Phonics check

[BucksKid]

Why do teachers, on Internet forums, say 'yah, (eg) 83% of my class passed the phonics check' Rather than 'oh no, 17% of my class didn't pass the phonics check' ?

Do they realise how disrespectful that is to the 17%?

Do they care that 17% of their pupils have left their class without the basic skills needed to learn to read?

Is it because they met their performance management target?

Some children are not developmentally ready to read at year 1. It's like expecting all children to get A* at GCSE.

Sorry mnistoo I don't buy that. Some teachers and schools have 100% pass rates.

There will be a handful of children who can't pass in Y1 no matter how well they are taught, but they are usually children with complex SEN. Certainly not the large numbers BucksKid mentions.

Bucks, I guess some teachers think like mnistoo, but there are also many for whom 83% represents huge progress looking at the attainment at the start of the year.

The ability to decode for the phonics test is not down to the teacher's teaching alone so 83% could well be a figure to be pleased with.

Jaynebxl what else is it down to then? Practice perhaps, but then as a teacher if you know a child doesn't read at home you provide more practice time at school.

I don't think any teacher is pleased with less than 100% success and it is always the "17%" they mope over.

There are loads of factors, ranging from the child and their innate interest and ability, parental support, special needs, behavioural issues, maturity...

Last year I had twins arrive on the morning of the test ... instant 8% drop add to that a non verbal child who couldn't access the check ... another 4% soon adds up OP. You don't know the story behind the figures.

Ah yes good point mrz. The class teacher can't necessarily bring children who arrive mid year right up to speed either. Especially if they arrive with little or no English as an example.

that doesn't mean the teacher doesn't worry about every child

Mrz, of course that's true, that there can be factors beyond an individual teacher's control that affect her class's score.

The worrying thing is that we still have so many teachers talking about their supposedly "good readers" not passing, or about children being held back by external factors, when we know that a lot of it is about teachers not being well enough trained, not having a good programme, wasting time with sight words, or simply not believing in phonics.

I was going to say in small classes one child can be a huge percentage which can mislead people. I'd be very surprised if there are classes getting 100%. It's not a case of not caring about those that didn't reach the standard. You don't know how close they were to reaching it and presumably there are already interventions of extra support in place to help these children. Both years I have carried out the check I could have told you beforehand who wouldn't reach the standard. That doesn't mean I haven't put a lot of time and effort into helping these children with their phonics. It also doesn't mean these children can't read! It's a phonics check not a reading test.

If they don't pass the phonics check they are not leaving Y1 without basic reading skills.

I have taught fluent readers who have failed the check. I have taught children with ASD for whom phonics just doesn't work but who can read using sight techniques.

Plus as teachers we tend to celebrate what children CAN do. Ie those 17% might not have passed but they may well have read words from a higher phase they have been working at etc.

Not all if the children will pass, same as not all children get a 2b at year 2, a 4b at year 6 or all a-cs at gcse. Doesn't mean they haven't achieved.

KittyandTeal those 'fluent readers' should pass the test. How can any 6 year old be a fluent reader but not be able to decode new words?

kesstrel : The worrying thing is that we still have so many teachers talking about their supposedly "good readers" not passing

Many good readers fail the phonics check because by the end of Y1 they have moved far beyond the basic sounding out and blending ability which it tests.

They realise that reading English involves far more than that:

1. That the sounds of many letters are variable (on, only, once) and
2. can depend on meaning (read now - read yesterday)
3. and that learning to recognise words by sight is what makes u a fluent reader.

So having to go back to sounding out, and especially sounding out nonsense words which make up 20 of the test words, has become alien to them and they inevitable try to turn them into words which make sense, because that is a very crucial part of learning to read English: mean - meant, ear - early, some - home.....

So having to go back to sounding out, and especially sounding out nonsense words which make up 20 of the test words, has become alien to them and they inevitable try to turn them into words which make sense, because that is a very crucial part of learning to read English: mean - meant, ear - early, some - home.....

You really do talk a load of excrement, Marsha. Any SKILLED reader should be able to take nonsense words completely in their stride. I can do it dead easily and I am several decades past the beginning reading stage.
6y olds who can't read nonsensense words are not good readers. Far from being past the stage of needing to sound out (which, incidentally, no skilledreader ever passes because we all encounter unfamiliar words from time to time) they clearly need a hell of a lot more practice if they can't read simple non-words.
It's not the English spelling system that causes problems in learning to read. It's people like you who know diddly squat about the whole process of reading and phonics instruction but who go around reinforcing myths and misconceptions because it suits your agenda.

maizieD, phonics does not work for all children, i know alot of very skilled 6 year old readers who cannot decode the nonsense words. The test is not helpfull to children or teachers, children can be assesed without the test. All the test did was confuse my own son who is not the best reader in the world but he does try to find a real word when decoding, alien words confuse him

My son did not pass the phonics test in year 1 despite daily practice at home and school. He was frustrated and upset that he couldn't read and his self esteem was low. In the summer i took control. I bought Biff and Chip. We read every day with a different approach and he started to enjoy it.

Now at the end of year 2 he has just passed the phonics test. Only just as he got 32 out of 40. In his Sats he got a 2a in reading. More importantly he loves reading.

If he had relied only on the phonics teaching at school I don't think i would have a happy reader now!!

