Yr 1 Phonics test - what if your child can already read?

[MayaAngelCool]

Can we have them exempted from the test? From what I gather, such a child is likely to fail the test as it includes lots of 'fake' words written phonetically. Children who can read well are thought to be likely to try to guess what real word these words are similar to, rather than saying what they actually are, and thus fail the test.

The Pearson Phonic Test information conveniently avoids saying anything about this problem. Anyone know?

Maizie said, 'The complete Chinese writing system consists of from 40,000-70,000 characters (accurate estimates are difficult) each representing a one-syllable word.'
She's right! One of the most recent dictionaries of single graphs published in China (1986-1990) lists about 60,000.
As the script is in active use and as long as it remains so the number of sinographs will continue to expand because, 'unlike a phonetic script, the traditional Chinese writing system is open-ended. This is due to the fact that, as in any language words are constantly being added to the lexicon.'
However, 'massive statistical studies of a wide variety of reading material in China during past the two decades have repeatedly demonstrated that 1,000 sinograms cover approximately 90% of all occurrences in typical texts. 2,400 sinograms cover 99% ...'
This is well within Maverick's 2000 to 2500 abstract symbols.
'Modern Chinese Writing' by Victor H Muir in (1996), The World's Writing Systems, ed Daniels, P.T. and Bright, W., OUP.

Well, I didn't say it, S~W I was quoting from a googled article...

I have also discovered from googling that knowledge of 3,000 characters is considered adequate for literacy and from further googling that:

The requirements set by China's Ministry of Education for elementary schools show that a student:
- by the 2rd grade, should be able recognize 1800 characters and write 1200
- by the 4th grade, should be able recognize 2500 characters and write 2000
- by the 6th grade, should be able recognize 3000 characters and write 2500.

It appears that most people aren't expected to learn the full 50,000+..

stopthinkingsomuch your child definitely won't have done the actual test yet (it can't be administered until 18th June) so it sounds as if the teacher is having a trial run.

every word I know (over 10,000 I would expect) has been memorised.
Spot on! Educated adults can read around 10,000 words instantly without decoding. When I tried to establish exactly how many English words have irregular spellings, I compiled a list of common words that an average 16-yr-old is likely to have come across in the course of their schooling. I could only find 6,800 words.

With my dyslexic DC he actually makes progress when he no longer has to decode a word but can say it on sight - in other words it's been committed to his long term store of words.

That is what becoming a fluent reader comes down to.
On the way to that stage, we utilise phonics as well, especially the more reliable sounds for consonant spellings, and that phonic knowledge stays with us for the rest of our lives. But being a fluent reader means not needing to decode any common words any more.

Re the OP, for fluent readers the new phonics test is totally pointless. They are likely to score badly because they have moved beyond the decoding stage. They expect words to have meaning. When presented with nonsense words, they are likely to be baffled and try to adjust their sounding out to a meaningful word.

I thought you were claiming MN had banned you masha?

If it helps anyone, these are the words DS's school sent home for practice for the test over half term

Driver
Zimp
Made
House
Who
Phit
Bang
Vix
Cup
Strup
Quib
Jight
Taught
Away
Sister
Sabe
Light
Vide
She
Voice
Shild
Aft
Dest
Was
Weg
Esk
Said

Little pictures of aliens alongside the nonsense words.

I don't think vide is a nonsense word in french. Presumably french pronunciation is allowed? This is similar to the lete (to rhyme with Pete) example mrz gave earlier. I read it to rhyme with jete, it was only in the context of what was written that I knew that this was not being looked for.

What is the validity of practising reading nonsense words? Either in the classroom or at home. Madness. To my mind it is an idea that rhymes with phit. And the mix of real words and pseudo words in the 'phonics check', where the real words can't be read in any phonetically plausible way, just adds to the madness.

The validity is that it is an established, effective method of identifying decoding problems in children and adults which is the purpose of the phonics screening check.

There will be no pseudo words used that are real words in other languages so the vide /lete issue won't be a problem.

