Debbie's response to latest anti-phonics check article

This forum and the sub forums below are no longer active. Messages can still be read and searched but no new messages can be posted

Moderators: Debbie Hepplewhite, maizie

Susan Godsland

Debbie's response to latest anti-phonics check article

Post by Susan Godsland »

Debbie has done a comprehensive response to yesterday's Telegraph article where the anti-SP folk were yet again given media space to complain about the phonics check. ... apped.html
By Graeme Paton, Education Editor
Pupils with fluent skills are being confused by the assessment that forces children to decode “nonsense” words using phonics, it was claimed.
If the pupils had 'fluent skills', they would not have been confused by the 'nonsense words'. Many words learners need to read in literature are not in their spoken vocabularies so they are the equivalent of 'nonsense words' until such time as they are taught, or can deduce, what the new words mean.
The UK Literacy Association warned that the test – compulsory in all English state schools – may label some good readers as failures and knock children’s confidence.
No-one is saying the good readers are 'failures' and their confidence should not be knocked unless the adults in charge are incompetent in their capacity to conduct a short one-to-one word-reading activity with their pupils.

Children who are 'good readers' should have been able to read the nonsense words with no difficulty in the same way that they should be able to read new words within literature if they know the alphabetic code of the words.
In a damning report, it was suggested that the checks were "costly, time-consuming and unnecessary".

We have a significant and historic record of weak literacy and illiteracy in English-speaking countries. Without large-scale standardised testing, we may never have been alerted to the effect of different approaches to teaching reading. It is essential that we know the effects of our reading instruction approaches in schools - literacy is life-chance stuff.

It is high-time that the union leaders and other professional bodies in the teaching profession distinguished between the fit-for-purposeness of quick, simple snapshot national testing which is objective (same test, same conditions etc) and teacher assessment. There is a need for both types of testing - and, clearly, the outcry about snapshot 'objective' testing indicates that the teaching profession does not share a common understanding of reading instruction in our schools - or the need for understanding the picture of teaching effectiveness of our teaching methods.

It is 'damning' that various professional bodies such as the unions and UKLA are making such a fuss about the screening check when it need not be a big deal to conduct it if teachers really understood its importance and conducted it professionally.
The Department for Education has defended the test, which was introduced for the first time this year, insisting that it enabled teachers to identify pupils lagging behind in reading after at least a year of school.
The reality is that many teachers have been surprised by the results of the screening check - which shows that it has contributed to teachers' understanding of their pupils capability for reading nonsense words. Sadly, however, the comments of many teachers, and others, have demonstrated that teachers do not understand that children who they describe as being 'good readers' should be able to read simple nonsense words as readily as they can read their reading books.

The results of the screening check have also given teachers an indication of the effectiveness of their phonics teaching compared to national figures and the picture in other schools. Teachers need to know this information as part of their continuing professional development. This is essential understanding.
It is feared that any failure to improve reading skills at a young age can have hugely damaging effects on pupils throughout primary and secondary education.
This is a valid statement. Even 'good readers' may hit their own personal ceiling as they progress through school if they are not able to decode new words as the level of vocabulary in books becomes increasingly more challening. Teachers of young children may be oblivious to this development over time. Our secondary colleagues report to us that too many pupils cannot access the texts in secondary schools.

In the past few days, two teachers in different settings have commented to me, for example that they have children who are apparently 'good readers' ('free readers' they said) who stick to the 'safe books' that they have already read and are reluctant to progress on to more challenging books.
But David Reedy, UKLA general secretary, called for the tests to be made voluntary.

"This shouldn't be a compulsory test and we strongly recommend that the Government re-thinks this,” he said.

"We know phonics is important, but for some children it is holding them back. It should be part and parcel of what teachers have to hand and they should be able to use it when they think it's necessary."
Phonics isn't just 'important', it's 'essential'. There are worrying numbers of people, however, who think phonics is an either/or skill - that some children don't need it because they have different learning styles or can use a range of reading strategies. In reality, phonics for reading and spelling is adult-stuff and it is a very rare adult who does not use phonics application in some form to read and spell new and more challenging words routinely. Many adults simply don't realise this because they do it so automatically. When this is drawn to their attention, it opens their eyes to the reality and they begin to understand that phonics is, indeed, really important to us all - young and old alike. Phonics teaching and learning is certainly not 'holding' children 'back' - on the contrary it is empowering them to read and write.
The check is taken by around 600,000 pupils at the end of their first year of formal schooling. Pupils are supposed to use phonics – a system which breaks words down into a series of sounds – to decode a list of 40 words.

