tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-673598978629390697.post2407149451846675864..comments2024-03-28T20:36:01.373+11:00Comments on The Snow Report: Explaining or justifying literacy instruction?Pamela Snow | The Snow Reporthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17754222675609183221noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-673598978629390697.post-61928049651482628472016-03-19T02:57:55.897+11:002016-03-19T02:57:55.897+11:00What you found with your son is the information th...What you found with your son is the information that would come from wider application of the Alphabetic Code Check. The term "Phonics" is so deeply embedded in usage that we're stuck with it, but the crux of reading is the link between written and spoken English: the Alphabetic Code. The UK Check is akin to the vision check used in auto licensing. Just as there is more to driving than vision, there is more to reading than the Alphabetic Code. The Phonics Check tags children who haven't been taught how to use the Code to link text to spoken English. Without such information kids slip through, and we get the 4th Yr slump, dyslexia, and the other consequences that are blamed on anything-but faulty instruction. Children who fail the Check will have "had Phonics" (and as with your son, will have had a lot more thrown at them). But they haven't been taught how to use the Alphabetic Code to communicate in written language the same way they communicate in spoken language.<br /><br />Your interpretation of "tis-taint" argumentation is accurate. The usual way to cut through such arguments is to rely on "research." But in education, "research" can be cited to support any statement that anyone cares to make, and (as you say) there is so much variation in how "Phonics" is implemented, the Reading Wars persist.<br /><br />The Alphabetic Code Check does not make reliable reading instruction, but it cuts through the tis-taint arguments. Dick Schutzhttp://ssrn.com/author=1199505noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-673598978629390697.post-23778248322065161922016-03-19T00:56:09.500+11:002016-03-19T00:56:09.500+11:00Thanks for these interesting stats on UK student p...Thanks for these interesting stats on UK student performance and how it varies. <br /><br />It would seem that using the UK phonics check here in Aus is a very good idea for all the reasons you've outlined. I would add that what I see happening in my work in schools is lots of checking in the first couple of years of instruction to see if students can produce a letter name or a sound for a set of individual graphemes, but this would seem to me to have limited predictive power (beyond those students at severe risk) because what about those students who seem to cope okay with the limited initial or basic alphabetic code but who fall down when the teaching progresses to the extended or advanced code where they have to cope with two letters representing one sound, two or more different graphemes representing one sound depending on the position of the sound in the word (e.g. 's' and 'ss') and so on. Then you have some people saying that the students are spelling 'phonetically' (what does this mean anyway??) and point to it as a shortcoming of phonics instruction in general when what it is more likely to mean is that the student doesn't understand how the English alphabetic code works and probably wasn't exposed to a quality phonics program. (Can you tell I've been influenced by the work of John Walker?). So we need this check of real and nonsense words to get at code knowledge.<br /><br />Anyhow this is all very personally relevant to me as my own son (who had a great beginning let me assure you, checks of things like phonemic awareness, RAN , vocab which showed no concerns and extra help along the way from me) has not had quality phonics instruction in the classroom and did not pass the UK Phonics check when I gave it to him this January just prior to starting Yr 2 in Australia. Interesting huh? <br /><br />Can you explain your tis-taint statement? Is it saying I am right and tainting what your opponent says? Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01926686372487155474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-673598978629390697.post-40816334714186224682016-03-17T09:05:40.286+11:002016-03-17T09:05:40.286+11:00Thanks Dick - I agree completely, a Phonics Check ...Thanks Dick - I agree completely, a Phonics Check would enable us to measure what students are actually taking away from what is happening in the classroom, rather than what teachers, or teacher educators say is happening. I've said before, and I say again, phonics is a necessary but not sufficient part of the process. But unless we get it right, we are setting students up for the Grade 4 slump, and all the misery that follows from that across the lifespan. Pamela Snow | The Snow Reporthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17754222675609183221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-673598978629390697.post-61019889747752935862016-03-17T05:27:49.469+11:002016-03-17T05:27:49.469+11:00The "tis-taint" arguments can be quickly...The "tis-taint" arguments can be quickly resolved by administering the Alphabetic Code (Phonics) Screening Check being given to all Year 1 children in England. [Google for it. It's free, has multiple forms, and in a few minutes can identify an individual at any age who "can't read."] Indirectly, the Check also identifies individuals associated with the student's instruction whose "knowledge"--or lack thereof is faulty.<br /><br />Without this information, reading instruction, to say nothing of "literacy" instruction, will continue to be out of control and the tis-taint arguments will continue to recycle.<br /><br />In more than 600 schools in England, all Yr 1 children with few exceptions are passing the Screen. However overall England, only 77% of Yr 1 students did so. <br /><br />It's in the instruction, and indirectly in the teachers' knowledge, not in the kids or their parents. Dick Schutzhttp://ssrn.com/author=1199505noreply@blogger.com