Phonics Screening Check - the RRF Response

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

User avatar
maizie
Administrator
Posts: 3117
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 10:38 pm
Location: N.E England

Phonics Screening Check - the RRF Response

Post by maizie » Wed Sep 07, 2011 10:46 pm

A response from the RRF to the Y1 Phonics Screening Test is now on the RRF website


http://www.rrf.org.uk/pdf/RRF%20respons ... 0check.pdf

teejay100000
Posts: 124
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 10:29 pm

Re: Phonics Screening Check - the RRF Response

Post by teejay100000 » Thu Sep 08, 2011 10:36 pm

I haven't even got to the end of the response yet and feel the need to post on the subject of "non-words". I read: "Non words are words that do not have meaning like ‘mif’ or ‘chup’." How many real words can you think of that end with "-if"? This is a spelling that I don't think exists in English. I know Debbie has commented before on "illegal" spellings.

chew8
Posts: 4119
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:26 pm

Re: Phonics Screening Check - the RRF Response

Post by chew8 » Thu Sep 08, 2011 11:48 pm

The '-if' spelling at the end of a word can't be regarded as illegal because of the common word 'if'.

Jenny C.

kenm
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Berkshire

Re: Phonics Screening Check - the RRF Response

Post by kenm » Fri Sep 09, 2011 10:58 am

teejay100000 wrote:How many real words can you think of that end with "-if"? This is a spelling that I don't think exists in English.
A quick look in my dictionary finds the word "kif" (also "kef"), 1. a state of dreamy euphoria. 2. any drug, esp. marijuana, that produces this state when smoked; also the acronym "GIF" , for graphic interchange format. Not in the dictionary, but I recall the product name "Jif", a scouring powder.
"... the innovator has as enemies all those who have done well under the old regime, and only lukewarm allies among those who may do well under the new." Niccolo Macchiavelli, "The Prince", Chapter 6

chew8
Posts: 4119
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:26 pm

Re: Phonics Screening Check - the RRF Response

Post by chew8 » Fri Sep 09, 2011 11:36 am

Yes, there are the examples cited by kenm, and also aperitif, motif, massif and serif - probably all from French, but nevertheless regarded as English words.

Just as the existence of two different phonemes can be established on the basis of only one minimal pair, I think it may be the case that a spelling is 'legal' even if there is only one word embodying it.

Jenny C.

User avatar
Debbie Hepplewhite
Administrator
Posts: 3640
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 4:13 pm
Location: Berkshire
Contact:

Re: Phonics Screening Check - the RRF Response

Post by Debbie Hepplewhite » Fri Sep 09, 2011 2:47 pm

LOL! 'Jif' is now called 'Cif', Ken!

I wonder how many people think it's called /kif/?

I don't like the new name at all. I can't imagine what prompted the change!!!! :roll:

teejay100000
Posts: 124
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 10:29 pm

Re: Phonics Screening Check - the RRF Response

Post by teejay100000 » Fri Sep 09, 2011 9:33 pm

:grin: As I posted I knew you would find some! At least they were obscure French words and that daft name for kitchen cleaner.

kenm
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Berkshire

Re: Phonics Screening Check - the RRF Response

Post by kenm » Sat Sep 10, 2011 10:37 am

teejay100000 wrote::grin: As I posted I knew you would find some! At least they were obscure French words and that daft name for kitchen cleaner.
The original name wasn't daft.

"Jif: your worktops spotless in a jiffy!"
"... the innovator has as enemies all those who have done well under the old regime, and only lukewarm allies among those who may do well under the new." Niccolo Macchiavelli, "The Prince", Chapter 6

teejay100000
Posts: 124
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 10:29 pm

Re: Phonics Screening Check - the RRF Response

Post by teejay100000 » Sun Sep 11, 2011 10:46 pm

Then why wasn't it called Jiff? :grin:

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

Re: Phonics Screening Check - the RRF Response

Post by Susan Godsland » Wed Nov 02, 2011 10:45 am

I thought it would be useful to have a direct link here to Jenny Chew's conference talk paper about the Y1 reading check:

The Year 1 Phonics Screening Check:
What will it be like? How can we be sure our children succeed?

http://rrf.org.uk/pdf/conf2011/RRF_Conf ... 0_Chew.pdf

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

Re: Phonics Screening Check - the RRF Response

Post by Susan Godsland » Wed Nov 02, 2011 11:54 am

In her paper, Jenny wrote:
If you’ve read the Sheffield Hallam evaluation, you may have noticed that nearly three-quarters of schools involved in the pilot said that they taught children to use a range of cueing strategies as well as phonics. Those of us who have nailed our colours firmly to the phonics mast would probably expect that when we see the detailed analysis it will turn out that schools using just phonics for word identification have done better than schools using mixed methods. I gather that this is something the DfE is researching and if the findings turn out as I would expect it would create a strong rationale for schools to pursue a more systematic approach to phonics teaching.

