Failed phonics y1 phonics test & advanced reader

[Robindrama]

( I have another thread here but will post specific question as a separate one) any ideas will be much appreciated.

Ds in y1. Just had a parents evening. End of year prediction: reading above expectation, but will fail phonics test.
Question: how can that be possible?

School reading levels are 1-26, 26 free reader. End of y1 expected level is 17/18. DS is currently on level 20. Excellent reading and advanced comprehension.
Phonics tests results 23/40. Expected to fail the test. I will have a meeting with teachers shortly.

There are some children who will learn to read easily, using whatever method is thrown at them. I learned many years ago with much more whole word recognition and was a bit crap with phonics. I think the consequences for me were:

I eventually read enough to pick up phonic rules by osmosis, so could sound out words like nonsense Dahl words, but would have been older then my 6 year old DD when I could do it and wouldn't have been as confident.

There are some words I have only ever seen written down and I don't know how they are pronounced. E.g scoliosis.

My spelling is not great. I could never spell out loud as I had to see if a word looked right.

I still struggle to read words with lots if 'i's and 't's in them like imitate.

I struggled to read out loud until I was about 25 as I tend to reword things as I read, so same meaning, but different words came out.

But I came from a background with lots of books and the expectation that I would read and I was fairly bright. Without those factors I don't know that I would have ended up as a fast and fluent reader.

Having universal phonics provision wasn't aimed at children like me who turned out fine. It was for the many who struggled for years and many who never became functionally literate.

My understanding of phonics has improved hugely since DD learned to read. I think that a solid grounding in phonics would have made a difference to me when I was younger, even as a fluent reader.

my 3 went through school including university with whole language. minimal phonics was taught. whole language is a very natural instinctive way for them but I appreciate that teaching a variety of methods will obviously reach more students.
even if the current directive is phonics is best, many children learn whole words without having learned phonics and you can't deny that.

It's amazing that people consider certain things to be "alarm bells" at the end if Y1. When a child might still be FIVE YEARS OLD, FFS. In some more sensible countries they wouldn't have begun formal education for another year or so. We need to stop shoehorning kids to meet government standards earlier and earlier, and certainly have nothing that looks like a test until they are much older.

"but I appreciate that teaching a variety of methods will obviously reach more students." Actually it doesn't. So called "balanced literacy" has caused huge problems and left many struggling

"In some more sensible countries they wouldn't have begun formal education for another year or so." and in many if those sensible countries children are already reading and writing before formal education has begun.

DS2 is in Year 1 and a good reader. Not brilliant by MN standards but he's on ORT 10 to give you an idea as they won't let him go higher than that in Y1.

He is also rubbish at phonics. His spelling is awful apart from high frequency words however he also has glue ear and has quite limited hearing in both ears. He simply cannot hear the sounds but can easily recognise the words if he knows them.

Im fully expecting him to fail the phonics test.

Sadly I think the ORT10 is a clue

Phonics is very much rooted in what a language sounds like, so if you cannot hear the difference between phonemes it isn't going to be easy/possible.

I hope his ear is fixed properly soon

many children learn whole words without having learned phonics and you can't deny that

The evidence is that children who learn to read without being taught phonics have figured out phonics for themselves. This is why whole word approaches to learning reading fail so many children. It is fine for those who manage to work out phonics for themselves but around 20% of children won't manage to do that.

He's not just reading ORT Mrz but they don't have a huge amount of decodeable books above the Songbirds ones. He absolutely loves reading and reads all the time at home so Im not especially worried about his reading as such...just that I know he will fail the test! He has lots of extra phonic practice in school and from me at home on phonics play etc but it doesn't seem to make much difference. His handwriting is beautiful for a 6 year old and the content is great...it's just the spelling lets him down. There are whole chunks of words missing cause he can't hear the sounds as he is writing them.

In theory the ORT Songbirds cover all the phonics content needed unfortunately they don't cover all the alternative and what they do cover isn't in nearly enough depth to provide adequate reinforcement. ORT IMHO is still deeply rooted in Look and Say and despite publishing phonic books they have diluted the content greatly.

An advanced reader would see the nonsense word "strom " and think it says "storm", quite rightly.Wow - I can't believe that any teacher wouldn't catch themselves on at some point before they got to the end of typing that. Just shocking. shock

Its only shocking if you don't know anything about how the brain decodes written material. Once we are fluent readers we don't process evry letter but look at the general pattern and the context. Its a well known phenomenon and the reason that some people are better at proof reading than others: they have trained themselves to see what others don't.

