‘FIVE YEARS OLD IS TOO YOUNG TO FAIL!’
YEAR ONE PHONICS
SCREENING CHECK REPORT
APRIL 2012
INTRODUCTION
1. This survey was conducted in March 2012. NUT primary members were invited to complete an online questionnaire about the introduction of the Year One Phonics Screening Check.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
2. This report is based on a total of 1,264 responses received from NUT members.
· 83 per cent of respondents do not agree with statutory testing of phonics in Year 1
· Children are being set up to fail the test
· Only 33 per cent of Year 1 children passed the pilot
· 84 per cent of teachers agree that Reading for Pleasure is more important than the Year One Phonics Screening Check
· 63 per cent highlighted that the Phonics Screening Check was inappropriate for many children with special educational needs and for those with English as an additional language.
‘The pass threshold is set so high that only around 33 per cent of children passed the test in the pilot. What do we achieve by informing two thirds of children and their parents that they have failed to pass the phonics test in Year 1? Five years old is too young to fail!!’
OPPOSITION TO THE YEAR ONE PHONICS SCREENING CHECK
3. The vast majority, 83 per cent, of respondents did not agree with the statutory implementation of the Year One Phonics Screening Check for all Year 1 pupils. Only 8 per cent agreed and 9 per cent were uncertain.
4. Teachers were asked why they opposed the introduction of the Year One Phonics Screening Check. They chose as many options as they wished from the list below.
It will provide no additional information to teachers on children’s phonic knowledge over and above their usual assessment / 90%It will use up valuable teaching time / 71%
It will skew teaching in Reception and Year 1 towards a phonics approach and away from a broad and rich literacy entitlement / 71%
It is a waste of money / 67%
It is unnecessary / 66%
It is inappropriate for many children with special educational needs and for those with English as an additional language / 63%
It is inappropriate to test children in Year 1 / 60%
It will create an additional burden of assessment arrangements for members of the leadership team / 60%
It will set some children up to fail / 11%
Other / 2%
5.
6. The reason most often cited for opposing the Check was that it would provide no additional information to teachers on children's phonic knowledge over and above their usual assessment. Respondents were also concerned that it would skew Reception and Year 1 teaching away from a broad and rich literacy entitlement and that it was a waste of money.
7. A further concern expressed by respondents was that the Year One Phonics Screening Check was unnecessary and it was inappropriate for many children with special educational needs and for those with English as an additional language.
8. ‘Other’ responses included:
‘I did a practise run it told me nothing new. Total waste of time!’
‘Real concerns for how the task is carried out with bilingual children, the format so far seems to provide real barriers to equal access and hinders the potential scores for children where English is an additional language - especially with reference to discerning the 'Nonsense' words.’
‘Children with a high reading ability may actually fail the test if their learning style differs from the "phonics only" approach meaning that the test is not fit for purpose. To help these children succeed teaching time will be wasted on children that can already read! The test is not fit for purpose, the pilots have shown this. The test should be abandoned.’
‘Only 30% of the trial passed - that says it all! Fed up of being made to feel that I am doing things wrong despite working very hard and caring deeply about my class - its getting to be like 1984 Big Brother!!’
‘Phonics is not the same as reading. Some children use phonics to read; some don't. Teaching the love of reading is our vocation - not training children to decode text.’
SETTING CHILDREN UP TO FAIL
9. Teachers were asked whether they were concerned about the effects on those children who fail the test having to repeatedly retake it. The responses are listed below:
I am concerned about children repeatedly re-taking the test / 85%I am not concerned about children repeatedly re-taking the test / 9%
I don’t know / 6%
10. The overwhelming majority of teachers, 85 per cent, were concerned about the effects on those children failing the test having to repeatedly re-take it. Just 9 per cent of respondents were not concerned by this.
READING FOR PLEASURE
11. Teachers were asked whether they agreed that the NUT’s campaign on Reading for Pleasure was more important than a phonics test. The responses are listed below:
I agree that the Reading for Pleasure Campaign is more important than the phonics test / 84%I do not agree that the Reading for Pleasure Campaign is more important than the phonics test / 3%
I don’t know / 13%
12. A large majority of respondents, 84 per cent, agreed that the NUT's campaign on Reading for Pleasure was more important for children than a phonics test. Only 3 per cent disagreed. Thirteen per cent of respondents were uncertain.
ADDITIONAL GENERAL COMMENTS
· ‘The pass threshold is set so high that only around 33 per cent of children passed the test in the pilot. What do we achieve by informing two thirds of children and their parents that they have failed to pass the phonics test in year 1? Five years old is too young to fail.’
· ‘I do not understand why the phonics check is still going ahead despite the fact that the pass rate on the pilots was so extremely low. The strange "hell-bent" on phonics approach of the Government shows how little understanding they have of how children actually learn but this is also supported by teacher training courses. I completed my training 4 years ago and we were "indoctrinated" into believing that phonics is the only way. Now I am actually teaching children to read for the very first time I can see with my own eyes that phonics is only one useful tool in a whole array of strategies that children will use to decode words despite our approach! I have also seen EAL children who become adept at using sounds to decode words but have little or no comprehension and to them and to dyslexic children a non-word is the same as a word and the more non-words they see the less likely they are to see them as non-words. What on earth are we doing?!’
· ‘I went on a course about it this week and nearly every question was answered with 'I don't know'. I felt sorry for her, because she couldn't answer. All this information should have been made available earlier. Will they be making changes if they find it just doesn't work? What about the children who just aren't ready to be at school yet (yes, even in Year 1) never mind sit and learn phonics?’
· ‘To me this is an opportunity to monitor teachers rather than the results, pilot schemes show this is set up to fail. Why not provide more training in successful phonics teaching. Not just videos which are unrealistic.’
· ‘Why is only a pass/fail score reported? What about children who fail by one mark - there is a vast difference between that and a child who only gets a third or so of the words right. There should be a grade for those children who can read Phase 2 words, Phase 3, 4 and so on. It's just an exercise invented by people with no clue about what is realistic at the end of Year 1. Phonics is important but not the be all and end all.’
· ‘The politicians are failing the children by putting over emphasis on this and not getting on with helping teachers improve the quality of education in a meaningful way. I know right now who will pass and fail in my class. It will make no difference to standards or education for those pupils. My hard work and intervention programs that are running right now will make a difference and I would have run them regardless of the test.’
RESPONDENTS’ PROFILE
13. Over three-quarters of respondents taught in primary schools, 13 per cent were employed in infant schools, 3 per cent in junior schools and 2 per cent in primary academies.
14. Nearly half, 48 per cent, of respondents taught Year 1. Twenty five per cent taught in Year 2 and 23 per cent were reception teachers.
15. A third of respondents were aged between 22 and 35, just over a quarter were aged between 36 and 45, another quarter were aged between 46 and 55 and 12 per cent were aged between 56 and 65.
16. A quarter of respondents have been teaching for longer than 20 years, 22 per cent had been teaching for between 6 and 10 years, 21 per cent between 11 and 15 years, 16 per cent between 1 and 5 years; and 12 per cent between 16 and 20 years. Just 3 per cent of respondents had been teaching for less than year.