The list includes made-up words such as "voo", "terg", "bim", "thazz" and "spron” to ensure pupils are properly using the phonics system.

A study conducted by the UKLA analysed teachers' opinions of the test at 494 primary schools in England.

Many schools said the results of the check, which is used as an indicator of a child's reading skills, "did not reflect children's reading abilities as there is much more to reading than decoding".
I suggest that a body such as the UKLA having conducted a survey of teachers' 'opinions' should be very concerned if teachers believe that the screening check results had no contribution to make to our 'understanding' of the processes of reading. If teachers were familiar with the Simple View of Reading model, they would not need to protest along the lines of 'there is much more to reading than decoding' because absolutey no-one is saying any different from this!
Only around one in six of those questioned said that all of their pupils who were fluent readers achieved the required level to pass the phonics check, the study found.
Then doesn't this suggest that those children described as 'fluent readers' are not nearly so fluent as their teachers might like to think.
Almost three-quarters said that one or more of their good readers failed to meet the expected standard to pass.
Which might indicate that the children concerned were relying heavily on context to access their reading material and their 'reading reflex' was not erring towards seeing words clearly and decoding them accurately. This might bode ill for their long-term reading reflex as the vocabulary in the books becomes increasingly challenging.
UKLA's study found that teachers felt there were "far too many nonsense words".

"These confused more fluent readers, who had been taught to read for meaning, and therefore tried hard to make sense of the 'alien words' they read," it said.
Children should not be taught to 'read for meaning' at the expense of reading words accurately in or out of the context of sentences. Not only that, the children were actually told that the words were nonsense words - so there should have been no confusion whatsoever when children came to decode the words - they even had the 'aliens' alongside the words to further distinguish them from the list of real words.
The study warned that the check focuses on decoding words without their meanings, which "goes against everything the children have been taught".
The check should not have gone 'against everything the children have been taught' because the children should have been taught to scan printed words to recognise any letter groups within them (scanning from left to right) and then to sound out and blend the words. By the end of Year One, children should have had the regular experience of decoding thousands of words as words and within sentences.
One teacher told researchers: "The test took longer for some able readers who read for meaning. I felt that words very close to real words were unfair - e.g. 'strom'."

And another said: "Almost all children, regardless of ability said 'storm"'.
Certainly the word 'strom' is the most quoted word as having caused confusion or errors, but it is only one word out of 20 nonsense words and should not have affected the overall result of the check. We need all children to be able to attend to words carefully and clearly - not take a quick stab at coming up with a pronunciation.
A Department for Education spokeswoman said: “The phonics check is based on an internationally proven method to improve children’s reading.

“Too many children are not reaching the expected levels of reading whilst at a young age, do not catch up, and then struggle in secondary school and beyond.

“The pilot last year found that the test only takes a few minutes to complete, and that many children enjoyed it.
There are teachers who have described that their pupils enjoyed undertaking the screening check - even asking if they could do something similar the following day. There are also teachers who tried it out on their Reception children with great resuts - and there are teachers who cannot wait until the screening check next year to see if they have taught even more effectively than this year. I know which profile of teacher I would prefer to teach my grandchildren!
“Ensuring all children master the ability to decode and sound out new words is essential if they are to become confident readers. The phonics check will ensure that no child slips through the net still struggling with this basic skill.”
The advent of the screening check is already sharpening teachers' minds for the need to become effective phonics teachers - and alerting them to the reality of whether they are effective teachers compared to others or not. Where children are not able to decode words through application of phonics knowledge and blending, they are seriously disadvantaged and teachers do a disservice to children if they do not teach them the alphabetic code and blending skills well.

Teachers, parents, people in professional associations should be concerned that there is so much protestation against the government's efforts to discover the outcomes of reading instruction in our schools when so many people's life-chances are seriously ruined by weak literacy or illiteracy.

This is very serious stuff indeed.

Debbie Hepplewhite

Posts: 3801
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2003 7:18 am

Re: Debbie's response to latest anti-phonics check article

Post by JIM CURRAN »

"I suggest that a body such as the UKLA having conducted a survey of teachers' 'opinions' should be very concerned if teachers believe that the screening check results had no contribution to make to our 'understanding' of the processes of reading. If teachers were familiar with the Simple View of Reading model, they would not need to protest along the lines of 'there is much more to reading than decoding' because absolutey no-one is saying any different from this!"

Debbie, you have made this observation on numerous occassions and I completely agree. It seems that there are many in education, at all levels, who do not understand the Simple View of Reading model.


Re: Debbie's response to latest anti-phonics check article

Post by Toots »

I am interested in Debbie's observation that children will come across 'nonsense' words in their reading, as they will come across words that are not in their oral vocabulary. I agree that children will encounter such words, even in the simplest of books, including in scheme reading books.

This observation of Debbie's makes it quite clear that 'lifting words off the page' is not enough to make them comprehensible, because they may not be in the child's vocabulary. Luckily, in picture books, there is likely to be a picture that can help the child find out the meaning, or help the teacher explain it. I saw this recently with a child who was puzzled by the word 'mop'. He decoded the word correctly but the meaning didn't click until he looked at the picture, although I think he had encountered the word before in talk! The other route to understanding a new word is through the context supplied by surrounding text.

'Getting the meaning' will not help with pronunciation. Only decoding will help with that, and the help from phonics isn't perfect, as the child may opt for a wrong pronunciation. In the world of real words, unlike in the world of nonwords or alien words, plausible is not the same thing as correct pronunciation. Of course an adult helper will clarify any of the issues that make a word puzzling, but as has been said so often children must learn how to tackle words they do not know already independently.

Good readers may no longer rely on phonics when reading, because they have a large repertoire of known words and have minimal reason to 'sound out'. These readers may take the adult route of tracking back to check accuracy when their reading does not make sense. They will look at a word more carefully and self-correct, using phonics after checking meaning.

Good decoders, who have been taught up to the required point, should pass the phonics check. However, the phonics check will not tell the teacher if these children are using other skills to get at the meanings of new (or, if you like, 'nonsense') words.

Good readers, who have been taught up to the required point, decoded and built up a large repertoire of words which they know on sight, should also pass the phonics check. These good readers will possess growing vocabularies and a facility in reading which means they can generally devote themselves to seeking meaning; they may have the adult's reading skill of using meaning first and only using phonics if reading doesn't make sense. However, these children's test scores will be indistinguishable from those of children who are good decoders but do not have the other skills. It is also possible that the good readers may mistake some of the nonwords, which are not in context, because they look like known words. This is easily enough done during reading, and easily enough corrected during reading genuine texts. Some teachers have reported the phenomenon of good readers misreading nonwords, as mentioned in the Telegraph article.

So, what is the usefulness or fitness for purpose of the phonics check, and how justified are the objections mentioned in the article?

The phonics check will find out which children know and use the required GPCs to decode words as their first strategy or who use it as their first strategy when dealing with words they notice to be different from words in their reading repertoire. It will not reveal which children are using other skills when reading, skills which will help them in discovering meaning even when the occasional word is unknown to them. So it will not aid teachers in assessing which children, from among their good decoders, are further along the path to becoming skilled readers who can use their reading efficiently for finding things out and following stories etc.

With children who fail the check, the same applies in a slightly different way. There is no assessment of children's skills for understanding the spoken word, which if available could guide the teacher as to a child's specific needs - whether that is phonic support alone, or extra support in other skills for reading as well.

So the phonics check is fit for the purpose of assessing the phonic knowledge and blending skills of pupils, in most cases, with the possible exception of good readers who are edging beyond the phonics stage.

The problem is that the other skills needed to read well are not tested alongside phonics, so teachers cannot decide on the specific needs of their pupils beyond which GPCs they may need to teach. It's possible that teachers may end up teaching GPCs uneccessarily to some pupils who already know them and are adept at using them in their everyday reading of texts.

Luckily most Y1 teachers will know which pupils are good readers and which haven't reached that stage of word knowledge and automaticity.

Nevertheless the phonic check is clearly of little use to teachers for planning for individuals' reading progress, as opposed to decoding progress.

And just how 'standardised' is the check. So far I have only come across discussion of raw scores. Will these scores be standardised by considering the backgrounds, baseline levels, needs and circumstances of schools and pupils? If not, a picture may well emerge of schools failing their pupils because the scores in the check are low, when this may be down to factors out of the control of the school. Some schools may have very different priorities to others for excellent reasons. Phonic scores are a narrow measure of school performance in teaching reading, and to an even greater extent, in teaching the curriculum.

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

Re: Debbie's response to latest anti-phonics check article

Post by maizie »

The moderators have agreed that it is not approriate to re-open the debate about the Phonics Check on this thread as it has already been exhaustively discussed.

Anyone wishing to read, or continue, the debate is welcome to do so on this thread:


Any further posts made with the intention of moving the debate to this thread will be deleted.