DD failed her phonics screening - any advice?

[formerdiva]

I know there's another big thread on the screening, but it mostly seems to be debate about whether the test is worthwhile or not. I just wanted a bit of advice about what my strategy should be? To give some context:

I trust the school - the teaching staff seem good, and the other children don't seem to have an issue
They've told me that DD is immature (she's an August baby, but to be fair her friends who are summer babies don't seem to have issues)
She doesn't concentrate or focus very well at all
We do her homework every day and read to/with her every day

I feel really anxious for her. Any advice about what our next steps should be?

even pseudo words?

It's interesting that poor readers use context much more than good readers

When a child is being taught to read using phonics, the accepted good practice is to use real words and fully decodable books with meaningful language and stories. Why? Because a child is (should) be learning to read a language he already has significant mastery of in listening and speaking. He projects his understanding from real language onto the real words and real stories in the books. He enters the third stage of language acquisition, reading, through meaningful text. He expects the printed word to be meaningful, recognisable, understandable. He hears the word he is reading and relates it to his existing skills in listening and speaking and the real words he knows.

When a child is asked to read a pseudo-word, he has to "turn off" the link with the real language in his head. Children don't have the same level of analytical language ability that adults have and this "turning off" (which is neither natural nor rational) is not going to happen easily unless a child has been intensively trained to do so. Which is not actually useful training at all!

Do you understand better why pseudo words are not an infallible test of phonics knowledge?

"When a child is being taught to read using phonics, the accepted good practice is to use real words and fully decodable books with meaningful language and stories."

I'm afraid this isn't true

In what world?

You mustn't overemphasise the importance of phonics over natural language, mrz. Phonics is meant to support real language, not vice versa!

All of the phonics programmes include non word decoding

They do not! I have reviewed loads of phonics programmes this year, in several languages!

www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/Letters%20and%20Sounds-7.pdf

www.sounds-write.co.uk/docs/Sounds-Write_and_the_DFE_Y1_screening_check.pdf

www.phonicsinternational.com/unit1_pdfs/assessment/Assessment_nonsense_word_test.pdf

ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780198331889.do#.T_c4JvU0ySo

www.soundfoundationsbooks.co.uk/

www.easyreadsystem.com/news/?p=10420

ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/reports/beginning_reading/lexia/effectiveness.asp

I have done an analysis of our phonics results and they appear to support what bonsoir says. I have compared reading level and percentage of non-words and real words read correctly.

At orange band and below, the % of non-words read correctly is higher or equal to the % of real words read correctly.

At orange+ (i.e. within L2), there is a decline in the % of non-words read correctly, with a higher percentage of real-words being read correctly.

The graph shows this really clearly.

This would imply (as I would indeed expect) that a child reading within level 2 is using a range of decoding strategies and is looking at the word as a whole with less reliance on phonics, whilst an early reader is only using phonics.

Anyone else want to jolly off and see if their results show the same thing?

However our analysis of our results doesn't flexybex.

Our best readers are reading at gold + level and scored 40/40 with one exception (only scored 39).

I can tell you now - our good readers (within level 2) read all words correctly, pseudo or otherwise. The few who just missed (31) were insecure on split diagraphs, but in all words, not just pseudo ones.

and surely orange book band is 1A not within level 2

Thanks Bonsoir, for articulating the problem so well - the thought of children past the early blending stage of reading being assessed on reading pseudo-words just seems intuitively wrong to me, I'm glad there's a rational basis for this feeling!

And my kids learnt to read at school using a german phonics programme that definitely never included non-word decoding. It did have words spelt out with very strange pictures of mouth shapes though!

That matches our data Feenie

None of ours got 40/40, although we have children reading at white and lime levels. These very good readers didn't get full marks on the non-words, but got all the real words correct.

I assume you use a phonic reading scheme (e.g. for guided / home reading)? We don't. We use a mish-mash of several schemes.

We don't do guided reading

mrz 'and surely orange book band is 1A not within level 2'

I think you're splitting hairs. I said 'orange+' (i.e. turquoise and above).

most phonic schemes end at orange level so all the "good" readers are reading beyond this level.

But even children with a wide vocabulary may come across a word in a book that they have not come across verbally before? So they need to be able to read it without having heard it. So they need to decode using phonic knowledge.

What about when they come across an unusual proper noun they are not familiar with?

So what are your gold readers reading?

Gold level readers are reading

Bug Club
Treetops Myths & Legends
Project X
Literacy World
Big Cat
Rigby Star
National Geographic
ORT All stars

www.oxfordowl.co.uk/Library/Index/?AgeGroup=6

turquoise band is also 1A

This would imply (as I would indeed expect) that a child reading within level 2 is using a range of decoding strategies and is looking at the word as a whole with less reliance on phonics, whilst an early reader is only using phonics.

This would imply for me that teaching 'other strategies' seriously impairs a child's ability to work out what unfamiliar words 'say'.

I am getting quite about the occurrence of the meaningless phrase 'barking at print' which keeps cropping up in this discussion.

Keith Stanovich (Professor of Human Development and Applied Psychology

University of Toronto) "The idea of a 'word caller' phenomenon ....has gained popularity despite the lack of evidence that it applies to an appreciable number of poor readers. There is no research evidence indicationg that decoding a word into phonological form often takes place without meaning extraction, even in poor readers. To the contrary, a substantial body of evidence indicates that , even for young children, word decoding automatically leads to semantic activation when the meaning of the word is adequately established in memory (his emphasis, not mine)" Progress in Understanding Reading (2000) p173.

Considerable experience of working solely with poor readers also tells me that it is bollocks, but it is nice to have solid scientific backing

solid scientific backing Sorry, should have said that Stanovich cites 7 research studies in support of his statement.

All of the phonics programmes include non word decoding

Why? Surely, there are enough real words for beginner readers to practise on without deliberately inventing some more.