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?

^The one thing that hasn't been tested in all this time is the very basic skill which underpins all other reading skills, the use of phonic knowledge and decoding and blending to work out what the words 'say'. Whatever the historic and ideological reasons for this omission in the past we now have a Minister for Schools who is determined to improve literacy rates and the place to start is with the initial teaching of reading. Consequently these skills now have to be tested just as everything else is, and tested early enough to prevent children falling too far behind.

It might have made more sense to have done away with the KS1 English NCTs at the same time and allow the higher order reading skills to develop in a more leisurely and natural fashion, but if teachers won't adopt evidence based practice voluntarily (which, incidentally, is just what the other professionals you named do do) I can't see the govt having any option other than add in an extra 'test'.^

Maizie, I understand what you are saying about testing actual reading, rather than interpretation of what has been read. At least, if we are to assume that teachers don't already know how their children are doing. However, I feel another pitfall of this test which is of very simple (mainly one syllable) words, may be to lull teachers (and others) into a false sense of security. There seems to be an assumption that, if children can read these simple words, they will go on to be good readers. I don't think we can assume this at all; some children, despite having passed this test, may go on to be quite poor readers as the language becomes more complicated and there are numerous pronunciation alternatives - especially those children with poor vocabularies. Children do need plenty of attention and practice in order to progress.

If a child can read a single syllable they can read polysyllabic words with no difficulty.

Seriously, mrz, are you saying that in words where there are several plausible pronunciations, children always get the correct one?

One of my children is an excellent decoder-he could read all the words in that Burt reading test thing- including pthysis -long before he had any idea what most of them meant. I always just thought of it as a sort of party trick- a mechanical process rather than actual reading. Is that the ability that the new government guidelines are looking for?

CecilyP: in this test, and pronunciation which is phonically possible is marked correct, so yes they should be able to get it right.

An example from the specimen paper available online: "jound". This could be read either to rhyme with 'sound' or with 'wound' (injury).

And seeker, yes, it is exactly that skill. It's rather more important than a party trick, though.

It's the party trick that is essential if a child is to access any of the other skills successfully.

I think what I meant by a "party trick" was that I don't think he learned to read properly- as in to sit down to enjoy a book- any sooner than my other child who learned to read almost entirely by look and say with a bit of sounding out.

No seeker it isn't, but without the ability to decode the words it's pretty difficult to extract meaning from text.

CecilyP if a child has the knowledge (it is a word they have heard before ) they can determine the correct pronunciation, obviously in word they have never encountered verbally they may propose an incorrect plausible alternative ... which is where the teacher (or other adult) would take the opportunity to extend the child's vocabulary and provide the correct pronunciation. Remember good quality phonics teaching doesn't take place in a vacuum. However unfamiliar/new words aren't always polysyllabic.

What a number of posters seem to be confused with here is this check is a skills check not a test of reading.

^CecilyP: in this test, and pronunciation which is phonically possible is marked correct, so yes they should be able to get it right.

An example from the specimen paper available online: "jound". This could be read either to rhyme with 'sound' or with 'wound' (injury).^

QueenEdith, that was the point I was making. A child could get 100% on this test because, as in the example you have given, any sensible answer is correct. I have some doubts about this skill translating to reading more complex real words where only one pronunciation is correct and only that pronunciation would enable the child to know what the actual word is.

Skills check is significant. As I said earlier, my nephew managed to conceal the fact that he couldn't actually read, he had just learned loads of words by heart, for ages. This test would have picked that up.

CecilyP if a child has the knowledge (it is a word they have heard before ) they can determine the correct pronunciation, obviously in word they have never encountered verbally they may propose an incorrect plausible alternative ... which is where the teacher (or other adult) would take the opportunity to extend the child's vocabulary and provide the correct pronunciation. Remember good quality phonics teaching doesn't take place in a vacuum.

At this stage, I was thinking of words that would be in the average child's vocabulary. But how would the child determine the correct pronunciation if there are several alternatives? What would stop them from getting it wrong and just assuming it is a word they don't actually know?

I agree that good quality phonics teaching doesn't normally take place in a vacuum ,which is what I meant by plenty of practice and attention - the sort of attention that you are obviously referring to when you say, 'obviously in word they have never encountered verbally they may propose an incorrect plausible alternative ... which is where the teacher (or other adult) would take the opportunity to extend the child's vocabulary and provide the correct pronunciation'. But there could be circumstances where all the other good things don't take place despite the child 'passing' the phonics test.

CecilyP: I don't think that follows. After all, if the child could come up with no suggestion for an unfamiliar word because they cannot decode, or a wildly wrong one, because they decode poorly, then they are in a far worse position than a child who can give the right range of possibilities because they can decode.

CecilyP there are 20 real words in the check which a child must pronounce correctly (the test will apparently contain words of more than one syllable which are not common everyday words) and 20 pseudo words for which any plausible attempt can be accepted. Which means the child can't achieve 100% simply by offering plausible options (the "pass" mark is 85% ish correct)

Sorry, QueenEdith, I didn't express that very well. I didn't mean it as a likelihood - I am sure the majority of children who do well in this test will go on to be good readers. I was merely thinking of the possibility that a small number of children who do well enough in this test could still go on to be poor readesrs without the attention they require. Of course, if they can't decode at all they will be in a worse position.

When I say good quality phonics teaching doesn't take place in a vacuum I mean it has context ... words, sentences and texts

CecilyP: you could be describing my dyslexic DS2 who learned to decode rapidly and efficiently. With hindsight, he was probably using his maths/puzzle solving brain to good effect. He did not however make the transition to a good reader, and this became apparent in the later primary years.

Knowing that his problem was not with decoding made an important difference in deciding later interventions. He would have been in a much worse situation had he not had a good grounding in phonics and had the teachers (much as mrz does) not tested him irrespective of whether the DofE told them to or not.

I think it does teachers a disservice to assume they cannot distinguish between phonics and wider literacy, nor appreciate the importance of the former to the latter; or are so inattentive to their pupils they will not see problems which emerge, in literacy or in any other subject, as and when they present themselves.

ChristineCagney - this is exactly what I found when tuturing one-to-one. Children with reading difficulties were not helped by onset and rime. It is such a pity that simple, logical SP instruction is so undermined by other instruction such as onset and rime.

Oh and for those who were making digs - I am a good teacher AND I work hard to make myself better as do all my colleagues. No other profession is acceptably so belittled and maligned. Anyway, there is a lot of good, informed chat going on so I shall sidle off quitely and grumble elsewhere.

DMA - I wasn't having a dig. I was asking a genuine question - do you teach all your children to read?

DMA sometimes teachers work really hard on the wrong stuff and no one likes to say so... It's all very well having a Gold Artsmark or Healthy Schools Award or some such badge that everyone's worked hard to get but when half the school can't read adequately then that's time and energy that has been miss spent. Not got anything against those awards per se but IMHO it has to be reading first always.

If children are leaving primary school unable to read to a good standard then all our hard work for whatever reason has been ineffective hard work.

I don't know why we get so defensive when everyone else points this out ....

Our children need to be able to read, write and complete basic calculations or we are failing them.

Would really like the input of phonics experts/advocates on the impact of phonics teaching on spelling. I understand all the research on reading and the 20% who don't learn properly with mixed methods and fully understand that phonics is the best method to teach most children to read (but also that it doesn't happen in a vacuum and that children who are read to/spoken to/understand context and have a large natural vocabulary surely make better overall progress) but how does a child armed with good phonics skills make an accurate choice on which is a correct spelling?

Eg, my autistic son (now yr 6) was very much happier with look and say than sounding out so for example in year 1 he might have spelt 'because' as 'becaus' whilst his phonically able friends wrote 'becoz'. At what point and how do each of them begin to arrive at the correct spelling? Repetition? Reading? Memory?

And my second question is, do any of you, anecdotally or evidentially, know whether phonics has a slight detrimental effect of making homophones harder to distinguish? Eg, I have never - and neither has my very visually gifted but rather less aurally able son - mixed up spelling of 'their', 'they're' and 'there' or 'pear' and 'pair' or 'you're' and 'your', because to quote him 'They're completely different words with different meanings, why would I mix up spelling them?'; he seems bemused that they have posters of these around the classroom. Any thoughts?

Teaching phonics should focus on blending words for reading and segmenting words for spelling from the beginning. Teaching homophones, homographs and heteronyms is important which is why I say good phonics teaching has contexts.

So you don't think you have found in the years of switching from mixed methods to pure phonics (to start with) that you are having more often to actively 'un-teach' the link between the aural sound of a word and what it looks like on the page? I just wondered if more and more children might well leave KS2 in the future with greater homophone confusions than in the past (rather like some adults who write 'should of' rather than 'should have' because it's what they say)?

Ooh, and I love the attitude of ChristineCagney as a HT. Children cannot access nearly as much as they should until they can read. A year 3-6 teacher I know said to me on more than one occasion (about the nc): 'I just wish they would come to me being able to read, write and add up. I don't need them to have done electronics three times before I get them. I need them to read and write!' (It was a good school and most of the year 3s could do all that fine, but there are always little ones who needed extra time on the basics than the nc would allow).