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?

Dearie me - people are prickly on munsnet aren't they!

I certainly never meant to patronise - and I apologise if the use of capital letters is regarded as... (what, 'shouting'?)

Well - I know from a lifetime's sheer existence that one cannot please all the people all the time - nor do I try to. But I also know from sheer experience that there is a lot of misunderstanding about the teaching of reading and spelling in both the teaching profession and amongst parents.

However, I've only popped in to mumsnet briefly and haven't had time to read up on its rules etc. and I was only trying to help. I wasn't trying to promote a programme or anything else like that.

There were questions raised about the phonics screening check and someone alerted me to this.

The thrust of the comments were focused on the children themselves and the teaching - and not the accountability of the government.

If anyone thinks that I am a government agent, that is ironic seeing as people like me have been lobbying 'government' to change their NLS guidance for reading instruction based on a wealth of historic and current research and some leading-edge practice. Also, it was me that was pointing the finger at the 'government's' accountability.

And an decision made in education that is actually based on sound, solid research for once - now that is rare!

I can't help myself join in a phonics discussion. I really find it interesting. There just seems to be so many different views on things.

I have a question for the experts tho. If still around.
Does teaching just phonics make it harder to spot mild forms of dyslexia? Reason I am asking this is because my own dyslexia is mild and not really an issue now (spell check etc) but was quite an issue when I was in school.
I have heard on another thread that phonics is the best program for teaching children with dyslexia to read and write, so if they are taught this from the begining and it is working can it effectively mask the early tell tale signs?
If words are broken down into very small sections there is less opportunities to get letters muddled up.

E.g a child writing the word cat for instance would have learned to sound out each sound individually so there is a linear process to follow. Where as a child who has learned without the phonics instructions would think of it as a whole word and just write "cat"

Debbie- people here are prickly I'm afraid, but thank you for coming back
You haven't done anything wrong, and you weren't breaking rules as you weren't promoting your programme.
I do think it's valuable that you are here to help parents that have questions that need answering.

Children with dyslexia will still struggle to decode these nonsense phonic words. They may be lucky to have a great memory so be seemingly able to read a normal book for their age, but will struggle to decode these words.
Phonics is the best method, as dyslexic children are unlikely to be able work out the phonic rules for themselves.
My children have been taught phonetically from the start and their spelling even at secondary has been obviously "dyslexic" as it has been highly phonetic, which can be totally wrong.

Hope my post didn't come across as "prickly"

Interested is all :)

I'm still 'here' for the moment - and I do appreciate that you say I'm welcome. I'm only a normal person after all - with children and grandchildren of my own!

Learners with dyslexic tendencies are enormously supported by high quality and systematic synthetic phonics teaching (and incidental phonics teaching). Everyone is really well-served by it - but because so many of 'us' did not receive this kind of explicit teaching when we were youngsters (or can't even remember), people seem to think that teaching phonics is an option rather than a best thing to do.

Phonics teaching sometimes gets a bad name with regard to spelling because teachers have not necessarily gone far enough in their teaching of the alphabetic code with all its spelling alternatives for the sounds. Think about this: the /s/ sound can be spelt with s, ss, se, ce, c, st, and ps. Shocking isn't it. Well, we can ignore this and expect learners to learn how to read and spell words with such alternatives - or teach this explicitly. What would parents generally expect for their children.

So, if teachers only teach some of these and don't spend plenty of time on spelling even in Key Stage Two (and spelling becomes learning about spelling word banks, and parts of words and so on), then there will always be learners who are weaker at spelling than they need to be.

Personally, I think all this basic literacy skills is 'life chance' stuff and I work very hard to try to promote rigorous teaching - but this also means fighting for a slot on the timetable and then supporting teachers as much as we can with actual teaching and learning resources. That is why I ended up designing resources - because as a teacher I needed to work hard to plug the gaps and educate myself. Then, when I wanted to help inform people (including parents) I started to design printable (free) resources to help them with their understanding of the alphabetic code. I think every classroom should have an alphabetic code chart - including for secondary aged pupils - and the question is, does your child's class have one displayed?

If every classroom had such a chart, the learners with dyslexic tendencies would be helped in the sense that they would be mindful that when they identify the sounds all-through-the-spoken-word, they need to consider 'which' spelling alternative to use - and then they will need adult support to tell them 'which' one until the knowledge is embedded.

So, I believe that we have a very long way to go to teach spelling well enough even if reading is on the 'up'. English spelling is very complex - but there is generally an untrained teaching profession regarding spelling - and it is only in these past few years that phonics teacher-training has been established - or is in the process of being established.

Also, ask your children's teachers if they have been trained to mark for spelling! You will find that this is rare. It is more likely that teachers have been trained not to mark for spelling, and that the focus is only on marking for the 'main learning intention'. Spelling is the poor relative.

Now, people like Michael Rosen and many of the professional bodies are making a huge fuss about the phonics screening check - but trying to engage then in professional discussion is very hard indeed. One gets the impression that they don't want to 'hear' our points and they press on regardless raising points which we can address - but they don't like those points. The education of your children needs to move beyond just 'points of view' and into the domain of what is the reality. Thus, the phonics screening check is part of trying to discover what the reality is - and raise the game of infant schools in their provision of explicit alphabetic code knowledge and the skills of decoding and encoding (and I think handwriting is a core skill too).

You would not really want me, perhaps, to teach your children poetry, but would you want someone like Michael Rosen teaching your children their alphabetic code knowledge and phonics skills? You would probably select people like me for the basics, and people who are professional authors for the higher order skills. It doesn't have to be either/or!!!!!

Debbie, our language does not have a straightforward alphabetic 'code', as you put it, which is exactly why so many children struggle with it.

Our language is a hybrid of Latin, old French and old German with a bit of Sanskrit, Icelandic, Norse, and so on thrown in, and consequently has a tortuous system of spelling and pronounciation.

If we wanted them to read easily, we should teach them in Italian, as that is an example of a language that is pronounced exactly as it is written.

My dd became a voracious reader without phonics but somewhere along the line she intuited it - so can read nonsense words effortlessly and ,via her mother, has seen the devastation caused to those who weren't lucky enough to intuit the code so is convinced of its value.
She still doesn't know what an adverb is in spite of oxbridge history degree. Lack of grammatical knowledge didn't help but the damage was nothing like the damage done to those who aren't big readers and don't pick up enough grammar along the way.

'If we wanted them to read easily, we should teach them in Italian'

Which is exactly why the modern synthetic phonics programmes begin teaching reading using an artificially 'transparent code' like most of the European countries have.

A 'transparent' Simple / Basic Alphabetic Code, which is generally the most common spelling for each sound is taught first directly and discretely i.e. there is no assumption that it will be discovered 'embedded' during the reading of whole language texts. This clever device of having, temporarily, an artificially transparent alphabet code (but unmodified orthography, unlike the 1960's initial teaching alphabet: i.t.a) helps to level the playing field between those who are learning to read and write in English and the majority of their counterparts on the European continent.

Once children are secure and confident reading and spelling words using the Basic Code GPCs then the common spellings of the Complex/Advanced Alphabet Code are carefully introduced.

I agree that it would be easier to teach our written code if it was more transparent such as Italian - but we have to deal with what we have.

So, the SP programmes have unpicked the alphabetic code, ordered it, organised it and teach it explicitly in small steps and then continue with it for spelling purposes.

We have what we have and must make the most of it.

I promote that teachers engage their pupils from around Reception with the interesting history of the English language (in very simple terms) and that they also engage the children with the notion of 'code' - what is a code, provide some examples of different codes - and use the terminology of a code.

I actually think this is part of the intellectual education of our children. I knew nothing of these things until my later adult life - and yet I was a trained teacher from decades ago - none of this history was part of my education as a child or as a trainee-teacher. I know what I wish my children had received when they were growing up - and I know what I wish my grandchildren would receive. And yet I didn't have phonics teaching as a child and one of my children taught herself to read and write goodness knows how - but I still think it is our duty - and makes sense - to teach the alphabetic code thoroughly and the phonics skills.

This has been really helpful.

I was a little worried that ds1 would struggle because he seems to be good at the look and say method - recognises and memorises words (like surveillance - one that springs to mind). He is good at reading but also has self-esteem issues that go alongside a particular SEN he has and I was concerned that he wouldn't be able to do it.

Just showed him the sample that was linked to and he had no problem with it.

So am really thankful that I read this thread and haven't done what I was intending (quick word with teacher to express concern, which no doubt would have been met by yet another look). Phew - another bullet dodged.... :)

BoffinMum Fri 18-May-12 09:47:18

There are distinct problems with the non-words approach to reading for brighter pupils

Can I just repeat IMHE brighter (excellent readers) pupils don't have a problem with non words. In fact watching them read difficult pseudo words confidently without any hesitation (no obvious sounding out ) demonstrates how effective phonics is for all children.

Debbie and others, can I ask at what stage you think it is sensible to correct a child's spelling? I've noticed my son's teacher always corrects his spelling on sentences he writes at school, but he writes quite a lot for fun at home and school too. I am hesitant to correct much as he's young still, 5.5, and am pleased he is enjoying writing, but I want him to learn to spell too.

If it is independent writing I only correct the words they should know (so it depends on how much they've been taught) but if they are working with me I would correct a wrong spelling - that's a good try but we spell it this way type thing.

Beg to differ, mrz.

Well I'm basing my opinion on a sample of approx 150 children what are you basing yours on?

Probably a few hundred thousand or so

that you personally work with ...

Um no, I tend to go on massive samples and large datasets ...

non existent data then

First of all, make it really clear that our English writing is complicated because of the history of the language - and that any tricky words is about 'the code' and 'the history' - not about the child's ability.

So, in terms of 'correcting', couch it as 'helping'.

"Ooh, let me help with that tricky spelling. What sounds can we hear in the word, now let's look at how we spell it. There are more words like that one, such as ..... and ....... . "

Try to use judgement according to the child and the circumstances and what has been written. If a child has written one sentence with every word incorrectly spelt, it's not appropriate to go through every single word. You might pick just one to mention in a very 'interested' and helpful way.

When spelling becomes a point of interest, and correcting spelling becomes a notion of support and teaching (and ultimately children learning spelling word banks and unusual one-offs or small groups of spelling), then the emphasis moves away from either the teaching, learning, or correcting of spelling being a negative - and moves into the notion of it being 'interesting' - and certainly an area where learners need lots of adult support and information for a long time.

Either that, or move to Italy!

Mrz - What I want to know is what is the actual point of the test? Any ideas?

The point of the check is to identify any children who may be experiencing difficulties so that effective support can be put in place