'assesses phonics difficulties that can be masked by good sight-word reading. Unless children can be helped to ‘crack the code’ of letters and sounds, learning will progress very slowly and unreliably'' (Dr.John
After the first check some teachers complained that children whom they
judged as 'good readers', including a few they had registered as gifted and
talented for reading, did badly. A year 1 teacher grumbled, "I had over 50%
of my class fail the check and, given some of the children are reading above
the level they should be in Year 2, to have to report to their parents that
they have not met the standard in decoding seems ridiculous. Many children
made mistakes trying to turn pseudo words into real words - 'strom' became
'storm'. The lack of context meant many children made mistakes they would
not have made if the word was in a sentence" (London Evening Standard 03/09/2012)
The phonics screening check 2012 technical report data provided evidence that
there was little basis for the argument that good readers
(fluent and accurate decoders) did fine on the real words but fell down on
the non-words because they are so used to reading for meaning. If children
were competent decoders they did well on both non-words and real words, and if they are poor decoders they did badly on both types (see link below
The NFER's third independent report on the PSC confirmed the technical
report's findings above: ''Over the course of the study, a small number of respondents have expressed concerns that the check disadvantages higher achieving readers. However, as reported in Chapter 2, the analysis of the NPD data found no identifiable pattern of poorer performance on the check than expected in those children who are already fluent readers''(NFER PSC report 2015 p10)
Some teachers also complain that the ''PSC is high stakes for year 1 teachers as the % of children that pass
is included in data that schools are judged by''. Australian Prof. Pamela
Snow comments ''(W)hen I hear and read
protests to the introduction of a Phonics Screening Check because it might
somehow be "high-stakes" for teacher / school / sector accountability,
I reflect on a different meaning of "high-stakes" and wonder how the
trajectories of some of these young people might have been altered through
early reading instruction approaches that are more faithful to the evidence
about what works. Early failure for them continues to be high-stakes into
The check is not strictly diagnostic and its main purpose is to quickly
identify children at risk of decoding difficulties. Teachers will need to thoroughly assess the phonics code knowledge and blending skills of each child who doesn't reach the
expected level. Once assessed, a tailored synthetic phonics intervention needs to be put into place rapidly to remediate the deficiency.
If a significant percentage of Y1 children in your school fail to reach the expected standard in the phonics screening check,
don't kill the messenger. Instead, look closely at
your synthetic phonics provision. Most importantly, provide
programme-linked decodable books and ensure that all decoding is
done through phonics alone and not through 'a range of decoding strategies.
Interpreting and responding to the results of the phonics check.
Prof. Snow responds to common arguments made by those who oppose the
introduction of a phonics check in Australia.
Experienced teachers who use synthetic phonics say that it's unnecessary
to use nonsense/pseudo words in lessons or for homework to practise for the check. Elizabeth Nonweiler points out that there are plenty of real words even able six year olds are unlikely to have come across before. She recommends that they read one of these a day that fits in with what is being taught that day. Then they will get plenty of the practice they need to read the non-words in the phonics check and increase their language comprehension.
Here are some examples for practising reading the graphemes that children are expected to know (the common pronunciations) for the phonics check:
newt scribe farthing sphinx paw ploy tar ail glide joist prime glade void adorn croak gloat shoal shorn theme thorax bait twine plight mope probe hark yarn larva moat curd lurch spurn bane dale stoat hake abode
In May 2013 the government published NFER's first independent evaluation of the PSC: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/evaluation-of-the-phonics-screening-check-first-interim-report
The following is on p.23: ''A high proportion of schools are clearly teaching phonics, but not necessarily in the way a systematic synthetic approach would prescribe'' [bold in original] The report also noted that ‘The most frequently used ‘core’ phonics programme was Letters and Sounds’. In the L&S 'Notes of Guidance' booklet it states that children should not be taught to use other strategies for decoding (p.12).
The second (2014) NFER report http://goo.gl/MpNsl1 flagged up yet again that most teaching was still not consistent with a genuine ‘systematic synthetic phonics approach’- on p28: ''However, 90 per cent also ‘agreed’ or ‘agreed somewhat’ with the statement that a variety of different methods should be used to teach children to decode words. These percentages mirror almost exactly last year’s findings, and indicate that most teachers do not see a commitment to systematic synthetic phonics as incompatible with the teaching of other decoding strategies''
Gordon Askew points out, ''that success in the Y1 PSC, whilst indubitably a vitally important indicator, does not in itself guarantee application of SSP as the
route to decoding all unknown words. Here in UK at least, we have some
schools that teach discrete phonics well enough to give children success the
the check, but still encourage the use of multi-cueing when the same
children are practising reading''
John Walker explains why the check has yet to have a significant impact on
pupils attainment in the KS2 SATs.
''Children hot-housed for a few months
in a desperate attempt to get them through the Screening Check never to do any
phonics again are going to fall back on whole word memorisation and guessing
to the detriment of their education and the chronic, long tail of
underachievement will go on''
Have the phonics check results plateaued?
Back in February 2016, Debbie
Hepplewhite wrote, ''Susan Godsland and I predict that England's results for
the Year One Phonics Screening Check will stall out between 80% and 85% at
best whilesoever England's teachers continue with an eclectic mix of some
systematic synthetic phonics but 'multi-cueing searchlights reading
strategies' for word-guessing - and their continued use of reading books which
enforce children to guess at words or to try to memorise whole words and
sentences through familiarity with the books''
The phonics sceptics should note that, ''Some 99% of pupils who had passed the phonics check in year one went on to meet or exceed the government’s benchmark levels for reading [comprehension] in year two, compared with only a third of pupils who had failed the check – suggesting a possible association between successful phonics teaching and later levels of literacy'' (Richard Adams.Guardian Education 25/9/14)
In 2017, 1,125 schools had 95%+ of their pupils achieving the
expected phonics standard in year 1.
That poverty is not a bar to achieving excellent results in the PSC is
exemplified by St George's Primary School, which is in one of the most
deprived areas in London. Half of its pupils have EAL & over half are eligible
for free schools meals. In 2017, for the 5th year in a row,
children achieve 100% in the phonics check.
A final important point: Though some advanced code is included, most of the words in the check use common
spellings found at the initial / simple alphabetic code stage of phonics
teaching. Debbie Hepplewhite worries that, ''teachers will be overly confident
that children are 'OK' if they have reached the benchmark at the end of Y1
without being sufficiently aware that this does not mean that such children
know the alphabetic code letter/s-sound correspondences comprehensively
enough''. As Jim Curran says, ''There is presently a danger that many stop
teaching synthetic phonics once the PSC is done and over with in Y1 and the
advanced code never gets thoroughly taught – fine for the ‘boot-strapper
kids’, but many children need direct and systematic teaching of all the
The usefulness of
pseudo-words. ''there is an "incredible potency of
pseudoword reading as a predictor of reading difficulty"
The arguments against the PSC have been discredited.
Facts about the phonics screening check
Comprehensive report: Why Australia should adopt the PSC
An Australian primary school is already using England's PSC.
X What is the Phonics Screening Check for?
What people need to know about the use of pseudo, or 'nonsense' words in
''(T)he prolific production and use of
nonsense words based on illegal/inappropriate spelling patterns lays bare
the lack of professional knowledge and understanding of
phonics teaching and practice''
DfE statistics: Phonics screening check and NC KS1 assessments 2017
X Year 1 Phonics screening check
X 2. Phonics screening -why read nonsense?
X 3. Phonics screening -what next?
Free downloads of the DfE's past phonics screening check materials
This document lists all the GPCs (with word examples) which may appear in
words in the check. Note, the GPCs used in the check are necessarily
restricted to those that should have been taught by the summer of Y1, based on
the teaching progression of several widely used synthetic phonics programmes.
N.B. not to be used as a curriculum for teaching.
Maggie Snowling et al's independent study focused on the reliability and validity of the year one phonics screening check.
''We have shown that the new phonics screening check is a **valid measure of phonic skills and is sensitive to identifying children at risk of reading difficulties. Its slight tendency to overestimate the prevalence of at-risk readers (as compared with standardised tests of reading accuracy and fluency) is arguably a favourable property for a screening instrument. We agree that early rigorous assessment of phonic skills is important for the timely identification of word reading difficulties''
John Walker comments on the Journal of Research in Reading report on the phonics screening check:
Authors Roald Dahl and Lewis Carroll were keen users of nonsense