What the hell is this?! -Homework yr1-

[SmellySphinx]

Ok it's not hell but what the buggery is all this wiffle waffle??!! Just looking through the homework for my year1 daughter. I've looked on the homework sheet and can't see anything about this

I am referring to the 'words' on the right hand side by the way... I know what you lot are like!!
I mean...pate...yeah, French innit or patè rather. Regardless, what is all this jibber jabber, this flim flam, this fuckery?!?!
I know I can just ask the teacher but I'm at home now and want to know!
Yes, I'm bored :) x

Ok Mrz - nearly cross posted - I get it - he could read but not write/spell... so he had to learn phonics in order to be able to do that...
But as 'people' said- that is not usual - he is the exception rather than the rule...
And for every child like him there will also be the exception that phonics fails...there is no one size fits all....
cantkeep not up to date on current figures but I guess (like all education research) there is 'good' research to back up current trends...which could easily become 'flawed' research when the focus changes...
I know there is an ongoing battle....and has been for decades (if not centuries) - English is an awkward language to learn..(too many exceptions to basic phonics ) .
Like I said I do think phonics is the best basis (it is how I taught my DD to read) but not to the extent that you hold children back or confuse them ... like DD being upset over not remembering the Jolly phonics actions ...or in fact DD2 (who I deliberately didn't teach to read before school because I knew they would learn phonics) and her friend telling us they had learned the sound 'm' that day ...they hadn't ...they had learned 'i' (inky Mouse ....grrrrr)

It's not fresh it's been around for five years

He is the exception in that he is hyperlexic he's not the exception in struggling because he lacks phonic knowledge ...that's extremely common and well documented.

This is just insane. Now we are actually imposing rubbish words on kids? How are they supposed to develop an ear, and an eye for language if we 'test' them with this drivel. Talk about ruining the English language.

actually I was told in the mid 90s that both methods 'work' for 70% children - so both fail 30% of children - obviously different children need different approaches...

Forget this because it isn't true. It's probably partly this belief that is the reason why the screening check became necessary.

The failure rate for phonics only is about 5% vs about 20% for mixed methods (look and say or whole word with a bit of phonics).

Also a knowledge of the alphabetic code isn't a method of teaching reading. It's the key skill that children need in order to be good readers and read words they haven't come across before. As you said, some children will pick this knowledge up and self-teach whatever method is taught.

Others won't be so lucky. Some of those, at 6, will be able to read age appropriate texts with some fluency because they are well within the limits of their sight vocabulary. These are the children the test is aimed at. Partly because there's still a belief that there's more than one way to teach reading and these children are 'sight word readers' so just need a different methods so the lack of phonics skills just get ignored.

"The failure rate for phonics only is about 5% vs about 20% for mixed methods (look and say or whole word with a bit of phonics)." It's now believed to be less than 2%

"This is just insane. Now we are actually imposing rubbish words on kids" Tell that to Ronald Dahl and Shakespeare

God I'm glad I live in Wales some days, where we don't seem to get this shite.

It happened, I have no need to lie about trivia on an internet thread.
I don't know how the test was administered. The teacher reported the conversation to my dd , the child's mum, as it was the only word he got wrong.

I think I've read 1% somewhere mrz. 1-2% would seem about right.

Raises an interesting question about how the national 'pass' rate is still so low.

Yes it does, Rafa. That is exactly what I was thinking. Does this 1-2% exclude (moderate) learning difficulty children and the dyslexic children? Never mind those with more pronounced learning difficulties. It is clearly rubbish and not borne out by results in many schools and most schools have children whose progress in reading is very, very slow. We cannot assume all children have the same ability to read. They never have and they never will.

No the 1-2% are those with pronounced learning difficulties in mainstream school (I'm assuming excludes special schools) and clearly isn't rubbish as supported by those schools who follow a robust phonics programme rather than simply paying lip service and combining it with other methods.

I'm fairly sure it does include them.

Are you saying that you think the 1% is rubbish because you think the PSC and reading result suggest otherwise?

My point was the opposite. The PSC results are too low. They should be much higher and we need to question why they aren't. I doubt its because of SEN because the schools I know that have higher than average levels of children with SEN are getting results that fit more with the

Schools that teach phonics well achieve 100% pass in both PSC and SATs

Yep. I know of one that has a 100% reading pass rate even with the new SATs.

Although 80%ish seems to have been more common than high 90s this year.

Yes and in a deprived area with high levels of EAL.

Shate Northern Irish pronunciation, isn't it?

Whoever produced those lists was clueless!