I’ll finish with a comment from a teacher which is quoted in the Sheffield Hallam evaluation:
‘Very difficult test for Year One pupils because it's not something they are familiar with doing. So we
are used to asking them to decode words in context. In books to apply their knowledge of the picture
cues, the context and so on.’ (p. 50)
It does appear that the message re. the DfE's revised criteria for synthetic phonics programmes has not been made clearly or strongly enough. Will school inspectors be trained to pick up on this?
(E)nsure that as pupils move through the early stages of acquiring phonics, they are invited to practise by reading texts which are entirely decodable for them, so that they experience success and learn to rely on phonemic strategies.

It is important that texts are of the appropriate level for children to apply and practise the phonic knowledge and skills that they have learnt. Children should not be expected to use strategies such as whole-word recognition and/or cues from context, grammar, or pictures.
http://dfe.gov.uk/schools/teachingandle ... honic-work

User avatar
maizie
Administrator
Posts: 3117
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 10:38 pm
Location: N.E England

Re: Phonics Screening Check - the RRF Response

Post by maizie » Wed Nov 02, 2011 12:21 pm

I flagged this up on a different thread a few days ago and got absolutely no reaction, which I found surprising.
( http://www.rrf.org.uk/messageforum/view ... f=1&t=4989 )

It actually comes from the Ofsted training document but the Level descriptor I quote will be in DfES materials used by teachers to inform their teaching.

This is the description of what a L2 reader is expected to be capable of:
Level 2
Pupils’ reading of simple texts shows understanding and is generally accurate. They express opinions about major events or ideas in stories, poems and non-fiction. They use more than one strategy, such as phonic, graphic, syntactic and contextual, in reading unfamiliar words and establishing meaning.

They use more than one strategy, such as phonic, graphic, syntactic and contextual, in reading unfamiliar words and establishing meaning

If this is in a level descriptor it will be taken as a necessary thing to be taught and as endorsement of multi-cueing strategies. I am :shock: How about everyone else?

chew8
Posts: 4119
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:26 pm

Re: Phonics Screening Check - the RRF Response

Post by chew8 » Wed Nov 02, 2011 7:21 pm

I did take your posting seriously, Maizie, but felt that I'd better read the OFSTED documents properly before responding - i.e.

http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/gett ... ding-early
http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/read ... n-literacy

I've read the first carefully, but have only skimmed the second. They both have the same publication date (21 October 2011), so it's very puzzling that the one for younger children says that something no longer applies whereas the one for older children implies that it does still apply. I'll see what I can find out.

Jenny C.

User avatar
maizie
Administrator
Posts: 3117
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 10:38 pm
Location: N.E England

Re: Phonics Screening Check - the RRF Response

Post by maizie » Wed Nov 02, 2011 7:54 pm

What shocked me, Jenny, was the fact that the extract I have quoted comes direct from the DfE/ QCDA descriptors for L2. They can be found here:

http://curriculum.qcda.gov.uk/key-stage ... index.aspx

Now, I can see that it might be argued that the use of 'other cues' is for comprehension rather than word identification, but somehow I don't think so ;-)

The question in my mind is, is this just left over from the old NLS descriptors and no-body has noticed the inconsistency, or, was that sentence left there deliberately?

Does whoever prepared the Ofsted training materials not see the inconsistency?

chew8
Posts: 4119
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:26 pm

Re: Phonics Screening Check - the RRF Response

Post by chew8 » Wed Nov 02, 2011 9:01 pm

The following is my take on it, Maizie - I haven't yet tried to get any clarification from anyone else.

The OFSTED document relating to Years 3-11 refers to the bit you quote as being from 'the current National Curriculum', which is presumably the one that has been in force for some years. I think this is being revised, but the revision has not yet replaced the 'current' version. Legislation is probably needed before this can happen.

What puzzles me, therefore, is not that multi-cueing is still there in black and white but rather that there is inconsistency between two OFSTED documents published on the same day. The one for the years below Y3 quotes the bit you quote but prefaces it with this:

'Although the National Curriculum is supposed to provide broad benchmarks for attainment at Key Stages 1 and 2, it does not now reflect the government’s expectations that children should be taught to decode words using phonics as the prime approach. The current attainment target for reading at Level 2 says: ‘They [pupils] use more than one strategy, such as phonic, graphic, syntactic and contextual, in reading unfamiliar words and establishing meaning.'

So this pre-Y3 document quotes the multi-cueing bit but implies that there is a problem with it, whereas the Years 3-11 document quotes it without any implication of a problem.

Jenny C.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests