UK Politics VIII

[Slick Mongoose]

They are going to be fucked when they're old enough to play Scrabble.

Or, if there isn't a dictionary handy, really good.

"Koob is a word! I was tought it in school!"

[Lummel]

Zooty thruddlestuks.

[Hereward]

There's an obvious solution to this problem. We must define koob and zort and use them at every available opportunity.

Koob: a curvaceous TV cook.

Zort: the exploding noise boys constantly make when playing some incomprehensible pokemon-based war game.

[Sophelia]

Kids to be taught non-words in school.

This does sound daft, but [sorry to derail the lovely humour, but the scientist in me wants to dispel misconceptions]...

Firstly (sorry to dampen the humour of it!), the article doesn't actually say the children are being taught these non-words. The closest you could say was that they will be exposed (once) to a non-word mixed in with other real words. Even if you think this might cause a child to internalise that word as a possible real world and they will retain this despite never seeing it again, the article doesn't actually give the full details of how the test is administered, and if the testers want to ensure that this is never an issue, they can simply tell the children beforehand that the test might include some made up words. However children are exposed to non-words a fair bit (Dr Seuss anyone) without harm.

Secondly, I can see a positive advantage in including non-words. It is generally thought that there are two ways of reading, and that to be an effective and skilled reader one uses both methods. One method, the visual one, is to recognise an entire word-shape (this is what you do with frequent familiar words, it is essential for irregular words, and it is very fast). The other method,the grapheme-phoneme one, is to read the letters one by one and sound them out (you can do this in your head) until you recognise the sounds as a word you have heard spoken (this is used for less familiar words which haven't been read often enough for the overall shape to have been learnt yet, or for words you've never come across before. Children who are just learning to read will be using this method a lot. Of course it doesn't work if the word is irregular so it doesn't sound like it's spelt). Including non-words in a reading test allows you to see whether a person is able to use the grapheme-phoneme reading method, since non-words are guaranteed to be unfamiliar so nobody can use the visual method to read them. Difficulties using the grapheme-phoneme method is an indicator of dyslexia in children. Unless you include non-words in the test, you would have difficulty distinguishing between a normal reader and a child with dyslexia who has been able to compensate by using the visual method well. So adding non-words to the test would flag up children who should be tested for dyslexia and early detection of these children would allow them to be given support and training.

In other words, I see no harm in including non-words in a reading test, and I surmise that there is a very good reason to do so, in identifying children who have dyslexia.

P.S. I should add that the above is my own speculation and argument, and that I know nothing about how reading is taught at school or the effectiveness of different approaches such as 'phonics', as is mentioned in the link you gave.

[Lummel]

I don't know. When at university I was finally persuaded to go along to the student support centre to be tested for dyslexia the initial self assessment picked up on issues like confusing left and right and difficulty in tieing shoe laces - both of which apply to me - as well as the literacy issues that are maybe more generally associated with dyslexia.

My non-professional understanding is that dyslexia has a range of impacts which vary in severity from dyslexic to dyslexic a reading test including non-words might pick up some children with particular problems but it would be a very crude net. Some fairly basic training and awareness of typical symptoms on the other hand who enable teachers at primary and infant schools to be able to refer children for actual testing based on their behaviour in the class over the school year (such as older children having difficulty in tieing shoelaces, reversing some letters and numbers at an advanced age, regularly getting mixed up between left and right, literacy difficulties).

I take your point about memorizing words, but you could test for this by using texts that are considerably above the childs reading age, latin texts, or possibly best of all the kind of irregular words used by G B Shaw to demonstrate how you can spell fish as ghoti.

I agree with you that there isn't any harm in using non-words but I don't see any benefits either. It's probably all the evil doings of those phonics fashionistas!

[Thelonious]

It just sounds like standard tabloid fare. It's probably all down to immigrants or something.

[Sophelia]

I don't know. When at university I was finally persuaded to go along to the student support centre to be tested for dyslexia the initial self assessment picked up on issues like confusing left and right and difficulty in tieing shoe laces - both of which apply to me - as well as the literacy issues that are maybe more generally associated with dyslexia.

My non-professional understanding is that dyslexia has a range of impacts which vary in severity from dyslexic to dyslexic a reading test including non-words might pick up some children with particular problems but it would be a very crude net. Some fairly basic training and awareness of typical symptoms on the other hand who enable teachers at primary and infant schools to be able to refer children for actual testing based on their behaviour in the class over the school year (such as older children having difficulty in tieing shoelaces, reversing some letters and numbers at an advanced age, regularly getting mixed up between left and right, literacy difficulties).

I absolutely agree with you. Well, I don't think the reading test would be more of a 'crude net' than observing children with difficulties tying shoe-laces (it actually can be used to gain an insight into which processes an individual child is using for reading, which can distinguish different types of dyslexia too). But I certainly agree that it shouldn't be the only method for detecting dyslexia, and I would hope they have introduced awareness of all of the above as well (I'm sure the children must get spelling, writing and maths tests, for starters).

I too have found many students only getting diagnosed with dyslexia at university, hence anything which increases the chances of detecting it earlier is good with me.

I take your point about memorizing words, but you could test for this by using texts that are considerably above the childs reading age, latin texts, or possibly best of all the kind of irregular words used by G B Shaw to demonstrate how you can spell fish as ghoti.

They could indeed use rare words or Latin to test for 'non-word' reading, but...er... wouldn't an actual non-word be at least as good or better? (I mean, some children might know these rare words or even Latin... I surely wasn't the only child who had a parent who was a classicist?)

Your final point is a different one. They should certainly use some irregular real words (to test use of the visual method) such as 'chaos', 'colonel' and, um, 'Leicester'. But using irregular non-words is like writing a test in invisible ink ;-)

Can you read the word 'peknous'?

Wrong!

It's pronounced 'nuss', as the p is a silent one (like in psychology), the 'e' is also silent (as in 'bone') and the 'k' is silent (as in 'knife'), the 'ou' is pronounced 'u' as in 'thorough'. OK, rushed example, but the whole point is that you cannot know that a word you have never heard before is irregular until someone speaks it or tells you so. So it is not possible to use irregular non-words in a test (unless the tester is very cruel!). Not sure if that was a serious suggestion on your part or perhaps I misunderstood you... ;)

[The Iceman of the North]

It's pronounced 'nuss', as the p is a silent one (like in psychology), the 'e' is also silent (as in 'bone') and the 'k' is silent (as in 'knife'), the 'ou' is pronounced 'u' as in 'thorough'.

When is ever the 'p' in 'pe' silent? When is ever an 'e' as the second letter silent? When is ever a 'k' that isn't at the start of a word silent? Sorry your example doesn't hold up. ;)

[Sophelia]

When is ever the 'p' in 'pe' silent? When is ever an 'e' as the second letter silent? When is ever a 'k' that isn't at the start of a word silent? Sorry your example doesn't hold up. ;)

Yeah I know - I was in a hurry! :P By definition an irregular word is one which doesn't conform to the usual expectations of how English is pronounced ;)

[Lummel]

It just sounds like standard tabloid fare. It's probably all down to immigrants or something.

Well yes! But then if we striped out all the tabloid fare from the newspapers they would be very short. Plus what topics would be left for us all to discuss?

I absolutely agree with you. Well, I don't think the reading test would be more of a 'crude net' than observing children with difficulties tying shoe-laces (it actually can be used to gain an insight into which processes an individual child is using for reading, which can distinguish different types of dyslexia too). But I certainly agree that it shouldn't be the only method for detecting dyslexia, and I would hope they have introduced awareness of all of the above as well (I'm sure the children must get spelling, writing and maths tests, for starters).

Sorry by crude net I meant the idea of testing by looking for only one symptom rather than by having a broader awareness of the range of possible symptoms and picking up on any combinations or unusually pronounced symptoms.

However I acknowledge this is hopelessly optimistic given that teachers seem to have a fair amount to do in any case and specialist educational support was found at county council level and seems to be being stripped out the education system with the growth of direct grant funded schools. Really I ought to be enthusiastic about any initiative that picked up on problems with minimal additional input required to the classroom even if it only identified a small number of people who need help.

I too have found many students only getting diagnosed with dyslexia at university, hence anything which increases the chances of detecting it earlier is good with me.

