an International Online Synthetic Phonics Programme
https://www.phonicsinternational.com/forum/
https://www.phonicsinternational.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=289
The test itself consists of 20 real words and 20 nonsense words. Children have to segment out the single letter, double letter and triple letter combinations and then blend them altogether to say the entire real, or nonsense, word. They do not have to understand what the word means. They literally have to make the sound the letters imply, or as a former colleague put it, ‘bark at print’. This has led to some interestingly ludicrous situations over the past three years.
Validity and sensitivity of the phonics screening check: implications for practice
Fiona J. Duff1,*, Silvana E. Mengoni2, Alison M. Bailey3,4 andMargaret J. Snowling5
Article first published online: 13 MAY 2014
I think the Year One phonics screening check is very important.Abstract
Background
Introduced in June 2012, the phonics screening check aims to assess whether 6-year-old children are meeting an appropriate standard in phonic decoding and to identify children struggling with phonic skills.
Aims
We investigated whether the check is a valid measure of phonic skill and is sensitive in identifying children at risk of reading difficulties.
Sample
We obtained teacher assessments of phonic skills for 292 six-year-old children and additional psychometric data for 160 of these children.
Methods
Teacher assessment data were accessed from schools via the local authority; psychometric tests were administered by researchers shortly after the phonics screening check.
Results
The check was strongly correlated with other literacy skills and was sensitive in identifying at-risk readers. So too were teacher judgements of phonics.
Conclusions
Although the check fulfils its aims, we argue that resources might be better focused on training and supporting teachers in their ongoing monitoring of phonics.
Our first Floppy's cohort (Reception 2011) are due to graduate from Y2 this summer - 98% are L2+ in Reading, and 40% L3+. Our previous baselines, you may remember, was 50% L2+ and less than 10% L3. Our 1 child not achieving L2 came to us at the beginning of Y2 from another school. This stuff seriously WORKS - but then you know that!
Friday, May 16, 2014
How valid is the phonics screening check?
The Journal of Research in Reading has just published an important and timely paper on the government’s phonics screening check ‘Validity and sensitivity of the phonics screening check: implications for practice’ (Duff, F.J., Mengoni, S. E., Bailey, A.M. and Snowling, M.J.
It asks two ‘critical ‘ questions: First, how well do scores on the screening check ‘correlate with reading skills measured by objective tests’? And, second, ‘is the check sensitive?’, which refers to how sensitive is the check is in detecting children ‘showing early signs of being at-risk of encountering a reading difficulty?’
I am aware some would claim that the price to be paid is too high if it means adding even further to the burden of 'testing' to which our little children are already subjected. This is pure nonsense. If handled correctly, the process of the phonics screening should, from the child's perspective, involve nothing more than individually reading to their own teacher for a few minutes - something they will routinely do on most days anyway. True, this particular little bit of reading is not the most exciting or engaging ever, but young children like the attention and enjoy showing their teacher what they can do - and it is, in any case, so short an experience as not to be an issue. Anyone who claims that this simple screening is tantamount to six-year olds sitting some sort of '11 plus' type exam or being forced through a traumatising experience is just scaremongering. If there is a negative to the actual process then this comes through teachers handling it badly or (and this is often the real problem now) spending too much time preparing children specifically for it. Where this happens it is totally and completely down to the teachers and schools and not to the screening itself.
Authors including Michael Rosen, Michael Morpurgo and Philip Pullman have criticised the exclusive use of the phonics method of teaching, in which words are broken down into individual sounds, claiming it risks undermining children’s love of books.
However, they came under fire last night from Sir Jim Rose, author of a landmark review of literacy teaching which led to the renewed focus on phonics, first under Labour and then by the Coalition.
Sir Jim accused critics of trying to “destroy” phonics programmes, causing damage to children’s education.