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?

Am I alone in pronouncing the -l- in almond? First time I've ever heard it referred to as 'silent'?

I don't teacher, but I know a couple of people who do, so you aren't alone.

The 'l' in almond isn't actually silent though is it? It's part f the grapheme 'al' which represents the sound , particularly in front of m, f or ves e.g. calm, half, calves.

I don't think that applies to 'ul'+m in the same way. Off the top of my head I can't think of any words with 'ul' where the l wouldn't be pronounced, so I would mark in incorrect if a child did that. I don't expect many will pronounce it in any way other than /b/ /u/ /l/ /m/ though.

How about the -l- in would, could, should? Do you pronounce those?

Lots of silent -l- in English...

plenty of c /ul/ c examples in English where the -l- is silent...

The spelling represents the sound /u/ in would should and could.

All letters are completely silent in English they are just marks on a page.

Why are children's lives and assessments being complicated with pseudo words that are ambiguous...

What is ambiguous about the words?

I can only see 2 where there is a very obvious alternative pronunciation.

ind
tull

And even those are quite straight forward.

I say "all-mond" too.

There are surely real words that a sight reader could misread too (like Colin for cloin - cold for clod for example). So surely it's important to test careful reading in the way the phonics test does.

and alternative pronunciations are perfectly acceptable ...

Could any kind person point me to the research that shows that a significant minority of pupils fail to learn to read using mixed methods and something that shows that most do learn with phonics? Because I am having a Facebook argument about phonics (yes, I know, and I really should know better) and I want to back up my position. I did search on here but am clearly searching the wrong things!

YABU @ OP.

Precisely, mrz. It's a long way from being ambiguous enough to cause children not to meet the required standard.

Although I get the impression from other forums that some children might have been short changed on 'ind'.

perhaps that has more to do with check administrators confidence

and subject knowledge.

Well, finDeSemaine

First of all we have the fact that after the National Literacy Strategy, which promoted mixed methods for the teaching of reading, was introduced in, I think, 1998 the number of children achieving L4 for English at KS2 rose to around the 80% mark and than stayed there. Having worked doing reading intervention with Y7 children arriving at Sec with L3 English or below I can tell you that, whatever the L3 descriptors might have 'said', a L3 child can neither read or write at anything approaching competence. (Anfd a fair number of L4 children weren't much better) So, the evidence of a decade of MM in England shows a consistent 1 child in 5 semi-literate or illiterate (that's about 120,000 children a year)

The Clackmannashire study is the one often quoted as that compared children taught with SP with children taught a different kind of phonics; Scottish children have probably always had a better grounding in phonics than English children so if the SP group were well ahead in that study they would be even further ahed of English MM taught children!

There are hundreds of cognitive psychology research studies which consistently show that children taught letter/sound correspondences achieve better reading outcomes than children taught with 'other methods'. Sadly, many are behind paywalls but a google of something like 'research into phonics instruction' should come up with loads of results!

You could have a look at the Reading Reform foundation's 'SuperLinks' page and see if there is anything there which might be helpful
www.rrf.org.uk/messageforum/viewforum.php?f=12

And, have a look at www.dyslexics.org.uk which also has links (though many might be the same as the RRF's because the website author maintains the RRF links, too.)

Prof Kerry Hempenstall's 'blogs' on the Direct Instruction website are usually an excellent source of references Try googling 'Hempenstall+Direct Instruction'

Sorry I'm sending you off to hunt instead of giving you links but it's late and I'm off to bed

No, don't be sorry. That's really kind and I appreciate the help! Thanks very much indeed.

I really recommend the book Reading in the Brain by Stanislas Dehaene.

So do I, Bonsoir

Thank u pea84.

Ind, tull and bulm
clearly have two possible pronunciations.

With
foid and cloin as names
i would be tempted to pronounce them with two vowels:
foe - id and cloe - in, as in coincide and ruin,
but perhaps children would not.

It's very much a lousy test, IMO.

With
foid and cloin as names
i would be tempted to pronounce them with two vowels:

thankfully children are taught that is a spelling for the sound /oy/ so they don't have your difficulties

I'd be interested to know what alternatives you would use for tull and bulm

tull could rhyme with pull or cull

pull and cull rhyme in my accent

Almond, balm, calm, palm... Children encounter plenty of silent l before m.