TEACHERS’ AND HEAD TEACHERS' VIEWS OF THE YEAR ONE PHONICS
SCREENING CHECK
JULY 2012
Introduction
The Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL), National Association of Head
Teachers (NAHT) and National Union of Teachers (NUT) surveyed their members
between 26 June and 13 July. 2,779 responses were received.
The survey asked primary teachers and head teachers about their experience of the
Year One Phonics Screening Check that took place in schools in England during the
week commencing 18 June 2012.
Summary of Findings
This report is based on a total of 2,779 responses received from teachers and head
teachers.

87% of respondents do not agree with statutory implementation of the Phonics
Screening Check in Year 1 and felt it should be discontinued.

91% of respondents felt the Check did not tell them anything they did not already
know about the children’s reading ability. The vast majority of schools (95%)
already teach synthetic phonics as part of their range of strategies to help children
read.

81% had practised reading ‘nonsense’ words to prepare for the Check.

Many reported that their school needed at least two days of supply cover to allow
them to implement the test.

The survey highlighted that the Phonics Screening Check was inappropriate for
many children with special educational needs and for those for whom English is an
additional language. In addition the test did not reflect the ability of more fluent
readers who were marked down for trying to make sense of the nonsense words.

It is clear from the comments that teachers did everything they could to make the
test as non-threatening and enjoyable as possible. A high percentage of teachers
(66%) said, however, that having to retake the test would decrease children’s
confidence.
Head teachers’ and teachers’ concerns
An overwhelming majority (87%) of respondents were opposed to the implementation of
the statutory Phonics Screening Check. Only 6% agreed with its implementation whilst
7% were unsure.
Views about the Check were largely unchanged following its implementation in June.
84% of respondents said their view had not changed. Of those that had changed their
opinion about the Check, many had been willing to give it the benefit of the doubt but
were now opposed to it. One teacher commented:
‘I did not think the Check was particularly negative until I carried it out. I had over 50%
of my class fail the Check, and given that some of the children are reading at a 2a level
(i.e. above where they should be in Year 2!), to have to report to their parents that they
have not met the standard in decoding seems ridiculous. The test is actually harder for
children who are excelling in reading as they are past the basic decoding stage and
read for meaning, than it is for children reading at or slightly below the required level for
this stage in Year 1.’
The survey asked what effect, if any, the Check had had on teaching prior to the test
week. Almost half of the respondents (48%) said that it had had no effect at all whilst
40% said that the Check had increased pressure to teach synthetic phonics to the
detriment of other literacy activities. 81% had practised reading ‘nonsense’ words to
prepare for the Check.
Respondents to the survey often raised concern about the costs associated with
administering the test. One teacher summed the issue up as follows:
‘As a year one class teacher in a large primary school I had to be released half a day
every day for a full week and leave cover work for my class. Due to there being a high
demand for supply teachers in that week (due to the screenings) the school was only
able to provide teaching assistant cover meaning that children were not taught to the
same high standard they would if I had been in the classroom. The test is a waste of
time and money and does not give any information to the class teacher that will affect
the assessment or attainment of the children.’
Teachers and head teachers were also concerned about the use of nonsense words
when they felt they should be encouraging reading for meaning. One respondent said:
‘Secure readers were completely thrown by not being able to make sense of words; the
test has almost had the effect of teaching children that nothing makes sense.’
A respondent said the Check caused confusion:
‘Children at the very early stages of English would be very confused about which words
were 'true' and which were not. We should be teaching, not confusing.’
Another teacher commented that some of the ‘real’ words were not age-appropriate:
‘Even some of the real words were nonsense to the children, most had not heard of a
‘flute’ before or would have never come across words such as ‘shrub’ or ‘portrait’ in
everyday reading before.’
91% of respondents said that the Check did not tell them anything they did not already
know about the children’s reading ability. The vast majority of schools (95%) already
teach synthetic phonics as part of their range of strategies to help children read.
‘The idea that we are unaware of childrens' phonic ability is ridiculous. We assess them
in reading and writing sounds and key words every term and use a tracker to monitor
their progress.’
It is clear from the comments that schools and teachers did everything they could to
make the test as non-threatening and enjoyable as possible for all the children in their
class. One teacher commented:
‘Children need to feel they are succeeding at this age. One SEN child said to me
anxiously 'did I get them all right' at the end. Bless him, massive fail, but he tries so
hard so I just smiled and told him how well he had done.’
Another teacher expressed concern that:
‘Children will end up being taught how to pass a test rather than learning to read and
spell. I will have to stop letters and sounds prior to the test and focus on looking at the
test format and the skills needed just to pass the test.’
A high percentage of teachers (66%) said that having to retake the test would decrease
children’s confidence. Many felt concerned that having to report the test outcomes to
parents might lead to increased pressure on children. Many teachers responded that
more fluent readers did badly as they interpreted the nonsense words as real words
(e.g. ‘strom’ to ‘storm’ – and so close to the Jubilee ‘queet’ to ‘queen’).
Overall there was a feeling amongst respondents that a one size fits all Phonics Check
was not appropriate. One teacher noted:
‘The younger a child is, the less relevant these age/year based tests become. You
would not expect a newborn to be able to do the same things a one year old could. So
why do you expect a child of 5 years to be able to do the same things a child of 5 years
11 months can? Children learn to walk in different ways - some crawl, others bottom
shuffle and some move straight to walking. I believe reading is similar in that individual
children learn to read in different ways. I had to 'teach' my 2 most able readers (both
with a reading age of 8+) to use phonics to read the psuedo words. This is a waste of
their time.’
The vast majority (87%) of respondents said that the Check should be discontinued.
One teacher quipped “jst a lode ov owld rubbish!! and waist ov tyme”
The strength of feeling against the Check was strong. 72% of respondents said they felt
that some form of action should be taken against the continuation of the test. The most
popular forms of action were writing to the Secretary of State for Education (79%) and
the Department for Education (72%). 51% said they would be prepared to boycott the
test. A teacher commented that the Secretary of State would be receiving a letter from
a pupil too:
‘One able child was so distressed at failing the test that she was upset for the next
lesson which I had to cover because her regular teacher was administering the test to
others. She went home and wrote a letter to her teacher saying 'you think I can't read
but I can because I wrote you this note.' I asked her to send it to Mr Gove with
permission from her parents. What better way to show that she knows the purpose of
literacy.’
S:\Karen D Robinson\Karen\Year one phonics screening\Survey of Members\Survey-July 2012\Draft analysis of survey - JULY
12.doc