Papermover v RR teacher

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

chew8
Posts: 4171
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:26 pm

Re: Papermover v RR teacher

Post by chew8 » Thu Oct 30, 2014 2:58 pm

It can't be bad if teachers are identifying marginal pupils and giving them extra intensive instruction, though it would be better still if even the weaker-than-marginal children were given that instruction.

Jenny C.

kestrel
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 8:20 am

Re: Papermover v RR teacher

Post by kestrel » Thu Oct 30, 2014 4:16 pm

I thought the non-cheating explanation for the spike - that some teachers were just stopping the test as soon as child hit 32 mark - sounded plausible?

chew8
Posts: 4171
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:26 pm

Re: Papermover v RR teacher

Post by chew8 » Thu Oct 30, 2014 4:44 pm

I'm not sure if I'm understanding you properly, kestrel. There was a spike at 32 when teachers knew in advance that this was the pass-mark. The explanation suggested by the DfE was that some teachers were giving children the benefit of the doubt to get the up to the threshold - e.g. surreptitiously marking them up to 32 if they actually got 30 or 31. The threshold was not announced in advance in 2014 (though it was again 32) and there was no spike. I thought kenm was suggesting that instead of 'massaging' marks, teachers might have given extra teaching in advance to children they regarded as borderline.

Jenny C.

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

Re: Papermover v RR teacher

Post by kenm » Thu Oct 30, 2014 5:26 pm

chew8 wrote:I thought kenm was suggesting that instead of 'massaging' marks, teachers might have given extra teaching in advance to children they regarded as borderline.
Precisely; but, to be fair, the graph doesn't imply necessarily that the extra attention is restricted to borderline cases.

Another difference from previous years is that the line from 1 to 31 increases or stays level all the way; it no longer has a dip from 30 to 31. In previous years, I regarded that dip as supporting my suspicion that some genuine 31s were being given an extra mark.
"... 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: 4171
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:26 pm

Re: Papermover v RR teacher

Post by chew8 » Thu Oct 30, 2014 6:27 pm

All the better if the extra attention isn't just limited to borderline cases.

Jenny C.

kestrel
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 8:20 am

Re: Papermover v RR teacher

Post by kestrel » Fri Oct 31, 2014 9:43 am

Oh, right, thanks Kenm. I'd forgotten about the dip. It's just that when I recently encountered the explanation that some teachers were just stopping the test at 32 (to "save time" or whatever), I was embarrassed to realise that idea hadn't occurred to me! However, I suppose there is no reason why both factors couldn't be involved as contributors to the spike?

chew8
Posts: 4171
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:26 pm

Re: Papermover v RR teacher

Post by chew8 » Fri Oct 31, 2014 10:37 am

The explanation that some teachers stopped the check when the child reached a score of 32 is a new one on me. Did it really happen, or are people just speculating that it might have happened?

Having administered versions of the check to quite a lot of children, I think it would be quite hard to be sure that a child had reached exactly 32 - or rather, it would be easy enough if the child got all of the first 32 items right, but it would be harder if some items were right and some wrong, as the teacher would have to keep a mental tally of the total at the same time as recording right and wrong answers.

Jenny C.

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

Re: Papermover v RR teacher

Post by kenm » Fri Oct 31, 2014 10:50 am

kestrel wrote:Oh, right, thanks Kenm. I'd forgotten about the dip. It's just that when I recently encountered the explanation that some teachers were just stopping the test at 32 (to "save time" or whatever), I was embarrassed to realise that idea hadn't occurred to me! However, I suppose there is no reason why both factors couldn't be involved as contributors to the spike?
Only if a child was potentially capable of scoring more than 32 could s/he be stopped early, so I don't see how that could influence the number scoring 31.
"... 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

kestrel
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 8:20 am

Re: Papermover v RR teacher

Post by kestrel » Fri Oct 31, 2014 6:52 pm

Jenny, I think it may just have been speculation. You make a good point about the difficulty of keeping track.

