SATs and the Rose Review

Moderators: Debbie Hepplewhite, maizie, Lesley Drake, Susan Godsland

Post Reply
Elizabeth
Posts: 994
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2004 8:47 pm

SATs and the Rose Review

Post by Elizabeth » Fri Jan 18, 2008 3:04 pm

Am I right about the following, or have I misinterpreted it or is my information out of date?

The National Curriculum and the SATs still advocate the searchlight strategy. SATS are based on the National Curriculum Levels. This is in contradiction to the Rose Review, the Standards Site Phonics page, the Literacy Framework, etc.

Statutory Assessment Tests (SATs)
The informal tasks in reading at levels 1 and 2 assess children’s understanding of the concept of print and their ability to make use of a range of strategies in their reading. ( http://www.nfer.ac.uk/research-areas/pi ... 003-06.cfm National Foundation for Educational Research - but out of date? for 2000 to 2006)

National Curriculum Level Descriptors
Level 2
... They use more than one strategy, such as phonic, graphic, syntactic and contextual, in reading unfamiliar words ... (http://www.ncaction.org.uk/subjects/english/levels.htm )
Elizabeth

chew8
Posts: 4173
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:26 pm

Post by chew8 » Fri Jan 18, 2008 4:47 pm

I suppose we can't assume that something relating to the period up to 2006 is regarded as still being in force.

I wonder what will happen about the assessment of children at KS1 in 2008 - they will have had up to two years of searchlights-type teaching and a good bit less than one year of post-Rose-type teaching. So will they still officially be expected to use searchlights strategies or not? In 2009 the Y2 children will have had about equal quantities of searchlights-type and Rose-type teaching. Only in 2010 will the official position be that Y2 children should have had Rose-type teaching all the way.

Jenny C.

Elizabeth
Posts: 994
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2004 8:47 pm

Post by Elizabeth » Fri Jan 18, 2008 4:52 pm

An interesting point, Jenny. I wonder if anyone involved in writing SATs has thought about it?

Is my quote from the National Curriculum up to date?
Elizabeth

g.carter
Posts: 1859
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 7:41 pm

Post by g.carter » Fri Jan 18, 2008 7:11 pm

I know I'm being a tad curmudgeonly, but looking at how widespread Reading Recovery and other Whole Language/Searchlights/eclectic programmes are becoming - at this rate, by 2010, their influence will be felt in the majority of inner-city schools. Synthetic phonics mixed in with all this - how on earth will that work out?

Were Gerry Robinson to look at what has happened to the original interim Rose Report and implementation of his final report, and listen to the concerns of those at the chalk-face - which is his style - I imagine he would place the blame, exactly where it belongs. Not at the teachers, the teaching assistants, the parents, the children, the telly, computers, fast food etc. but firmly at the feet of the DCSF. How could they do this?

Hammered
Posts: 39
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 9:36 pm
Location: Berkshire

Post by Hammered » Fri Jan 18, 2008 9:19 pm

There is no doubt that you can be a very poor 'multi-cue' reader and contain a level 2c/b in KS1 SATS reading tests. When I taught y2 I had a child who couldn't read half the text but was able to guess from the pictures and tick multiple choice boxes. She achieved a 2b.

Two years later in y4 she still had a reading age of 7.4. I did 6 months of SP with her and she was 10.1.

The KS1 reading SATS aren't fit for purpose and certainly give a false impression of many multi-cuing poor readers if teachers rely on the tests for their assessments.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests