Page 3 of 11

Re: 'Light-touch, phonics-based check' for Y1 children

Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 3:45 pm
by Susan Godsland
Re. the pulling of the Mumsnet thread started by Janet Moyles of TACTYC. I've been in conversation with Mumsnet today and it seems that Ms Moyles breached their terms and conditions. She should have put her thread in Media Requests (and paid).
Janet included in her OP a link to TAYTC and to her petition about phonics tests. Both of those things break our Talk Guidelines - and the thread was reported to us for that reason.

In the cold light of a Friday afternoon, though, we acknowledge that, as the thread was already at 90 posts, it would perhaps have been better either just to delete the OP or to move the whole thread to Media Requests - and we do apologise for that mistake

Re: 'Light-touch, phonics-based check' for Y1 children

Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 3:58 pm
by Debbie Hepplewhite
Does that mean the thread has gone forever?

That's a shame.

That would please Janet Moyles no end - because the last time I looked at the thread, it was very clear that most contributors totally supported both phonics teaching and the phonics screening assessment! She was actually getting a hard time from other posters.

I was very pleased to see that because mostly articles and postings that gain media attention are from the phonics 'begrudgers and fudgers'.

The responses reflected something different, then, from the impression the general public might gain via the media.

Re: 'Light-touch, phonics-based check' for Y1 children

Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 5:08 pm
by maizie
Debbie Hepplewhite wrote:That would please Janet Moyles no end - because the last time I looked at the thread, it was very clear that most contributors totally supported both phonics teaching and the phonics screening assessment! She was actually getting a hard time from other posters.
Which makes me wonder if the complaint about it was strategic...

Re: 'Light-touch, phonics-based check' for Y1 children

Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 5:17 pm
by chew8
I've recently heard from two reliable sources that opposition to the phonics screening check may not be representative of public opinion generally or even of opinion among teachers and head-teachers.

Jenny C.

Re: 'Light-touch, phonics-based check' for Y1 children

Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 5:53 pm
by Debbie Hepplewhite
That's good. I hope that Nick Gibb is not fazed by the UKLA and early years advisors' protests because it is not at all hard to address all the issues that they raise. ;-)

Re: 'Light-touch, phonics-based check' for Y1 children

Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 9:09 am
by Susan Godsland
DO READ and circulate Elizabeth Nonweiler's suggestions for the Phonics Check:

Y1 Phonics Screening Check

The online consultation is over. The trial for the ‘check’ is this summer, with a roll out in England in 2012. The aim is to find out which six year olds have learned to decode to an acceptable standard and which will need catch-up in Y2. The ‘check’ will include real words and nonwords. How will it be conducted? What are the implications of including nonwords?


http://www.nonweiler.demon.co.uk/Screen ... %20EN2.pdf

Re: 'Light-touch, phonics-based check' for Y1 children

Posted: Sun May 22, 2011 5:48 pm
by Elizabeth
Here is a message to teachers about nonwords and the Phonics Check from Get Reading Right:

http://www.getreadingright.co.uk/nonsense-words/

Re: 'Light-touch, phonics-based check' for Y1 children

Posted: Sun May 22, 2011 7:00 pm
by Debbie Hepplewhite
....and the Get Reading Right 'Martian' non-words provide good examples of some illegal spellings!

Re: 'Light-touch, phonics-based check' for Y1 children

Posted: Sun May 22, 2011 11:21 pm
by Elizabeth
I agree that there is a danger of teachers and publishers inventing nonwords with non-existent or unusual spellings. Children might visualise them mentally and then spell real words incorrectly as a result. I don't think it's a good idea in principle. However, putting that aside, these seemed okay to me.

Here are the 'Martian' words:
Cug mank grooply defo tra sork?
'cug' like 'dug'
'mank' like 'sank'
'grooply' like 'deeply'
'defo' like 'demo'
'tra' like 'spa'
'sork' like 'stork'

I approve of the instructions further down the page:
Here is what you should be doing:
The words children read should include both high frequency words (like 'dad', 'man', 'sad', 'ant') and more unusual words (like 'sap', 'din', 'nip'). This will ensure a child isn’t relying on recognising the word. Remember, words like ‘dad’ and ‘sat’ will have been seen lots in the stories Mum and Dad read to them, and many children will simply recognise them.
Don’t allow a child to guess from the picture. It’s no use having a picture of a man next to the word ‘man’. No reading is involved in guessing from that picture!

Re: 'Light-touch, phonics-based check' for Y1 children

Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2011 5:40 pm
by Susan Godsland
Year 1 phonics screening check framework

This document provides the framework for the development of the year 1 phonics check, including the check specification and the item specification.

http://media.education.gov.uk/assets/fi ... mework.pdf

Re: 'Light-touch, phonics-based check' for Y1 children

Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2011 9:47 pm
by Hammered
Good grief! It may be 'light touch' but they are certainly putting a lot of thought into selecting these words!!!

Re: 'Light-touch, phonics-based check' for Y1 children

Posted: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:56 pm
by chew8
Hammered wrote:Good grief! It may be 'light touch' but they are certainly putting a lot of thought into selecting these words!!!


Yes! It's certainly not 'light touch' for the people compiling the screening check, but it should be light-touch for the children if they have been well taught - many of them will whizz through the 40-odd items in less than a minute.

Jenny C.

Re: 'Light-touch, phonics-based check' for Y1 children

Posted: Wed Jun 08, 2011 8:18 pm
by Elizabeth
I am impressed at the effort they have put in to getting it 'right'.

Re: 'Light-touch, phonics-based check' for Y1 children

Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2011 3:22 pm
by kenm
Elizabeth wrote:Here are the 'Martian' words:
Cug mank grooply defo tra sork?
'cug' like 'dug'
'mank' like 'sank'
'grooply' like 'deeply'
'defo' like 'demo'
I wouldn't naturally give those "e"s the same pronunciation. "Demo" is short for "demonstration", so gets a short "e". "Defo" isn't an abbreviation, AFAIK, but occurs at the beginning of "deform", which has a long "e".

Re: 'Light-touch, phonics-based check' for Y1 children

Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2011 3:26 pm
by Elizabeth
It could be 'defo' like 'demo' or 'defo' like 'deform', couldn't it? That's a good example of how nonwords can be pronounced in different ways, quite acceptably.