Papermover
Posts: 87
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 1:05 pm

Re: Papermover v RR teacher

Post by Papermover » Wed Nov 05, 2014 12:55 pm

I've been thinking about my problem with my child's school a lot. I think I was getting sidetracked, thinking somehow that I had to show them that children with autism can use phonics, or the phonics traing course they used wasn't very good etc etc. Debbie is right though, the issue is simpler, if not simpler to solve. Who and how can a school, ths school, be held to account for something that is statutory, but they are not doing?

I bumped into one of the Parent Governors this morning, but chickend out of asking them for a chat.

User avatar
Debbie Hepplewhite
Administrator
Posts: 3654
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 4:13 pm
Location: Berkshire
Contact:

Re: Papermover v RR teacher

Post by Debbie Hepplewhite » Thu Nov 06, 2014 12:23 am

Who and how can a school, ths school, be held to account for something that is statutory, but they are not doing?
This is the question we should be aiming at the Department for Education methinks.

If we had the answer, parents who understand about the reading debate and leading-edge practice, and who are truly concerned about their children's basic literacy skills provision, deserve to be provided with a simple, standard mechanism to hold their schools to account.

Teachers vary hugely in their attitude towards parents - sadly many are defensive.

volunteer
Posts: 755
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:46 pm

Re: Papermover v RR teacher

Post by volunteer » Sun Nov 09, 2014 10:27 pm

In my disappointing experience, there are a lot of public bodies that have statutory duties but it is impossible for the public to make sure that they carry them out. Oops, I am starting to sound like Victor Meldrew.

Papermover
Posts: 87
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 1:05 pm

Re: Papermover v RR teacher

Post by Papermover » Tue Nov 11, 2014 2:42 pm

Yes true Volunteer, but sometimes things do work out, and I've made changes to various areas as a member of the public. it's exhausting though, and annoying, as I don't see why something should be so difficult.

Some related issues I've thought about are that this school is part of a group that trains teachers. Teachers are being trained incorrectly and will go into schools and teach incorrectly. I do understand that there's is a review of initial teacher training underway. I wonder when ius likely to be published,and if anyone will take any notice of it!

The other thing is that I am almost certain that children who didn't pass the Y1 phonics check are being given Reading Revovery, rather than Synthetic Phonics intervention. I think the new NC says the intervention must be Phonics?
Last edited by Papermover on Tue Nov 11, 2014 11:03 pm, edited 2 times in total.

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

Re: Papermover v RR teacher

Post by maizie » Tue Nov 11, 2014 3:04 pm

Of course, the RR teacher will claim that they do teach phonics, which they do for a small part of the lesson and in a less than straightforward way. But 5 minutes of a 20min session barely skims the surface :sad: And they still badger children to use 'other cues' when reading.

http://primaryenglished.co.uk/2014/10/f ... rehension/

This is about 'comprehension' but look what she says about 'sounding out'... Hardly compatible with 'RR teaches phonics'

chew8
Posts: 4171
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:26 pm

Re: Papermover v RR teacher

Post by chew8 » Tue Nov 11, 2014 4:18 pm

The trouble is that ‘sound it out’ often doesn’t work, given the mismatch between the books RR children are given to read and the state of their phonic knowledge.

I’ve helped voluntarily in an infant school which doesn’t have RR but uses Book Bands, and weak Y1 readers have often been issued with books full of words that they can’t possibly read. I’ve always taken along my own stock of decodable books, and I get the children to try these once I’ve dutifully helped them through their non-decodables. At first they tend to resort to their usual strategies, but when they realise that these are books where sounding out really works, they often get the bit between their teeth. It’s not all plain sailing, however – I can move them on to the next level of decodables when I see them the following week, but in the meantime they will have been issued with several more non-decodables which will have made them revert to their non-decoding mindset.

Jenny C.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests