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?

Not in the south of England!

so do bull and full and skull and tull

Bonsoir ALL letters are silent

I'm sure no one gives a fig, but just to say that summer born 6yr old DD, who is reading band 15 school books (4 above lime, not reading recovery level 15) , and is therefore fluent by anyone's standards, just read all of the pseudo words correctly. She didn't sound them out but slowed down slightly for a couple.

She has a SE accent and read 'tull' with the short /u/ (for want of a better description). She didn't bat an eyelid, didn't try and change them, she just read them ... correctly.

This is because I have consistently taught her phonics, to the best of my abilities, despite mixed methods and some dire phonics teaching at school.

The fact that she can read fluently doesn't mean she has stopped using sounding out and blending whenever she come across long complex words, so the idea that fluent readers have gone past the stage of needing that skill seems unlikely to me. She didn't need to use that skill for these words because they are short enough for her to just read them.

When you hear a good reader who is also a good decoder read the pseudo words the excuses that some teachers make for their good readers not being able to do so become laughable.

Well done diamondage

I'm confused. Dc failed phonics check but the teacher says that in a mock sats test dc was reading at the level expected of a child 12 months older. Dc's reports always refer to their extensive spoken vocabulary.

This was attributed to phonics and reading ability being two separate things.

Reading this thread makes me question what I've been told

The SATs test is a multiple choice comprehension test. The PSC assesses a child's ability to decode unfamiliar words. Both skills are needed to be effective readers but if a child can't decode they will struggle with understanding.

Teacher is saying that the phonics result is unimportant as dc's reading is so good. This sounds as if it is actually storing up problems for the future

Yes, you''re right- the phonics result is a concern.
Children who find it hard to use phonics for new words often struggle later on- when they start to encounter more and more unfamiliar words.

As a Y1 teacher I would be concerned

There is no need whatsoever to worry about a good reader failing the stupid phonics test.

Terrible advice from someone who has never taught any children to read and who suffers dreadfully from listmania. Awful affliction, poor woman.

feenie - are you capable of listening to an opposing viewpoint without personally attacking someone?

I think the number of times that Feenie and the others who understand phonics have listened and posted good advice patiently is truly amazing.

Posters who continue over and over again to repeat errors (and confuse spelling reform issues with how to teach reading now) are indeed tenacious.

I think you'll find it isn't a pa, proudmama. But do feel free to report.

Thanks AuntieStella

Feenie, AuntieStella

Sorry not an experienced blogger so don't know what PA is. I don't really think you've written anything that needs reporting.

I just don't like the pathetic personal attacks. I'm sure you have made great contributions to this thread, but you discredit yourself with that post. I find threads like these really interesting until posts like that.

Such a comment from a new MNetter is a worthwhile reminder that not everyone has read the scores of previous threads on this and therefore won't know the context.

If you search MN for old phonics threads, I hope you will find the evidence of years of patient answers and valuable links, and how the points being brought (yet again) have been addressed many times (seemingly in vain).

Masha's points are very relevant to a discussion of spelling reform. They are irrelevant on teaching children to read now.

PA is personal attack.

I don't think that really counts as a personal attack on Masha. She's more than capable of giving as good as she gets and Feenie has given up more than enough of her time in the past to replying to the points Masha makes.

Ok - sorry to change the point of this thread so I'll post this last one and then stop.

There is no need whatsoever to worry about a good reader failing the stupid phonics test.

I don't care if she has confused spelling reform with reading instruction. For many kids there may be no reason for mums to worry about failing the phonics check in YR 1. It may resolve itself with the extra instruction or a smart kids picking up the patterns as millions of kids have done without specific reading instruction emphasis. I like the post because it puts another opinion into the mix - one shared by some YR 1 teachers.

Do remember that the test has always been intended as a screening.

What you describe - the identification of children who need, as you put it, "extra instruction" - is the whole point.

If anyone (including in schools) is saying the purpose of the test is something else, or suggesting that it does anything other than check if the key foundation skill of reading has been mastered or not, then they simply do not understand it or are choosing to misrepresent it.

The problem is that while it might be a view shared by some teachers it's often not shared by the parents who realise that there is a problem and are then forced into either fighting the school or turning round at a later point when their 'good reader' has stalled and saying 'I told you so'. By which point their children have much more catching up to do than they might otherwise have. Yes remedial phonics interventions can take place in year 2, but it would be much better all round if they didn't have to.

While there are schools that get all or nearly all their children to meet the standard, with their good readers scoring 40/40 and similar schools where many children including the 'good readers' fail I think we need to be asking questions about how valid that viewpoint is. IME it's used almost exclusively by teachers whose screening check results are poor, teach mixed methods and have poor understanding of the reading debate, the simple view of reading and the role phonics plays in learning to read.

Obviously there are always going to be a few children that need a bit of extra help in year 2, but there are some schools where it is a lot more than a few.

RafaistheKingOfClay - that's a good point