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

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

Post Reply
john walker
Posts: 369
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2003 10:46 am
Location: Buckingham
Contact:

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

Post by john walker » Fri Nov 11, 2011 9:32 pm

Thanks, Debbie. It says it all, doesn't it?
I taught Scarlett's brother and her mum watched and is now teaching Scarlett. She's doing a good job.
John Walker
Sounds-Write
www.sounds-write.co.uk
http://literacyblog.blogspot.com

chew8
Posts: 4161
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:26 pm

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

Post by chew8 » Fri Nov 11, 2011 11:26 pm

On 28 October I wrote:The pre-trial was done with Y2 children last November-December. In January I gave that version to 30 Y2 children with whom I had not worked voluntarily and whose text-reading ability I did not know. I now have the Key Stage 1 reading results of 7 of them, however, and hope to get a few more results soon. 3 of the 7 had Level 3 for reading at KS1 and their screening-check scores ranged from 33-39 out of 40. 3 had Level 2A - their screening-check scores were 32, 32 and 22. One had Level 2B - screening-check score 17. The KS1 reading assessment is much closer to the sort of assessment that Prof. Alexander and the UKLA would like, but the few results I have suggest that there is a good match between these and the children's screening-check scores.
I can now add a bit to the above, as I've managed to get the other results I was hoping for, bringing the total up to 14. In the process I've found that the child whose screening score last January was 17 got Level 2C for reading at KS1, not 2B. 2C may still seem an inflated result, buI I gave her the same screening check again a week or so ago and her score had gone up to 33. Similarly a boy who had Level 2C and a screening score of only 14 had gone up to 22 when re-tested recently. I also gave the check again to the boy with Level 2A for KS1 reading but a Jan. screening score of only 22, which was well below the other Level 2As (36, 32, 32) - he had gone up to 33. If some of the improvement in all these cases happened between January when I did the screening check and May, when the KS1 assessment was done, then the KS1 reading levels may be more in line with the children's decoding ability.

Anyway, the 14 results are as follows:

6 children had Level 3 for reading. Their Jan. screening scores were 40, 39, 38, 36. 33, 31.
4 had Level 2A. Their screening scores were 36, 32, 32, 22 (but see above re. the one with 22).
1 had Level 2B. Screening score 24.
3 had Level 2C. Screening scores 20, 17, 14 (but see above re. the ones with 17 and 14).

The correlation between these two sets of results is .896, which is very high, 1.0 being a perfect correlation).

Jenny C

Elizabeth
Posts: 993
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2004 8:47 pm

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

Post by Elizabeth » Sat Nov 12, 2011 5:08 pm

It's a super video and I hope lots of teachers watch it and see how easy it is for children to read nonwords, when they're taught to sound and blend for reading.
Elizabeth

User avatar
Susan Godsland
Administrator
Posts: 4973
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:10 pm
Location: Exeter UK
Contact:

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

Post by Susan Godsland » Sun Nov 13, 2011 10:02 am

Discussion of the Y1 phonics check here:

Year 1 phonics test

http://community.tes.co.uk/forums/t/532 ... ageIndex=3

Elizabeth
Posts: 993
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2004 8:47 pm

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

Post by Elizabeth » Sun Nov 13, 2011 10:20 am

I came across anxious teachers in an area where, not only is English not the first language for over half the children, but the children come and go often. I was told that at one point an average of one new child was joining a school every week and a similar number leaving. They were concerned that their teaching might be judged by the results of the Screening Check. The teachers I talked to were convinced of the importance of synthetic phonics and providing catch-up.
Elizabeth

JIM CURRAN
Posts: 3127
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2003 7:18 am

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

Post by JIM CURRAN » Sun Nov 13, 2011 11:41 am

6 children had Level 3 for reading. Their Jan. screening scores were 40, 39, 38, 36. 33, 31.
4 had Level 2A. Their screening scores were 36, 32, 32, 22 (but see above re. the one with 22).
1 had Level 2B. Screening score 24.
3 had Level 2C. Screening scores 20, 17, 14 (but see above re. the ones with 17 and 14).

The correlation between these two sets of results is .896, which is very high, 1.0 being a perfect correlation).

Thanks Jenny for this interesting and relevant information which is highly supportive of the Screening check.

chew8
Posts: 4161
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:26 pm

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

Post by chew8 » Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:34 pm

My numbers are too small to count as statistically significant, but if a similar correlation were found in a large sample it would be significant.

Jenny C.

User avatar
maizie
Administrator
Posts: 3121
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 10:38 pm
Location: N.E England

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

Post by maizie » Sun Nov 13, 2011 2:06 pm

Elizabeth wrote:I came across anxious teachers in an area where, not only is English not the first language for over half the children, but the children come and go often. I was told that at one point an average of one new child was joining a school every week and a similar number leaving. They were concerned that their teaching might be judged by the results of the Screening Check.
As the results will only be available to individual schools (through, I understand, RAISEonline) the only people who will use the data would be the school Leadership Team, their SIP (School Improvement Partner) if they have one, and Ofsted.

In the case of the SLT and the school SIP they should be sufficiently aware of the nature of the school population as to be able to make fair judgements on the quality of the teaching. In the case of Ofsted it is up to the school to present a reasonable explanation (not an 'excuse') of why their results are not in line with what is 'expected' nationally.

I can see that in all cases schools, SIPs and Inspectors have to be aware of what schools in similar circumstances achieve. I wonder if there will be analysis of results nationally that will enable such comparisons. From what little I have seen of our RAISEonline data I think it does usually contain some comparison with data from similar schools.

chew8
Posts: 4161
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:26 pm

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

Post by chew8 » Sun Nov 13, 2011 2:36 pm

I would think that comparisons with data from similar schools will be possible, Maizie, but I don't know for sure.

A question for John:
He wrote:I taught Scarlett's brother and her mum watched and is now teaching Scarlett. She's doing a good job.
Would the watching which the mum did have amounted to getting the full Sounds~Write training?

Jenny C.

john walker
Posts: 369
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2003 10:46 am
Location: Buckingham
Contact:

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

Post by john walker » Sun Nov 13, 2011 6:51 pm

In reply to Jenny: No. Mum only gets what she needs to teach her daughter, which is really only a small part of the whole course.
John Walker
Sounds-Write
www.sounds-write.co.uk
http://literacyblog.blogspot.com

chew8
Posts: 4161
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:26 pm

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

Post by chew8 » Sun Nov 13, 2011 7:54 pm

Thanks. I think this would fit in with what I've said about common-sense teaching.

Jenny C.

geraldinecarter
Posts: 990
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 6:40 pm

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

Post by geraldinecarter » Sun Nov 13, 2011 8:11 pm

This is a lovelyand very useful video, John. Thanks. I hope it will be widely seen.

Derrie Clark
Posts: 1174
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 8:24 am
Location: Kent

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

Post by Derrie Clark » Sun Nov 13, 2011 9:09 pm


Thanks. I think this would fit in with what I've said about common-sense teaching.
Is it possible to expand on this Jenny? I'm unsure what is meant here.

chew8
Posts: 4161
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:26 pm

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

Post by chew8 » Sun Nov 13, 2011 9:44 pm

See recent posts in the 'Adult literacy' thread, Derrie. John said there that the teaching of reading was almost rocket science - I said that I had reservations about this view and wouldn't want to see it promoted at the expense of a common-sense view. John has now confirmed that the person who has taught Scarlett (her mum) has had nothing like the full S~W training but 'only a small part of the whole course'. She is still doing a very good job, however, and I would expect, on the basis of my experience with my own and other children, that Scarlett will go from strength to strength even if her mum gets no more input from John.

Jenny C.

john walker
Posts: 369
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2003 10:46 am
Location: Buckingham
Contact:

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

Post by john walker » Sun Nov 13, 2011 9:53 pm

Jenny said:
I think this would fit in with what I've said about common-sense teaching.
I don't think so, Jenny. The only common sense being exercised here was when this mother, frustrated with the fact that her son was not able to read at all (not even CVC words) at the end of YR, asked me to help. In that 'help' were embodied all the elements of what I consider to be good quality phonics teaching. She sat through many hours of teaching reading, spelling, error correction, what to do with random word lists sent home to be learnt as sight words, and so on. This time, with her daughter, she's decided not to leave things to chance, or to common sense.
John Walker
Sounds-Write
www.sounds-write.co.uk
http://literacyblog.blogspot.com

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests