The return of Level 6 tests in Reading, Writing and Maths
Moderators: Section Moderators, Forum Moderators
Re: The return of Level 6 tests in Reading, Writing and Math
Yes Rob I know. It's a shame the Government don't have someone like Amber advising them!
Re: The return of Level 6 tests in Reading, Writing and Math
Well not just the British Government - surely the governments of each and every European country with their separate and distinct approaches to education. It's best to get the job now before other people finish that same course and the competition hots up. Rob can be the referee.
Re: The return of Level 6 tests in Reading, Writing and Math
Well you are both a lot more knowledgeable than me when it comes to the education system. I speak as a parent who is only relatively knowledgeable on the subject. I thoroughly enjoy the posts and opinions shared by everyone and it is certainly very thought provoking.mystery wrote:Maybe, maybe not. You don't really know anything about anyone else on this forum - we are all virtual after all. It's not something I think it would be wise to put a bet on.
Re: The return of Level 6 tests in Reading, Writing and Math
I think it is dangerous to make sweeping statements that say x or y is best for all children because children are varied and therefore vary in what is useful at what age.
My DD was wildly determined to read for herself. She was writing things for herself in very scrawly shapes before she could talk, copying from her picture books. It would have been cruel indeed for me to stymie her when she was teaching herself.
The fact that DH and I read all the time must have made her feel books were vital objects of interest. This in no way prevented her doing all the other childhood stuff including masses of play. Indeed play being how children learn, she regarded learning to read and write as a particularly good game. I helped her with it of course, just as I joined in her other play.
But that is my DD. I know full well that this would not seem like play to all children. It is not acceleration when the impetus is child led.
My DD was wildly determined to read for herself. She was writing things for herself in very scrawly shapes before she could talk, copying from her picture books. It would have been cruel indeed for me to stymie her when she was teaching herself.
The fact that DH and I read all the time must have made her feel books were vital objects of interest. This in no way prevented her doing all the other childhood stuff including masses of play. Indeed play being how children learn, she regarded learning to read and write as a particularly good game. I helped her with it of course, just as I joined in her other play.
But that is my DD. I know full well that this would not seem like play to all children. It is not acceleration when the impetus is child led.
Re: The return of Level 6 tests in Reading, Writing and Math
Not sure where to start here. Mystery, I am not holding myself up as a potential adviser to anyone and would not pretend to be able to tell anyone in Europe what to do.
There is absolutely no evidence of any advantage to be gained by teaching children to read early (before 6 or 7, which in world terms is average ) and there is even some evidence, not strong or proven, that early reading is a disadvantage in the long run. This does not refer to children like your DD aargh, and indeed one of my own who taught himself to read at 3; it is more an evaluation of programmes undertaken in many countries, including New Zealand and Germany, which aim(ed) to accelerate progress in early reading; and contrast studies with 'normal' and Steiner schools which allow children to learn to read at their own pace. It is not a clear cut - early bad, late good argument, but your point about spoken language is reinforced by the author of that particular study who says a price might be being paid in terms of
The main thrust of the meta-analysis is that it is really not worth teaching most 4 and 5 year olds to read because it is much easier to wait till they are older, and they are likely to benefit from a later start. I stress that this is at national policy level and does not look at little people who want to learn earlier and who direct themselves in doing so. However, children in countries where there is less emphasis placed on early literacy don't tend to do this, and the evidence suggests that they are at least not disadvantaged, and might even benefit, from this approach.
If you are interested in who actually does advise the Government on education policy, try Steve Ball's book 'The Education Debate'. It might not be who you think ( or hope!)
There is absolutely no evidence of any advantage to be gained by teaching children to read early (before 6 or 7, which in world terms is average ) and there is even some evidence, not strong or proven, that early reading is a disadvantage in the long run. This does not refer to children like your DD aargh, and indeed one of my own who taught himself to read at 3; it is more an evaluation of programmes undertaken in many countries, including New Zealand and Germany, which aim(ed) to accelerate progress in early reading; and contrast studies with 'normal' and Steiner schools which allow children to learn to read at their own pace. It is not a clear cut - early bad, late good argument, but your point about spoken language is reinforced by the author of that particular study who says a price might be being paid in terms of
language, thinking skills, better memory and abstract reasoning...
The main thrust of the meta-analysis is that it is really not worth teaching most 4 and 5 year olds to read because it is much easier to wait till they are older, and they are likely to benefit from a later start. I stress that this is at national policy level and does not look at little people who want to learn earlier and who direct themselves in doing so. However, children in countries where there is less emphasis placed on early literacy don't tend to do this, and the evidence suggests that they are at least not disadvantaged, and might even benefit, from this approach.
If you are interested in who actually does advise the Government on education policy, try Steve Ball's book 'The Education Debate'. It might not be who you think ( or hope!)
Last edited by Amber on Thu Dec 01, 2011 10:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: The return of Level 6 tests in Reading, Writing and Math
This is all very interesting and ties in with my theory about potty training (stay with me, people.)
I think that you can either start potty training when you as the parent want to, and you will spend months mopping up puddles, washing clothes and saying "do you need a pee? Are you sure? Shall we just try?" every five minutes. Or you can wait until the child says "don't want to wear nappies" and then you say "0k, here are some pants and there is the loo"
The result is the same- a potty trained child. At probably about the same time. But one was child led- it happened when the child was ready, and the other was parent led. In this country the parent led is considered superior in all expects- you have to have a lot of nerve to be child led. The same applies to reading. How many times do you hear "we've been working away at reading for AGES- and he's finally got it all of a sudden". He didn't in my view, suddenly get it because of the past work- he got it because he was ready, and would have got it without the background work. But most people don't have the nerve to hold back, and, and my mother used to say "let them grow up automatically"
I think that you can either start potty training when you as the parent want to, and you will spend months mopping up puddles, washing clothes and saying "do you need a pee? Are you sure? Shall we just try?" every five minutes. Or you can wait until the child says "don't want to wear nappies" and then you say "0k, here are some pants and there is the loo"
The result is the same- a potty trained child. At probably about the same time. But one was child led- it happened when the child was ready, and the other was parent led. In this country the parent led is considered superior in all expects- you have to have a lot of nerve to be child led. The same applies to reading. How many times do you hear "we've been working away at reading for AGES- and he's finally got it all of a sudden". He didn't in my view, suddenly get it because of the past work- he got it because he was ready, and would have got it without the background work. But most people don't have the nerve to hold back, and, and my mother used to say "let them grow up automatically"
Re: The return of Level 6 tests in Reading, Writing and Math
Well of course it’s entirely possible other people on the Forum are even more qualified than Amber to talk about comparative education, but given her qualifications and skills the odds are strongly against it – that’s what a bet is, or would you like me to explain how betting odds work?Maybe, maybe not. You don't really know anything about anyone else on this forum - we are all virtual after all. It's not something I think it would be wise to put a bet on.
Re: The return of Level 6 tests in Reading, Writing and Math
katel wrote:This is all very interesting and ties in with my theory about potty training (stay with me, people.)
I think that you can either start potty training when you as the parent want to, and you will spend months mopping up puddles, washing clothes and saying "do you need a pee? Are you sure? Shall we just try?" every five minutes. Or you can wait until the child says "don't want to wear nappies" and then you say "0k, here are some pants and there is the loo"
What a wonderful comparison and I think it makes a lot of sense! You are right Katel, it does take bravery to follow the child led route.
Re: The return of Level 6 tests in Reading, Writing and Math
I did that Amber.Amber wrote:Not sure where to start here. Mystery, I am not holding myself up as a potential adviser to anyone and would not pretend to be able to tell anyone in Europe what to do.
Friends of ours moved to America just before their second child was 3. They said their DD didn't start formally learning to read until she was 7 and did it in a matter of months. They compared the experience to the slog they had had with their eldest daughter in England. Which do you think they recommended?The main thrust of the meta-analysis is that it is really not worth teaching most 4 and 5 year olds to read because it is much easier to wait till they are older, and they are likely to benefit from a later start.
Last edited by Fran17 on Thu Dec 01, 2011 11:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: The return of Level 6 tests in Reading, Writing and Math
Well you could become the EPE adviser on betting odds Rob. Maybe there could be a new forum for those people who are uncertain whether to put their child in for the 11plus or not, and you could advise on calculating the odds and help them make their decision based on their own level of risk aversion. Myself, I'll just take an uncalculated risk and put them in for it when the time comes. Whether Amber would be the most knowledgeable person on comparative education who has ever visited this website I would not put a bet on - and that is not intended as an insult to Amber. It is impossible to know.
The issue of whether govmt policy should be to start to learn to read early (say 4) or to learn to read later (say 7) is an interesting one with no clear-cut answer as to which is right. Synthetic phonics advocates would point to various studies to show that most young children if they are taught a small number of grapheme-phoneme correspondences at young age - 3 or 4, the vast majority can blend words e.g. p-a-t very young, and there is no scientific proof that this kind of thing could "damage the brain" in some way. The overwhelming majority can learn synthetic phonics far faster than some schools cover it; this is why the government has brought in a new phonics test for year 1 starting in June 2012. Schools that do relatively poorly in that test will have their initial reading instruction inspected by Ofsted under the new framework which is being adopted in Jan 2012.
There are some schools in the UK who teach synthetic phonics very young and very rigorously and make a very good early start to reading. They are not seeing the 20% failure rate that a lot of schools see, and they have a fully "comprehensive" intake - they are having massive reading success with children who do not come from literate or "bookish" backgrounds. They also have very good literacy policies which enable children to enjoy reading, talking about, writing, listening to a wide range of texts from an early age. They are not seeing any devastation caused by teaching children to read early. Quite the opposite, they are seeing the gap being closed between children who come from families with no books or love of reading, and those children of highly literate parents who learned to read almost subconsciously at Mum or Dad's knee.
Also, meaningful international comparisons are difficult to make as there are so many variables e.g. maybe there are studies which show teaching reading early in New Zealand did not have good results later on in a longitudinal study, but what was the method of early reading instruction, and what took place at home and school after the initial learning to read phase? The initial learning to read phase is only one part of a very long story. At least the language is the same in England and New Zealand (well similar anyhow) but let's say one was comparing reading instruction and the optimal age at which to start it at school, then to compare between countries with quite different languages may not be appropriate.
We will converse more Amber when I have finished my own MEd.
The issue of whether govmt policy should be to start to learn to read early (say 4) or to learn to read later (say 7) is an interesting one with no clear-cut answer as to which is right. Synthetic phonics advocates would point to various studies to show that most young children if they are taught a small number of grapheme-phoneme correspondences at young age - 3 or 4, the vast majority can blend words e.g. p-a-t very young, and there is no scientific proof that this kind of thing could "damage the brain" in some way. The overwhelming majority can learn synthetic phonics far faster than some schools cover it; this is why the government has brought in a new phonics test for year 1 starting in June 2012. Schools that do relatively poorly in that test will have their initial reading instruction inspected by Ofsted under the new framework which is being adopted in Jan 2012.
There are some schools in the UK who teach synthetic phonics very young and very rigorously and make a very good early start to reading. They are not seeing the 20% failure rate that a lot of schools see, and they have a fully "comprehensive" intake - they are having massive reading success with children who do not come from literate or "bookish" backgrounds. They also have very good literacy policies which enable children to enjoy reading, talking about, writing, listening to a wide range of texts from an early age. They are not seeing any devastation caused by teaching children to read early. Quite the opposite, they are seeing the gap being closed between children who come from families with no books or love of reading, and those children of highly literate parents who learned to read almost subconsciously at Mum or Dad's knee.
Also, meaningful international comparisons are difficult to make as there are so many variables e.g. maybe there are studies which show teaching reading early in New Zealand did not have good results later on in a longitudinal study, but what was the method of early reading instruction, and what took place at home and school after the initial learning to read phase? The initial learning to read phase is only one part of a very long story. At least the language is the same in England and New Zealand (well similar anyhow) but let's say one was comparing reading instruction and the optimal age at which to start it at school, then to compare between countries with quite different languages may not be appropriate.
We will converse more Amber when I have finished my own MEd.