"Dehaene says, "Whole word reading is a myth…the brain does not use the whole word shape". Skilled readers are processing letters simultaneously, whereas children need to work slowly, one letter at a time, till they gradually get faster and more automatic."

"they have trained themselves to see what others don't." Hopefully they haven't trained themselves to think "str" and "sto" are the same or we'd all misread every word we encounter

Recommend Dehaene https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MSy685vNqYk

Robin I'm so sorry your thread has turned into an utter bunfight.

I'd suggest your plan for getting your DS through the phonics test is to get him on board with a bit of practising. Explain that the cheeky aliens are trying to catch him out sometimes with names that are a bit like real words. Ask your teachers for some practice quizzes. Since he's not in the position of other struggling readers who struggle with phonics full stop, hopefully a bit of coaching and seeing it as a challenge will slow him down. Good luck x

Can I ask a slightly different question?

Why do people get so angry about phonics? To me it seems a no brainer- you need phonics knowledge to deal words you don't know. And since I have been volunteering with poor readers in year 7 it is obvious to me that it's often gaps in their knowledge of phonics that's holding them back. But it seems such a contentious issue. Why?

Please please please please don't practise for the phonics check. That isn't how to pass.
If your child is struggling the check will identify the problem and the school should provide appropriate support.

"Get him through the phonics test"?

It's not the bloody 11+!

Bertrand My theory on why people get worked up:

Parents: They like to see their child as 'bright'. If they don't pass the phonics test (most likely due to poor teaching), it conflicts with their model of 'bright'. But their child is 'bright' - ergo the phonics test must be wrong / poor / unsuitable for bright kids.

Compounded by attitude of some teachers:

Teachers: I think I am a good teacher. But some kids in my class don't score highly in the phonics screening even though they present as 'good readers'. It can't be my teaching as I am a good teacher, so there must be something wrong with the phonics test.

Also from parents: I wasn't taught by pure phonics, but I am a good reader. Therefore phonics cannot be the best way to teach reading.

I don't understand the view which many PP's seem to have that a phonics test is a reliable test of reading ability. Surely being able to actually read is the best test of reading ability!?

Or are you really saying that a child who scores 40/40 but is still on Biff, Chip & Kipper is a better reader than a Y1 on Harry Potter?

In my (admittedly fairly limited experience) the 'natural' readers who learn very quickly are the ones with the great visual memory and the struggling readers are usually the ones with poor visual memory who have to use phonics.

"Why do people get so angry about phonics?" because it's not suitable for every single child.

natural' readers who learn very quickly are the ones with the great visual memory and the struggling readers are usually the ones with poor visual memory who have to use phonics. *

Brick wall. Head.

The phonics check is a check of decoding ability. The ability you need to read previously unknown words. Like a 6 year old will come across all their life. I'm 50 and still come across new words, but I can read them because I can decode.

A child who can read Dahl and Potter either can decode fine, or is misreading made up words, or has to be told them before they can read them. Only the first of these is a properly good reader. And a child who does the first will pass the phonics check with no issues.

Phonics may not be suitable for every single child, but studies (ask Mrz) show that pure phonics is the best way to get most children reading. You don't know which children other methods will work for, so infants teaching surely should be using the method shown to be most effective. Mixed methods confuses more children than it helps.

I have had this issue. Dc started school reading and has the highest reading age of anyone in infants.
In year 5 they were assessed with a reading age of 13 but with awful phonics.

Rather than acknowledge their reading age school decided dc was reading wrong and undid all their reading by reteaching phonics in year six. The education assessor said dc would never be able to retain whole word knowledge for every word to read.

My theory was if they read to a thirteen year old level they could get by fine in life.

One of authors said (possibly Michael Rosen) than phonics were only meant for a particular group of children who were struggling.

Why do people get so angry about phonics?

That's a complicated question. Probably different for parents and teachers To add to teens theory.
politics - there's a view, promoted by some unions, that the teachers are experts and the government shouldn't be telling them what and how to teach.
ideology - you are right that phonics skills are the key skills that all children need on order to be able to read anything and spell accurately. There is still very much a belief that it is one of many methods and that different children will need different methods. And if you firmly believe that then it does look like some children have their reading sacrificed on the basis of a government whim which understandably makes people angry.

Also admitting we got it wrong is difficult. Admitting we might still be getting it wrong is harder. Given the amount of teacher bashing the government and media do I doubt anyone really wants to stand up and admit that some children can't read because of the way they've been taught rather than any innate or contextual issue.