The Phonics Screening Test Debate

The first Phonics Screening Test results have been issued.

When the Department of Education announced the introduction of these tests back in December 2011 we had a debate on this blog about the usefulness of the test.  My concern was, and still is, that the results of the test will be used to measure children's ability rather than the purpose for which the tests are intended, which is to measure what 'method' of reading they are using in order to check if the teachers are teaching in the way the Department of Education would prefer them too.

The difficulties in interpreting this test include the following issues:

1. The teacher may be teaching reading using phonics but a child may be exceptionally good at reading and is reading many words by sight, only to be thrown by the phonics test and score poorly on it.
2. The teacher may not be using phonics as the main method of teaching, but may be having great success with other methods or a combination of methods.  Their class's phonics test results will be poor, but their class may be brilliant at actually reading.
3. Many words cannot be decoded using phonics. Our language isn't 'neat' enough.
4. And my main problem, which is that the Press and Media will use the results of the test to show how well our children are doing or not doing at reading, when actually the test check's method, not success.

The debate was reignited last week, when children came home with slips of paper detailing their results.  This thread on Mumsnet raged for 336 posts, with mums querying when they should worry, what they could do to help if the phonics score was low and asking how the test worked.  Children's author, Micheal Rosen, joined the discussion in his blog post here, and pointed out that phonics alone wouldn't help children read for pleasure.

Our daughter got 37/40. The expected level they are aiming for is 32/40, so I was happy.  But then realised I had no need to be 'happy' per se, as it hadn't tested her reading ability, just what method she primarily used to read.

This goes against my management style.  In the office I prefer to ask staff to produce a piece of work and I leave it up to them to decide what 'method' they will use to do it.  If the work is completed effectively and on time, then the 'method' isn't particularly important to me.

Here the powers-that-be are defining the 'method' that the teachers use.  It's one job where they persistently seem to be afraid to let the teachers just 'teach'.  Each teacher is different.  Each will have success with different methods.  Each child is different and will require a teacher who is adaptable and emphatic to best succeed.

Please can we stop testing whether teachers are 'doing what they are told' and simply let them teach?  The results will speak for themselves.*

*Assuming the SATs and GCSEs are appropriately set and test real knowledge and not just the ability to churn out facts the child doesn't understand of course!

The Oxford Reading Tree: Chip & Biff & why I hate them

The Oxford Reading Tree Read At Home collection

I really don't like the Chip and Biff books. 

I was at the stage of mild dislike, where I tolerated them because I could see that my daughter was able to read the ones she brought home from school.

And clearly school were using them as part of their reading scheme, so my first reaction was to trust that they have a plan; a strategy; and that Biff and Chip must somehow play a part in that plan.

However, after my 5 year old brought home "The Magic Key" last night I moved on a stage - straight to hatred. 

She might as well have been reading a list of words to practise her reading.  The story "The Magic Key" is less of a story and more of a vague throwing together of scenes where the cast have a limited vocabulary that generally involves some, or all, of them saying "Oh no".  The gist of this 'story' was that Chip and Biff found a magic key.  They picked it up and it made them shrink.  They picked up a few random objects on the floor (pencil, pin) and marvelled at how heavy they were (at this point I was vaguely interested in why, of all the objects them could find, a sharp pin which was now the size of a sword, should be chosen. I needn't have bothered)  Then they saw the dolls house and tried to get inside.  OK, so far there is some promise of adventure.  They have, after all, a weapon.  But no.  They couldn't get in the house and that 'storyline' was abandoned.  Then a dark shadow scared them. Oh, I thought, somewhat foolishly, here we go, here's the action.  But no.  It was a mouse.  A boring mouse that looked at them and went away again.  And that, dear readers, was the end.

I can't work out where the drama is in that.  I can't work out where there is consideration of plot.  Of a beginning, a middle and an end.  Of conflict and resolution.  Of character development. 

I refuse to accept the answer that "there doesn't need to be any".  Of course there does.  You wouldn't try and teach a child to read by making them read the dictionary.  The reason to learn to read is to be able to experience other worlds, to jump into stories and enjoy them.  And of course, to be able to learn things from non-fiction books, to read newspapers, to read road signs, to communicate.

Children will not get a love of books (actual books, made of paper) or even a love of reading, if this is what they are subjected to.  You wouldn't produce a film with this plot, so why is it acceptable in a book?

I understand that when writing for a reading scheme you are supposed to use a certain batch of words.  What I am less sure on is why?  Why not just read stories; any stories.  The common words, by their very nature, will appear more often and will be picked up quicker due to their repetition.  There will be tricky words, but then again, I'm in my late 30s and still have to occasionally ask what a word means.  

There are hundreds of stories out there that are good stories.  With all the Roald Dahls, Julia Donaldsons, Enid Blytons, A A Milnes, Roger Hargreaves' out there, why oh why oh why do we need this rubbish?

I have a set of these at home gifted from a neighbour who is also a teacher.  Of all the books my girls have these Chip and Biff stories are NEVER selected by them when it's bedtime story time.

I don't know what frustrates me more.  The fact that my daughter has to read this stuff to tick the box in her Reading Record, or that I could write the stories so much better!

What do you think?  Why do teachers use these 'schemes'? Do you use them at home? What are the advantages of this kind of book? I presume there must be some, otherwise someone, somewhere, is making money out of a con.

I'd appreciate your thoughts.  Biscuits at the ready as ever.

Read my thoughts on the teaching of phonetics and the new phonetics test here.