Phonics teaching- whole class or ability groups?

There is currently a great deal of debate about how to teach the discrete phonics session. Should you teach whole class or ability groups? The short answer is that either is ok, but my experience is that whole class works better for all children. This conclusion is based on two things– the research and also the experiences of schools who have successfully navigated the phonics maze, both in terms of the Y1 decoding check and OFSTED.
First of all what does OFSTED say about the matter? Actually they shouldn’t mind which way you teach, so long as the lesson is challenging for all children and the quality of teaching and learning is good. They have to abide by their own rules which are stated in their handbook. ‘Inspectors will not look for a preferred methodology but must identify ways in which teaching and learning can be improved.’ Also when judging quality of teaching, ‘Inspectors must not expect teaching staff to teach in any specific way or follow a prescribed methodology.’ So in theory they would not mind if you taught the lesson standing on your head, so long as the children were learning!

The research is particularly compelling and, I find, rather shocking. It comes from the seven year Clackmannan-shire study into the teaching of synthetic phonics, which kick-started the phonics revolution in schools. ‘Slowing down the programme for some slower learning children may be setting them up for reading failure; they may never catch up with their classmates, no matter how much extra practice in reading they get.’ (Teaching Syn-thetic Phonics by R. Johnston & J. Watson 2007) The idea that, with the best intentions, we are creating auto-matic failure for some children, is a rather scary one.


The experiences that schools have had would back this research. For example schools that taught the lower abilities separately and at a slower pace, found that there was no way those children could succeed when it came to the Y1 decoding check. It did not matter how much progress they had made, they simply had not cov-ered all the phonemes required to do the test and so could not hope to pass it. Schools that had taught all chil-dren in a whole class situation, all the phonemes, found that all children could at least attempt the test and some schools got as high at 87-90% passing the check due to this.

I also know schools who ‘undid’ the grouping by ability. It was very difficult to start off with, particularly ensuring that all the children in the lower groups had some sort of catch up to make up for the missed phonemes. What the schools found however, was that the lower ability then made accelerated progress– perhaps it was just a rise in expectations for them or perhaps it was the challenge of being with the more able children. The other thing these schools noticed was the amount of time they had suddenly freed up– in one case it was as much as 3/4 hour each week. In a large school, moving children around for different groups takes up a great deal of time.

The teachers also felt far more confident in their own knowledge of where children were as they were teaching them all the time. This is another big issue around ability grouping. Frequently the Support Staff are used as the teachers for a group and they quite often have not had the same level of training in order to teach the phonics. Grouping has a difficulty around staffing which can really only be solved if Support Staff are involved and teach-ing groups. There are obviously some really outstanding Support Staff, but equally without experience and train-ing it can be a disaster for that group.

Obviously whole class lessons need to be effectively differentiated, which is very easy to do. For example if you are teaching /ee/ in Phase 3 and you have some more able pupils you add in some Phase 4 words such as sleep, creep etc and very able pupils words like cheese. When teaching Phase 5 you always refer to the Phase 3 words covered and your least able group can revise Phase 3 and even Phase 2 as necessary, so long as they are also learning the grapheme for that day. Practice is easy to differentiate by the words given– though always make sure everyone is covering the grapheme for that day and apply you just need to have easier or more complex sentences to read or write, again making sure that all children are applying the grapheme for the day, even if all the rest of the words are only at Phase 2.

Finally, something to think about... On the whole schools do not put children into ability groups and teach them separately rather than whole class, for any other subject, particularly in EY and KS1. So why is it different when it comes to phonics? I don’t think it is different and I would hope schools have high expectations of all their  pupils, giving them equal access to one of the key skills for learning to read.

Nonsense words

I've been asked a great deal about nonsense words in the last few weeks. Teachers anxious about the decoding check next June want to know what they should do about nonsense words. They know that the children in their classes will be expected to read 20 nonsense words and being diligent and caring teachers they want to prepare the children as best they can.

My take on the matter is rather different. I want the children to read real words. I want them to be exposed to all the rich and wonderful vocabulary that they could then use in their writing and spoken language. I want them to learn new words and ways of expressing their ideas. to be honest, I don't care if they can decode 'zerb' or 'ock'. I care if they can read and understand 'beware' and 'chaos'.

A head teacher I met had suggested to staff they put up nonsense words around the classroom. I was completely appalled and baffled. What good would this do the children, particularly those who might not know whether they were real or made up words? If you read Letters and Sounds there are so many good words you might want children to use and have understanding, there is no need to make words up. After only a week of phonics teaching Reception children will be able to make the word 'sap'. I doubt many 4 year olds will know that word so there is a great opportunity to extend their understanding. Go outside, find a tree with sap or talk about the term sapping your strength. Who needs nonsense words when there are wonderful words waiting to be understood and used. Words that will enrich children's writing and are perfectly decodable and could be used in a test, if there is insistence that there is one.

I can think of two instances when nonsense words could be used. One of those is when reading. A book like Linley Dodd's, The Dudgeon is Coming! is full of wonderful made up names like the bombazine bear and the stickleback twitch. Matched with imaginative illustrations of these characters it is a delight to read and would test the phonic ability of many children. The other occasion in a game like phonicsplay.co.uk.  The games involve children decoding words and seeing if they are real or nonsense words. As this of necessity involves language comprehension it is a much better use of nonsense words than purely decoding them for the sake of it.

So I say to all those teachers out there, don't teach children nonsense words. Your purpose has to be teaching children to read not just decode. Give them all the wonderful words English has to offer and it will be doing them a far greater service than learning to decode 'blerk'!

Phonics Factor- The Results

So the results are out. Nationally 58% of children 'passed' the decoding check, which means 42% of Year 2 children will have to resit it next summer, alongside SATs.

So what has it actually achieved? I know some people might say nothing, but I'm inclined to be a bit more optimistic and say it has actually had a positive impact, though not in the way the Government quite intended.Whilst I doubt it will change the reading success or otherwise of some children, it has raised expectations and created a bit of competition amongst schools. There is the feeling that if Sunnyville Primary down the road can get 70% passing then so should Totside in the same area- but they only got 30%. It is making schools think about why their children are not achieving as well as they might be able to.

 In fact I suspect much of the data, when broken down school by school, will show just that sort of gap is making up the average. Many Local Authorities will find they have a group of schools who did really well and the other half that did really badly- the data needs to elaborate on the percentages of schools that did well. Surely it is of far more concern if a local authority has schools at extreme ends of the scale with their results, rather than a fairly even spread? Something must be wrong if the former is true; no strategic overview and no coordination.

I was in a very nice middle class school last week that got, what we now know, to be below the national average. They were going on about how many special needs they had. I pointed out that a school I knew, with many very deprived children had scored considerably better than them. They asked what they had done and I said they had not used any excuses.  The only children who had not passed the test were one really special need and a handful who had been in school less than a term. The expectations were so high, but they had been achieved. This sobered the middle class school considerably and they stopped using excuses and turned it around to say, we must do as well as that next year.

As I said, I'm not sure that the test will actually raise reading standards, as it is not about reading but decoding. Many good readers did come unstuck on the nonsense words and did not actually do as well as the careful plodders who need to sound every word out. Also schools will become so fixated on the phonics test they will forget the essential element of language comprehension- they won't be able to help it! I saw this with the CLLD (Communication, Language and Literacy Development) Programme. Schools would get to grips with the phonics to the detriment of understanding- particularly as there is now such a strong requirement to use nonsense words. I worked a lot with schools at the latter end of the CLLD to improve phonics use in reading through real application, for example in guided reading. Schools must not forget to keep up all that good work with language comprehension as decoding alone is completely useless!

The other effect of the phonics test has been what I can only describe as OFSTED terror. Schools due an inspection have become paralysed with fear that OFSTED will march in and condemn them before they can correct the faults shown up in the test. In some cases OFSTED would be right to criticise a school, if for example they had not really got round to teaching phonics properly before this year, which is the case for some schools. Other schools however, merely handled things badly, so keen were they not to pressure children they did not actually teach to the pace required and consequently children had simply not covered the amount of phonemes required to pass the test. I hope that if schools are able to show what they are putting in place to remedy the situation OFSTED will not be the executioner schools are expecting them to be.

So what will happen now the results are out? I think no-one has quite decided and there are probably lots of meetings right now to think about what they can do with the statistics and if it really matters anyway? Lots of teachers have asked me if I think the test will be abandoned; sadly I don't think so.

Observations on the phonics check

I went into ‘Lovely Primary School’ yesterday. It is an oasis of cheerful learning in a desert of poverty. Lovely School is in one of the most deprived areas in London, yet I have never heard any of the teachers use that as an excuse. Quite the opposite, they have high aspirations for their pupils, talking to even the youngest pupils about when they go to university.

At Lovely School they teach systematic phonics really well. I’ve seen them teach it and OFSTED agrees with me. They also have a rich culture of language and books. Children not making expected progress are offered support and extra teaching by experienced and well trained staff.  In fact they do everything that is expected of them and more, in terms of teaching children to read. Yet a large percentage of children in Year 1 will apparently be failing this week.

Lovely School estimate around 50% of their pupils will fail the phonics test. They see the test for what it is- a very crude and blunt instrument that tells them nothing they don’t know already and does not in any way measure progress or achievement. The 50% failure rate will not show how far some children have come in a short time, nor that some have only arrived at the school this term. It will not show the sheer effort and determination of some children to have a go at reading challenging words, nor the time their teachers have spent supporting them, both academically and emotionally.

The test will not show John’s achievements. He was a very young class member, who cried throughout Reception as he’s never left his mother before. He also refused to speak until recently. This term, however, John is not only speaking but showing that he knows many digraphs and trigraphs and is starting to read. The test will not show that he is very immature and how rapid his progress has been this term as he finally copes with the pressures of school life. It will merely show that he has failed. The test takes no account of age which at five is of huge significance. Some children will have had a year longer of living than others, yet they are all expected to reach the same level at the same time. Would we expect them to be the same height too?

The test will not show Susie’s achievements. She arrived at the beginning of the academic year, having never been to school before and speaking little English. Until recently she too was a reluctant speaker but has suddenly understood, not only how to communicate in a new language but how to read and write as well. She got 19 out of the required 40 words, which for her is showing enormous progress. The teacher does not want to tell her parents she has failed, as no-one sees this as a failure, such effort and determination to be successful is not a failure.

The test will not show Thomas’s achievements. A few weeks ago the staff were wondering whether to even enter him for the test as he appeared to have learning difficulties and was not remembering any phonemes. Thomas had one to one teaching with a Teaching Assistant, which catered to his needs through using very active learning and ICT. Yesterday he was able to blend and segment and recognised many digraphs as well as single letters. He will still appear to fail; the test does not allow for children to develop later.

The test will not show Obe’s achievements. He arrived from Africa ,having never been to school before, at the beginning of this term. He is recognising most letters that he has covered in five weeks. He is able to blend and segment, though he had difficulty sounding out the nonsense words as they sounded incorrect to him and he kept trying to make them sound right. He had not covered alternative spellings of common digraphs as he has not been in school long enough, but he is clearly bright and capable and trying incredibly hard. He will still be a failure in terms of this test.

The test will also not show Rachel’s achievements. She is on the autistic spectrum but has picked up the ‘code’ of phonics. She does not read for meaning but can easily do the phonics test. She did however hit herself on the head with the book after every word she read. She passed the test with flying colours but may never be a true reader. The test will also not show how Princess looked at the practise word ‘sum’ and thought they had got it wrong as it is spelt ‘some’! It won’t show that David read the whole lot right but struggled with the pseudo words as it was a retrograde step for him to be reading nonsense.

Learning phonics is a really useful tool, but it is not a magic potion that will cure all the ills in education. What will make a difference will be teachers like the ones at Lovely School. That is so long as they remain in the profession, before getting fed up of the dictatorial nature of central government. Good teaching by good teachers makes the difference; decoding nonsense words does not.

Video Nasty!

First of all let me say I totally agree with teaching children phonics- I've seen some incredible successes with phonics teaching and children who easily learn to read. I'm becoming less and less certain however that a test for all Year 1 children is the way forward. The only good thing might be that schools which are not teaching phonics in a systematic way (and there are quite a few!) will be forced into doing it properly.

The latest guidance about the Year 1 Phonics decoding test (I refuse to call it a check any longer- it is quite clearly a test) is now out. It includes a video of children sounding out mainly nonsense words, as they will do in the test. Go to the DFE website to view the video if you want to see something really depressing.

Having told all the schools I'm working with that the check was 'light touch' and, if they were teaching phonics, nothing to worry about, I am now forced to revise this assessment. In the light of the video the check is definitely a test and the controls more stringent than SATs!

The video has many different children, most looking quite uncomfortable, sounding out the words, with a tick or a cross appearing on the screen and an explanation of why it is right or wrong. I started off thinking that the children were not looking happy and finished with a sense of despair. If a child says the word correctly but follows that up with an incorrect answer, you ignore the first response and the word is marked wrong. It also shows that good readers will probably be at a disadvantage.

A child who is already well on the route to reading and has a significant sight vocabulary, which is of course a very useful skill for reading, tends to look at the nonsense word and try and make it make sense. They are past the stage of using phonics to decode every word  and want to read for meaning; which is after all what we need to be teaching. I rather cynically wondered at the agenda that requires good readers to take a step back and read nonsense without any regard for meaning.

I very much hope all those schools I've worked with who are putting their poor children through the test, will not have stressed out children and teachers, but I can't help feeling that will be the main result of the week of 18th June.

World Book Night

I'm ridiculously excited to be chosen to give books for World Book Night. I've picked Meg Rosoff's How I Live Now and I'm going to give it to some school children who may not have any books of their own.
I've grown up with books. The bookshelves are groaning under the weight of all the books. We just had to get a new bookshelf to try and contain them all! (It hasn't worked, they are still over flowing)  I also went to the library every week as a child and almost as often as an adult. I can't imagine a house without books, yet I know there are many.
So being able to give children a book of their own makes me incredibly happy....until I wondered if a book was going to make a technology savvy child as happy as it would make me. That thought made me so sad. What if books were no longer enough; that they had to be a kindle or a computer game? I love the technology but there is simply nothing that can beat curling up with a good book. What if the technology has taken away that pleasure from the next generation?
Giving books for World Book Night will make me very happy, but will it make the recipients as happy as I am?

Great books or just phonics?

I have to admit to struggling with the conflicting demands of the phonics decoding check and wanting to get children to read great books. Of course there should be no conflict at all, but the problem is, testing such young children is going to create that conflict.
I've had the opportunity to observe quite a few guided reading lessons in my time and in schools where phonics is being taught well it is quite often at the expense of the language comprehension. Children are great at decoding but are not reading for meaning or enjoying the rich texts.
Some of the problem is what they are being asked to read. Most reading scheme books do not have extraordinary illustrations and a wide range of language. Take 'Pumpkin Soup' by Helen Cooper- look at the language she uses and the way the illustrations are part of the language. You just don't get that with reading schemes, particularly the latest ones which are all about phonics. Yes, children need to be taught phonics, but not at the expense of everything else.
My fear about the phonics check is that it will do exactly that; phonics will become the end goal instead of the means by which we teach children to read. In twenty years time none of the children will count Book 4 level 2 as their favourite childhood read (at least I hope not) and I would so much rather they had memories of reading wonderful stories.