I have to step in here to support what maizieD said. If you want children to be lifelong good readers, the alien words should not be an issue to decode whatsoever.

They are so straightforward to read and when children are young, zillions of words in forthcoming literature will not be in their spoken vocabularies (they will not have 'heard' them before) and so they need to be able to lift those types of words off the page - and then they can increase their vocabularies significantly.

Otherwise, such children are simply habitually 'skipping' the words - in fact we have a culture of teachers being trained in methods which encourage children to 'skip' the words one way or another. Children who do skip words whilst nevertheless getting the gist of the texts fool the adults into thinking they are OK because they got the 'meaning' of the text. What happens in the long term to such children when they are reading challenging words perhaps when they reach secondary age? They cannot access the texts with more sophisticated and unusual words.

It certainly isn't a case of an able reader being 'beyond' the phonics stage. Phonics knowledge and blending is not 'baby stuff'

• it is long term, lifelong adult stuff.

The trouble is that adults who don't appreciate their subconscious use of applying phonics knowledge and skills to their reading and their writing because they have not been 'taught' phonics per se underestimate the significance of children being taught phonics explicitly now. How do you think any adult reads any word which is new to them? It is subconscious some kind of phonics.

Except - there are a very few people who literally cannot apply any form of phonics and then they find new words extremely challenging and they need to be familiar with the word in a spoken way first - or they have partial phonics - or they are a very, very rare type of reader indeed.

It is very worrying that we have so many people who think that 'some children' do not need phonics or have grown beyond phonics - it is simply not true. Such ideas allow misunderstandings and excuses to continue both in school and at home. Sooner or later, at least some of those children that 'get by' with their infant-level reading will stall out later - with their teachers and parents being unaware.

All teachers would say that they encourage parents to help their children practise reading. But I don't think that all schools - or even all phonics programmes - provide sufficient information and materials for parents to support with phonics at home. Perhaps Mumsnet mums can contribute their experiences as to 'what' they receive from their children's schools to 'work in partnership' with the school?

It is very rare for young children in monolingual environments to encounter printed words they have never heard. Aural/oral language skills are a great predictor of reading fluency and word recognition skills throughout primary. There is no possible distinction between phonics and children's aural/oral language acquisition unless (a) children are being taught to read in a language they do not speak (b) such extensive drilling in phonics has taken place that children have been forced into distinguishing phonics and meaning. This is about as useful as drilling in NVR.

Re the original posting:

I do think teachers are very concerned about the children who did not reach or exceed the threshold mark. Already, however, you can see that teachers can explain the circumstances of those children - transferring from other schools (so either disrupted in their education or the other schools may not have been so rigorous in their phonics teaching).

Perhaps genuine learning difficulties (rather than ABT 'ain't been taught'!). In schools achieving a high percentage of children achieving the mark, it does suggest that those children have been taught but maybe have genuine learning difficulties or maybe still achieving but just not quite there yet.

Very worryingly, however, some schools set off at too quick a pace of introducing letter/s-sound correspondences (in my opinion) and then a few children soon become a 'special needs' group prematurely. Then, such children maybe separated out from the others prematurely under someone else's auspices. So, you get a sort of self-fulfilling situation.

Also, I visit schools (doing my programmes to all intents and purposes) but find that some slower-to-learn children are actually being extracted from the class to do some other programme thought to be a 'special needs' programme - thus getting something very different from their peers. The very children who need the most consistency get the least consistency - often some computer based experience which is lacking in paper-based activities and permanent visual resources shared with home.

Children do naturally look for a meaningfull word when decoding, surely the check would be much better for those children if they used real words they havent yet encountered but can be decoded. At least that way the children have some chance of actually working out what the word says. Many children do not look for alien words, they look for real words when decoding which is the reason so many children fail.

Bonsoir - I don't agree with your statement that "It is very rare for young children in monolingual environments to encounter printed words they have never heard".

If this was the case, then their school experience and their access to literature - and even the vocabulary within the phonics programme - must be extremely limited.

And how many schools report nowadays that children have a worrying lack of spoken language?

Children should be able to increase their vocabularies at an amazing rate with many new words being introduced through rich literature and the language introduced in schools through various topic areas.

Over and again I receive feedback from schools about the vocabulary in the phonics programmes I am associated with enriching the children's vocabularies - and teachers being surprised by their children's capacity to learn new words in this way.

This is one reason why I do not need to concern myself with children accessing the full Year One phonics screening check without a diet of practising the reading of pseudo words - because the new vocabulary in the programmes is the equivalent of the pseudo words but they are all 'real' and can be expanded upon by the teachers.

I am not saying phonics is not important. It is - i realise my son still needs to work on this into year 3 if he is to be a competent lifelong reader.

However, after trying for two years to help him at home using phonics as a main focus he was crying, frustrated and downright unhappy. Looking at sight words in Biff and Chip, which he seemed to grasp much quicker and with more enthusiasm, enabled him to read a book without tears. His confidence soared.

You may disagree but I know i did the right thing for my son at that stage in his reading development.

Children's spoken (expressive) language is not a measure of children's aural (receptive) language which is itself not a measure of children's heard vocabulary.

Expressive language < Receptive language < Heard vocabulary

If you conflate expressive language with heard vocabulary you may indeed have the impression that children are encountering many words for the first time when they read them in a book. But that is incorrect.