indeed, it may well get the high fliers going even more rapidly than Method 1.
3. You don't know which children are going to struggle with Method 1 until they start struggling, with all that struggling entails.

As a teacher (leaving aside all your beliefs), which offers you the best deal?

Reframing 40% as 'almost half' is a bit disingenuous. Why not say 'just over a third'?

Different definitions of what constitutes literacy are used in different places. Up to the No Child Left Behind Act, afaik, US education was very much a matter in state control with individual states having different standards. Even within the UK, the standards used to measure reading competence have been questioned.

Sir Michael Wilshaw:
"Last year 45% of those pupils who just reached level 4c at the age of 11 did not achieve a grade C in their GCSE English exams. So one of the first questions we need to ask is whether the national end-of-primary-school target of level 4 is sufficiently high to provide an adequate foundation for success at secondary school."

In the opinion of the head of Ofsted, the UK may well teach 80% of all children to read, but how well that is accomplished is another matter.

From a recent OECD report 'Equity and Quality in Education: Supporting Disadvantaged Students and Schools':

'Across OECD countries, almost one of every five students does not reach a basic minimum level of skills to function in today?s societies (indicating lack of inclusion). Students from low socio-economic background are twice as likely to be low performers, implying that personal or social circumstances are obstacles to achieving their educational potential (indicating lack of fairness). Lack of inclusion and fairness fuels school failure, of which dropout is the most visible manifestation ? with 20% of young adults on average dropping out before finalising upper secondary education.'

18% of British teens leave school at age 16. Those most likely to leave are from poor or immigrant families.

You absolutely can teach them both together MaizieD. You are confusing sight words and whole language if you think they can't. It is not a stark choice between two completely different methods.

Actually math some studies put it much higher than half depending on the level used the 40% is the number at 4th grade or lower equivalent so half is being generous.

You absolutely can teach them both together MaizieD.

That is what the old NLS did. Result? At least 20% of children left KS2 with very poor, or no, reading skills. A significant number of these left KS2 able to read (but not spell) the 45 YR/1 HFWs and not much else.

How many leave KS2 with very poor, or no reading skills now?

Here is an interesting paper for you, MaizieD, a brief synopsis of research on long term results of various kinds of phonics instruction. The full article is here.

The conclusion is that by the later stages of primary education, early intensive decoding instruction does not result in progress in comprehension. Decoding is not the equivalent of reading (with comprehension as a vital element of the definition of reading). The author suggests that no matter what approach is used (with phonics a good way to start) reading a lot after that initial hurdle has been crossed is the only way to create good readers.

How many leave KS2 with very poor, or no reading skills now?

Around 20% still - schools still clinging to mixed methods.

Studies?

Take a look at 'Results by subject area for KS2 test:'

How would 'still clinging to mixed methods' explain the discrepancy between boys' and girls' scores across the board in English, Reading and Writing?

Here is an interesting paper for you, MaizieD, a brief synopsis of research on long term results of various kinds of phonics instruction. The full article is here

Setting aside the fact that the author of this paper is a leading light in the WL movement I would comment on his remarks about Clackmannanshire, whose children 'only' averaged 3 months ahead of chronological age on a reading & comprehension test.

I have been keeping reading test data on pupils in our school for the last 12 years. At no time in that period has a Y7 cohort had an average R & C age equal to, or higher than, chronological age. The most normal 'average' is between 6 & 8 months below chronological age. These are 'mixed methods' taught children.

I would be interested to know more about the testing of the WL taught children mentioned in the paper.

One point which papers like this fail to make clear is that comprehension is a language based skill, not a reading skill. I appreciate that, as written language can be very different from oral language, there is an element of learning the conventions and phrasings of written language. However, a phonics teacher will cover this just as much as a mixed methods or WL based teacher. I also fail to see how the ability to read exactly what is on the page is an impediment to understanding what is written on the page.

Reverting to Clackmannanshire; the study involved schools with pupils from the most disadvantaged area of the LA. Children from disadvantaged areas tend to have poorer language skills.

Do you think if all schools taught using phonics then the 20% would disappear? I'm not sure that phonics is a magic bullet in this way. Be great if it was. The jury must be out.

I'm a great believer in phonics but it's not the only way. Perhaps it's getting the children who struggle over that first hurdle into reading that is the trickiest thing. What about a child's desire to read, inspiration, passion? Love of literature. These are so important. I just worry slightly that we become so phonics obsessed we could lose sight of the bigger picture.

How would 'still clinging to mixed methods' explain the discrepancy between boys' and girls' scores across the board in English, Reading and Writing?

Because boys don't respond as well to learning to read and write by osmosis. They like a bit of logic... In Clackmannanshire the boys actually outperformed the girls.

Perhaps it should be the only way at the beginning, but after the initial hurdle it becomes only part of "the way".

I just worry slightly that we become so phonics obsessed we could lose sight of the bigger picture.

You really worry unnecessarily. Phonics is only part of learning to read; though it is a vital part. A good school will teach phonics in a language and literature rich environment. If you believe anything else you have fallen for the anti-phonics propaganda.

In schools which teach phonics well the 20% does disappear. Have you not read the Ofsted 'Reading by 6; How the best schools do it' report?

There will always be a percentage of children who are slower to learn; mostly because they have significant processsing difficulties of some kind. But it is estimated that this will be about 3 - 5% of children. From my own experience of working with the KS3 'strugglers' I would say this is about right.

Ok, that's great. Now we just need a lot more "best schools" .

Tgger,

It should indeed be the 'only way' at the beginning, but, once the correspondences have been learned and the decoding and blending skills are in place there really is no need for any other 'strategies' to be taught because the phonics knowledge and skills are sufficient for word identification.

If you know how to work out what any word 'says' there is no need to guess from pictures, context or initial letters (and those are the only 'other strategies' that are taught) These skills also give a good basis for generalisation and self teaching.

Ok, that's great. Now we just need a lot more "best schools" grin.

Well, that is what lots of teachers on here are saying! It's just that the whole machine takes along time to turn around...

And some people, for reasons I will never understand, are determined to try and throw a spanner in the works.....

Machines eh....

Well, noone likes being preached to....

In my bag of other ways would certainly be prediction re context though. I'm not sure you teach this directly, but you read, read, read to children and then I think they are more equipped re predicting, not guessing, what the word is, perhaps without needing to go through the phonics at all- shock!!

Predicting doesn't mean they are reading - sorry. And some of those 20% will have been read to in literature rich homes since they were tiny dots - my own ds included - but cannot learn to read until they are taught phonics properly.

Are you sure Feenie? I'm not. If you can predict by recognizing enough about the word, without having to go through the phonics which you may or may not have been taught, then you can learn to read this way. If your brain then recognizes this word (by sight, by sound, however your memory works) next time you see it, then you are reading it. Sometimes when DS reads to me and we get to a word he doesn't know I have to think very carefully about the phonics in it as I don't know them myself. Does this mean I am not reading the word?

Yes, I'm sure that not all children learn to read this way - having one child of my own who couldn't learn to read by being read to over and over again, and having seen many, many children in the same position - it's a myth that only children deprived of literature will fail to read. Ask Indigobell!