As to real words ... do you really think accepting a wrong answer is a good idea? ... the child says treed for the word tried (ie represents "e" in field and grief so it is a plausible answer)

Under normal circumstances, no. But as this is a decoding test, not accepting them seems a little inconsistent.

The example real words include

gang
week
chill
grit
start
best
hooks
day
slide
newt
phone
blank
trains
strap
scribe
rusty
finger
dentist
starling

so if the actual test follows a similar pattern there isn't really an issue with alternative sounds.

Reading the guidance it definitely shouldn't be a problem

most items containing frequent and consistent vowel digraphs
? ?frequent? means that the vowel digraph appears often in words read by
children in Year 1
? ?consistent? means the digraph has a single or predominant phoneme
correspondence

Zebedee - and your answer for helping the 46% of Australians, the colossal numbers of Americans, the over 20% here in the UK who are poor/v.poor/barely functional readers?
These countries have used mixed methods, look and say, real reading, each child is different instruction, since late 60s - many schools gave children this form of eclectic teaching even before that time.
Please do produce a plan to teach struggling readers that by-passes efficient decoding skills.

Waiting with baited breath.

Fair enough mrz, the list you give doesn't offer much scope for alternative pronunciations with the exception of finger, which easily has 3.

I should point out that is just a sample list. No one knows what the words in the actual will be yet only that they should contain graphemes with a single or dominant sound correspondence.

Allchildrenreading, where are those stats from? 46% of Australians functionally illiterate?

cit.edu.au/industry_business/industry_connection/2010_june/literacy_and_numeracy_holding_australia_back

Approximately 7 million Australian adults (46 per cent) had literacy scores below the minimum level needed to function fully in life and work

Thanks, mrz. Reading the information on the ABS site about the survey it's to 'meet the complex demands of everyday life and work in the emerging knowledge-based economy' and encompasses prose literacy, document literacy (including maps and charts), numeracy and problem solving.

Allchildrenreading, phonics is taught explicitly in Australia, generally via Jolly Phonics IME. It was taught explicitly when I was in year one in the late '70s. The 46% figure is not about 'readers', the survey covered much more complex areas than reading.

Oops, meant to include a link www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Latestproducts/4228.0Main%20Features22006%20(Reissue)?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=4228.0&issue=2006%20(Reissue)&num=&view=

www.informationaccessgroup.com/literacy.html

In Australia today, approximately 46% of adults aged 15 to 74 have a literacy level below what is considered enough to get by in everyday life.

Numeracy ? 53% of the general population at Level 1 or 2
Problem solving ? 70% of the general population at Level 1 or 2

Yes, it's the same survey, the Adult Literacy and Life Skills Survey. It's not a measure of straight forward literacy in the able to decode and read a word sense that allchildrenreading's post implies.

I'm not disputing the figure, I'm pointing out that it measures the ability to understand and utilise information not the ability to read.

That is what functional literacy is HesterB

Yes, I know, so I'm questioning the connection allchildrenreading is making between those figures and phonics/decoding for struggling readers.

There is a high level of functional illiteracy in countries where whole language and mixed methods were traditionally used to teach reading. Canada is another example.

HesterBurnitall - perhaps you didn't follow PLATO?
Or read Kerry Hempenstall
Or read the case history of Yvonne Meyer's son or her submission to the Australian Enquiry into Early Reading?
Or read the report itself?

I'm sure that Jolly Phonics would be delighted to learn that the programme has been faithfully followed throughout Australia for the past number of years.

On the contrary, there are pockets of Australia where synthetic phonics or Direct Instruction are taught - but these are dwarfed by the Whole Language tenor and ideology which passes as instruction. Oops, perhaps 'instruction' is a dirty word.

The connection is that few children in the 70s,80s, early 90s had systematic phonics teaching. Perhaps it'[s of little consequence to you that so many people are unable to function adequately in a literate society.

Not working on a high functioning level of literature appreciation - merely not beiing able to adequately tackle everyday tasks.