Failing the phonics screening

[Falcon1]

I've just been informed by DD's school (because I asked) that she only got 21 out of 40 in her phonics screening in December. The pass mark was 32. She is Year 2 (the test was delayed due to covid). She's below expectations in reading and writing and really hates/struggles with reading. Her spelling seems to suggest a lack of basic phonic knowledge. For instance, she recently spelt favourite as 'fafrt' and colour as 'coley'. My question is, is this score (and her struggles) indicative of something like dyslexia, or could she just be a bit of a late developer? I've been concerned about her progress since reception but I keep being told not to worry, lockdown has had an impact on their learning, she'll get it eventually etc etc. The school said they categorically do not support dyslexia assessments as the council won't fund them. I listen to her read every day (which is like pulling teeth as she hates it so much) and I read to her a different book at bedtime, and always have done. We have a reading chest subscription, play phonics games and do Reading Eggs (which she also hates). It just doesn't seem to be sinking in.

Excellent post - thanks mrz

Mathanxiety you do realise that the UCL is the home of Reading Recovery in the U.K..
I'd also point out that the US lags decades behind the U.K. in phonics instruction which is ironic as many U.K. programmes are based on the work of a US researcher.

@mathanxiety

Clackmannanshire wasn't the first research into phonics. It was preceded by many years of research in the US.

And many centuries of actual use

It's what people came up with spontaneously, from actually teaching DC to read, and has outlasted what the researchers of the latter part of the 20th century thought were worthwhile innovations - things that have now been demonstrated to be utterly true opposite.

(For avoidance of doubt, I'm not on about the detail of individual phonics schemes and their idiosyncracies and phases. I'm talking about phonics the actual approach)

@Feenie

Excellent post - thanks mrz

I can't take credit Dr Jennifer Buckingham did the hard work

[quote mathanxiety]@AuntieStella - there is no evidence to suggest that teaching reading early (age 4) has any benefit to later performance.

www.bbc.com/future/article/20220228-the-best-age-for-learning-to-read

The one benefit of a school environment for children this age is socialisation.

@Newnamemsz, the NRP findings are directly contradicted by the research of Wyse and Bradbury.[/quote]

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358103818ResponseetoWyseeDanddBradburyAAinpresssReadingwarssorreadinggreconciliationAAcriticalexaminationnofrobusttresearchevidenceecurriculumpolicyyandteachers''practicesforrteachingphonicssand

*Summary
*
Wyse and Bradbury argue that the successive gains in reading found on England's Key Stage 2 tests and the PIRLS and PISA international surveys do not in fact show that synthetic phonics teaching has been beneficial for pupils in England, which we refute. They then select articles from just one meta-analysis to propose that children should start to learn phonics from the age of 5+; however, the pupils in these studies started school at 5+, unlike in England, where they start at 4+. They produce no evidence therefore that children in England should spend a whole year not receiving phonics tuition until they are aged 5 to 6 in Year 1, this being the second year of schooling. Indeed, this would be to the great disadvantage of children at risk of reading failure, pupils whom Wyse and Bradbury exclude from consideration. Finally, they survey an unrepresentative sample of teachers in England to find out whether they teach reading comprehension alongside phonics and conclude that they do not. However, the combination of phonics and reading comprehension tuition is enshrined in both England's government programme Letters and Sounds and in its National Curriculum. The value of the synthetic phonics approach is that children can use their learning right away to work out how to pronounce unfamiliar words in books. These can be introduced very early, as is shown by studies on synthetic phonics in Scotland, including the one in Clackmannanshire that influenced the decision to increase the emphasis on synthetic phonics in England. These studies are not cited in Wyse and Bradbury's article.

Hattie's meta analysis of approaches

Mrz - you have in effect stated that the jury is still out, that the reading wars rage on.

Wyse and Bradbury further refined the list by excluding any study that did not include a measure of reading comprehension. Their rationale is that the ultimate goal of reading instruction is comprehension so it is the only measure worth knowing. However, this ignores two important points: Distal measures will always be weaker than proximal measures. Yes, if students can decode, they are more likely to be able to comprehend but there are other factors that mediate the relationship and these variables are often omitted in analyses. In addition, reading comprehension measures are enormously variable and unreliable, especially among young children. Depending entirely on reading comprehension measures is not a sound decision but, even so, many studies of reading programs that include phonics find improvements in comprehension.

No matter what way you slice it, comprehension actually is the ultimate aim of reading, and if the effect of SP on reading comprehension isn't clearcut and significant, then SP is a massive waste of everyone's time.

If all you want to do is bang away on something you can easily measure, and achieving the required attainment is considered the be all and end all of educational focus involving literacy in early years, then the appeal of synthetic phonics is obvious.

English PISA scores have essentially stagnated since 2006.

I think it's pretty obvious the Reading wars still rumble on and they will do as long as people ignore the evidence and continue to cling to a flawed theory.

Perhaps you'll explain how you understand a text when you can't accurately read the words

My DD1 (who was poor at phonics) would often say what does mean?
I'd say can you spell that out for me?
Answer
I'd say it properly
Her: Oh I know what that means....

If you can't read the difference between 3 words you may not have seen written before eg electric, eccentric , eclectic then of course you won't comprehend it.

https://www.apmreports.org/episode/2018/09/10/hard-words-why-american-kids-arent-being-taught-to-read

https://news.stanford.edu/2015/05/28/reading-brain-phonics-052815/

Stanford study on brain waves shows how different teaching methods affect reading development
Stanford Professor Bruce McCandliss found that beginning readers who focus on letter-sound relationships, or phonics, increase activity in the area of their brains best wired for reading.

https://www.apmreports.org/episode/2019/08/22/whats-wrong-how-schools-teach-reading

Reading wars had all but stopped here - mrz and I had pretty much retired! I like to think that it was the effect the science of reading had on the curriculum, Ofsted, initial teacher training, etc. The old myths still pop up occasionally though, but that doesn't mean they won't be challenged when they do. It's important that if parents search for help they can find clear advice here.

Still very much alive in Scotland and Wales unfortunately

Both crazy - Scotland led the way with the Clackmannan research then just stagnated, and Welsh is one of the most phonically regular languages there is!

Just had a funny moment with GD, unlike GS she's doing fine with phonics. She was reading me a "bedtime story" so I had to lie down and she was reading sitting in front of me. I assume she was copying teacher and holding book so I could see the pages and she was reading by looking down at it, so reading it upside down. I was surprised how well she could do it. Maybe reading upside down is the answer.

She's 4 by the way. She soon tired of the game and said, "This book has too many words." The disgust of 4 year olds is very amusing.

£495! 😮😮 You can’t spam here, mkdda. Have reported your post.

Sounds like she needs to work on phonological awareness and revisit 'satpin' basics. If one crucial stage has been missed for some reason it can be impossible to move on. Children learn at their own pace and tbh if she's hating all the reading activities you're doing I'd gently step away from them. You don't want the pressure to spoil reading for her. Go easy, try to share stories together, listening to a story, saying the rhyming words and bits of sentences together might make it fun again.
A very good website with lots of info about language difficulties is, but there's a good chance its
phonogical awareness. You will find ideas on strategies to try at home. Too many ways of doing the same thing can be more confusing. You're trying lots and it will help.
addressingdyslexia.org

You shouldn't be advertising to people who need help. Very unethical. Please stop this. I don't think you are qualified to do what you claim to do.

@mkdda for somebody in your line of work, you should really ensure there are no linguistic errors on your website...

Unfortunately "dyslexia" is a huge industry and a diagnosis without the right support is totally worthless. I've seen some shocking examples with recommendations that show lack of knowledge.