When is the phonics check please?

[EarthboundMisfit]

It must be soon, right? Is there a specific timeframe in which schools have to do it?

Thanks.

They also look at the picture for clues.

That's not even reading, let alone good reading. Come on! Why aren't you picking that up - are you his teacher?

Feenie - it's a way that some children enjoy books.

Backing out now.

My ds who was an early reader, started school already reading, really enjoyed phonics teaching. In fact, it made his reading skill even stronger.

But it's not reading.

This discussion shows once again why the phonics screening test is important.

As long as the 'good readers can fail the test' myth continues, and continues to be endorsed by some schools/teachers, then the screening test is still needed.

My nearly-17yo is an avid reader. But she struggles to decode words she hasn't seen written down before. This is down to poor phonics.

Whole word recognition and guessing won't stop a child miss reading 'eclectic' to be 'electric' will it? 'She has an eclectic collection' means something very different from 'She has an electric collection'.

The point with children like my ds, is that whole word reading, context etc, allows enough "reading" for children to enjoy reading while phonics knowledge catches up, which it will. I do think phonics has a place, but it shouldn't be the only method. We don't all think like that. And as for how to deal with new words, there are still words I don't understand but that is what dictionaries are for.

So getting back to the test, I agree it may have a point, but good teachers know who needs help, and hopefully it may catch some in the middle. But not at all costs, and not at the cost of enjoying education.

But the phonics doesn't always catch up. Certainly not if the teacher and parents don't see a problem. Too many adults say they don't really care if their child doesn't meet the standard, because they know that the child is a good reader.

I've taught many KS2 children who didn't have a solid enough grounding in phonics. Many of them couldn't read aloud an age-appropriate book. It needs to be addressed.

I see problems, many problems, with teachers not picking up difficulties, but I also see problems with phonics and phonics testing at the expense of other methods which can and do help alongside phonics. Phonics is one reliable method of teaching reading, but it does not work for everyone and where there are reasons it doesn't work (dyslexia being a big one, but also other neurological conditions or just a different way of seeing the world for whatever reason) rigid adherence to one method, and testing one method can be counterproductive if not used alongside other methods where the other methods allow phonics skills to catch up.

The screening test is one of the tools to identify the children who need help catching the phonics up. Those who don't meet the threshold will get extra intervention in y2.

Dictionaries are fine, provided you realise the word you read is one you don't know . If you are taught to guess then you may not realise this. Phonics doesn't teach meaning anyway, it teaches decoding.

You can do phonics grounding and enjoy 'real' books while you are learning, they aren't mutually exclusive.

'Good teachers know who needs help' - Absolutely yes. The screening is mainly to catch the kids in schools who don't have the 'good teachers' (and there is clear evidence in this thread that these schools/teachers still persist). Good teachers won't mind the test, they will get good results and it doesn't take long. They won't need to do extra prep as they will have been doing their job properly all year.

But it isn't a method any more than learning to count to 10 is a method. The percentage of children that genuinely can't learn to read through phonics is miniscule. Less than 5%, and many of those could develop some skills with the right scheme it just takes longer.

Some of those will develop whole word skills along the way i.e. those whose phonics has to catch up with their reading but actively teaching whole word or mixed methods often does the most damage to the children who need the best quality reading teaching in order to develop their skills.

Phonics is one reliable method of teaching reading, but it does not work for everyone and where there are reasons it doesn't work (dyslexia being a big one,

But phonics is the only method that has been proven to help with dyslexia.

www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0089900

And since the introduction of phonics teaching, the number of children with SEN achieving the reading comprehension target at Key Stage 1 SATS has gone up by 15%.

Personally, I suspect it could go up a lot more if every school was teaching phonics really well, including giving dyslexic and at-risk children plenty of practice, and not confusing them with other strategies. Unfortunately, as Teen and Tween points out above, this is not the case, and we know it is not from independent surveys and reports, as well as the type of anecdotal evidence you get from threads like this.

If we could get rid of the belief that phonics is a method and there's a largish core group that will need something different, I think it would help.

At the moment it's too easy to write lack of phonics skills off as being an issue with the children whereas in reality we're probably talking about less than 1 child a year having that sort of issue especially by the end of year 1.

My dd1 was reading fluently in Reception, and I didn't really see the point of more phonics. But her teacher was clear that the fact that she has a fantastic memory and learns words by sight after one reading wasn't good enough - she needed to be able to use phonics as well. So she's had more years of phonics and (while she often finds it boring because of the repetition) it's really paid off - her spelling is excellent and she hasn't hit a ceiling in her reading, she's still powering on with books with really complex and novel vocabulary.

Her school was very low key about the phonics test, too. I suspect it's the schools where they are worried that the phonics teaching has been diluted by mixed methods that start panicking, making the kids practise etc. We only knew it had happened because she came home with a sticker.

Rafa Sorry, I do actually know that phonics is a body of knowledge, rather than a "method" as such, but I've heard it described that way so often I sometimes slip up . I absolutely agree with you that understanding it that way is key - the real issue is that we need to teach it explicitly and thoroughly, rather than leaving children to work it out for themselves.

Cody Good post. My 17 year old daughter went through infants before the 2007 introduction of phonics teaching, but she was fortunate enough to have a reception teacher who believed in teaching phonics explicitly, which gave her a good basis. And I knew enough by then to make sure that she always used sounding out while reading and writing. She has several times told me that, while it was sometimes a bit boring at the time, she is extremely grateful I did so, because she is horrified by the very poor spelling of so many of her quite clever contemporaries.

I do think phonics has a place, but it shouldn't be the only method

For most children it should be the only method. If you teach synthetic phonics alone 95%+ of children will learn to read, with some studies finding a 99%+ success rate. If you teach mixed methods, even if one of them is synthetic phonics, the success rate will drop to 80%. So if you want the highest possible proportion of children to read you should teach using synthetic phonics as the only method.

We don't all think like that

Actually we do. Research amongst adults has shown that, when reading, good readers are, in essence, sounding out and blending at high speed. Poor readers, on the other hand, are using a totally different part of the brain which indicates they are treating words as pictures.

'Good teachers know who needs help' - Absolutely yes. The screening is mainly to catch the kids in schools who don't have the 'good teachers' (and there is clear evidence in this thread that these schools/teachers still persist).

Well, yes - that was a very timely drop in by the poster who thinks a reader who uses picture clues is good. It would be almost funny - if it didn't involve a real badly taught child who is being failed by teaching staff (still hoping that wasn't a teacher, but any adult who is still pushing this message is worrying).

I'm not an expert, just a parent, but, despite having issues with some aspects of state led exams, I am delighted about the phonics check. My children attend a 'good' rated school, but since the check began the children's scores have gone up miles...an average of about 6 points I think. To me, that says that the phonics teaching has improved, and indeed I have no complaints at all about what I have seen of it. That can only be a good thing.

I am also just a parent, and I do get that phonics can help, but even at 99% what happens to the 1%? When your child is in that 1% is phonics is a barrier why persist? It is just not correct to assume that even if 20% might struggle with other methods the 1% is contained automatically in the 20%. It may be, it may not be. None of the research I have founds explains that, nor does it support the rigid adherence to phonics or synthetic phonics. I understand it correlates strongly for most children, possibly even for 95-99% of children, but when the brain is retiring around damage it has to rewire where the neurological pathways exist not keep trying to use those which are damaged.

I am not and have not said that the phonics check has no purpose but every child matters not just those in the 95-99% there will always be some in the 1-5%... Even on your own figures.

So I will say as a parent I will teach my son to read, and I do not object to using phonics as part of that nor do I object to the school doing so, and trying to develop it but no-one understands the real neuroplasticity issues when the brain needs to use those parts of the brain most people do not use.

Who exactly should I blame for poor phonics teaching LumpySpacePrincess?

Sorry Kestral. That wasn't aimed at you at all, I was agreeing with you. I'm not sure I'd noticed that you'd referred to it that way.

what I suspect the 1% might be a lot better served if we could actually identify them and they weren't caught up in a group of children who have very few issues other than not being taught as well as they need to be.

You might find this informative Whereonthestair m.youtube.com/watch?v=25GI3-kiLdo

I think the 1% will have been identified and are unlikely to be participating in the PSC.

My eldest is in Year 1 and doesn't really know he's having a 'test'. The school have invited parents in for a phonics workshop once at the beginning of the year and once last term, but it was more to explain how it's taught, show a typical phonics session etc.

However, they are pretty confident and have always got 80+% pass (despite being in a deprived area with an intake that come in very low compared to national expectations) so they don't need to panic about it.

I hope so mrz. I'm not sure that I'm convinced that the teachers involved are trained well enough to be aware of that. If you think that it's reasonable for about 20% of your cohort to 'not learn through phonics' and need whole language/mixed methods how do you tell the difference between the very small percentage that really can't and the rest of that 20%?

I have a feeling that one of my nieces only reads and spells as well as she does because her teachers were trained in LP. In many other schools she could easily have ended up in RR because she hadn't grasped phonics by the end of reception and doesn't have the visual memory that some other children do.

I don't think the 1% are part of the 20% in mainstream education