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?

I have problems with 'knotion' - to my mind it can go two ways:

1. 'Notion' with a silent 'k'
2. 'Knot'-'Ion' (a made-up scientific term involving entangled electrically charged particles). I realise this second possibility is not likely to occur to very many six-year-olds, though)

Pointy, my DM was trying to help me with chemistry at school, (many years ago). She pronounced cations as cayshuns and anions like onions, but with an "a".

It isn't a pass/fail thing. It's a check to see if intervention is necessary, and really nothing to worry about.

lockets, but for a child who can read very well and yet gets lots of questions wrong on the test (as per the now discredited article which I read), that is a failed test. But you're clearly adding an element of negativity to the word 'fail' which I just don't see.

Also, out of interest, what alternative word would you use to describe the opposite of 'to pass a test'?

HandMade which just goes to show you should not mix chemistry and phonics .

I think 'bruisefillious' is a great word - DD2 is coming home with knees that merit a bigger word than just 'bruise'.

I also think 'craggly' ought to be included - DD2 made that one up when she was 4, it is a hybrid between 'cranky' and 'straggly' and perfectly describes DH after he has been dragged up a steep footpath.

And I'm sure I drove through Chapeldrin going down to the Loire last summer

Grateau is a cake you're very pleased to receive

MayaAngelCool there aren't any questions to get wrong just 20 real and 20 made up words to decode.

handmade either would have been acceptable as both are phonically plausible (although agree 6 year olds probably wouldn't think ion)

lockets, my question about pass and fail terminology wasn't about this test, it was about general curiosity.

mrz I like the concept of 'phonetic plausibility', I must remember to use it on some of the acronyms and mumbo-jumbo scientific jargon in use in my field. .

Seriously though - both my DDs have a solid grounding in phonics, and it does still help when they come across words they have never seen before, even though they are both very advanced readers. Sometimes being able to decode it will put the word into context, make sense of it and allow them to deduce meaning. If not, at least they will be able to pronounce it correctly and ask me or DH what it means. So on balance I think this test is a good idea - I just hope our government does not use it as yet another stick to beat teachers with.

I think you have identified a key point. To deduce meaning the child needs to read the word and learn the meaning if it is unfamiliar.

A child who can read well is highly unlikely to fail the test. the test is not designed to 'trick' anyone. The main aim is to spot who might need extra teaching of phonics (helps spelling as well as reading)
Committing many words to memory is a BIG part of learning to read! It's called the 'look and say' method and was just about the only thing anyone did in the 70's. Most 'natural' readers read using this method since 'sounding out' is time consuming. If all is working well then 'natural' readers absorb these phonics rules instinctively but of course we are all different and done children a bit more explicit teaching and repetition. The test can help identify who.

And yes - good point lockets. There is actually no 'record' of passed and 'failed' tests that anyone needs to worry about. Even ks1 SATs are glossed over by the time you're 11.

Actually according to recent brain research most "natural" readers don't read by "look and say" they read words sound by sound but this takes miliseconds so most readers aren't even aware that is happening.

if I meet a word and don't know what it means I look it up in the dictionary (or more likely nowadays online). But that doesn't help me pronounce it, and my pronunciation is really awful.

As someone else mentions 70's was all look and read, I also have very very poor knowledge of formal grammar rules, I don't know what verbs etc are (of course I can look it up, and have had to do so when discussing it with the kids, but it isn't stuck in my brain as something that had been drummed into me as a child should be)

Yes I could "read" zog and luff, but they are basic letter sounds, not letter blends.
The nonsense list is (to me) made up of 2 words put together, I don't "do" phonics on it at all, I "see" the separate words involved.
chiffusion: chif-fusion
bruisefillious: bruise-fillious (which "sound" I think of like petit filous)
knotion: knot-ion
drecial: I "see" decimal and change it slightly
phostle: I don't know with this one, I am seeing it as sounding like p-hostel
neightrap: neigh-trap (that is pure sight)
grateau: like gateaux with an added r
chapeldrin: chapel-drin (I just see drin like drink without the k)

I'm a child of the 70s never did look and say and was taught grammar (although it isn't always obvious )

drecial - my child read it like special and phostle as fossel (st making s as in castle)

I'm a child of the seventies. I can't remember how I was taught to read, because I think my mum taught me before I started school at 5 1/2. Probably phonically. I was taught some grammar by the 'old school' primary teachers I had, but once I got to secondary school the trendy young English Dept taught me no grammar rules whatsoever. I learnt most of my grammar translating back from French.

The title of this thread made me laugh a little. I'm an excellent reader and I can read nonsense words OK...

But then, I am very quite old and have so much reading experience that I am used to encountering unfamiliar words in text.

It is very refreshing to meet mothers who are more influenced by reason than by scaremongering

I'm sure you mean well, maizie, but your post does come across as more than a tad patronising!

They will have been practicing reading made up words, it won't be new to them :) and if you want to help them practice go onto www.phonicsplay.com and play 'buried treasure' or the dragon one.

Thanks oli. I have no idea what they do in class on a daily basis - I have one of those kids who tells me nothing. Sigh. No practice needed but thanks for being so helpful!

"seeker - blimmin' heck that's a clever child! There's a gift there to be utilised in business one day, I'm sure of it..."

I know! If only we could find a way to exploit him properly........

You must! You must! What's the point in having children if you're not exploiting their talents? My children will one day be 'in charge' of all our household technology (or so they'll think): I shall feign old-timer brain feebleness and claim that I simply cannot learn to use new-fangled gadgets at my age...

I could read long before I started school at age 4 Ellen but no one sat down and taught me, I was one of those fortunate children who picked it up naturally. When I got to my school - 30 pupils aged 4-11 no one taught me phonics either not even a,b,c and while I could read and spell the words I'd learnt for tests (I clearly recall chrysanthemum being one in the infants ) I was truly atrocious at spelling until I studied phonics as an adult (in my 30s) when suddenly it all started to make sense.