For clarity I don't know if I am dyslexic, at that time in the mid 1990s the test cost the incredible amount of 70 quid which was refundable only if you were found to be dyslexic. On self assessment forms I'm borderline - one of the people who have been saved by typing, the spellcheck and the excel spreadsheet. But yes my Sister was diagnosed at university, which makes you consider just what teachers have to deal with if they either don't get the opportunity to notice or in the context of the classroom don't consider dyslexia to be that serious a difficulty.

They could indeed use rare words or Latin to test for 'non-word' reading, but...er... wouldn't an actual non-word be at least as good or better? (I mean, some children might know these rare words or even Latin... I surely wasn't the only child who had a parent who was a classicist?)

Yes you were. The only one. Without a doubt.

Your final point is a different one. They should certainly use some irregular real words (to test use of the visual method) such as 'chaos', 'colonel' and, um, 'Leicester'. But using irregular non-words is like writing a test in invisible ink ;-)

Can you read the word 'peknous'?

Wrong!

It's pronounced 'nuss', as the p is a silent one (like in psychology), the 'e' is also silent (as in 'bone') and the 'k' is silent (as in 'knife'), the 'ou' is pronounced 'u' as in 'thorough'. OK, rushed example, but the whole point is that you cannot know that a word you have never heard before is irregular until someone speaks it or tells you so. So it is not possible to use irregular non-words in a test (unless the tester is very cruel!). Not sure if that was a serious suggestion on your part or perhaps I misunderstood you... ;)

Hey you never gave me a chance! But I take your point and surrender! Although are you sure the e in bone is silent?

Except that you have a problem with non-words in that they have no right or wrong pronunciation, all you can test for is how the child copes with the word which I feel you can do with a broad vocabulary, proper names or foreign words.

[Sophelia]

Yes you were. The only one. Without a doubt.

:lol:

I have just done a quick google search because I wanted to see if the reason for including the non-words was as I thought (I think so, though none of the pages I have seen so far is particularly clear on that). In doing so, however, I have come across some more details (e.g. see this TES article) which are different from what I assumed and giove a slightly different impression of the real concerns.

It seems that

• this is a new and additional word reading test, not a proposal to add non-words to an existing one
  
• it is a test of how effectively children are learning the 'phonics' method (hence the tone of the protests)
  
• it doesn't test the visual reading method (by including irregular words)*
  
• it is (or people think it is) to be used to grade a child's reading level, in such a way that children and schools will be compared
  
• It is regarded/proposed as a test of reading level but only tests single word reading not reading of sentences or texts
  
• children are given pictures of monsters and told that the non-words are the names of the monsters
  

Regarding these points, I can understand protests that yet another test is unnecessary, stressful and costly to administrate.

If it is supposed to assess children's progress in reading, it seems excessively narrow and without even the irregular words to compare*, I can't see how they would be able to tell if a child was impaired only in phonological skill or just generally behind with reading, not how they could tailor any remedial action to a child, if they don't know how the child is faring at the more skilled visual reading process. So I take back my view that the test as proposed would be useful for evaluating which processes a child is using for reading, and now understand why people are objecting to its emphasis on 'phonics' alone.

It is not a test of reading level at all, so it shouldn't be used or regarded as one. If it included irregular words I would say it would give teachers useful insights into how each individual child uses the two methods of reading I described before, but 'results' wouldn't indicate a child's actual reading level (such a test, as people argue, would have to assess comprehension of written texts).

The monsters thing... well, it seems they want to make it more 'naturalistic' but in doing so seem to be deceiving the children... on the other hand, this is the normal way of interacting with children - they get told stories all the time, and in school, invented scenarios teach everything, so I guess the children would be used to it... I dunno. I don't see the point of providing the pictures since they are being presented differently from the other words and it could be argued that if the child correctly picks up that it is a fictional game, they might decide they can use any pronunciation of the words they want. Well, what do I know? I haven't actually seen the instructions.

So, it does seem that the people who are objecting to the test have good grounds for it, but (as I have argued) the inclusion of non-words is not one of them. However the omission of irregular words means it can't be used for the purpose which I speculated it would have.

If it is being treated as a gradable test of 'reading', that is indeed ridiculous (though it is possible the test was devised solely to test pupils' phonological awareness - but if so, there are better means to do this and it shouldn't be called a test of reading). I'll leave it to anyone interested in looking more deeply into it, but I just wanted to post this as a retraction of my support now I have discovered more about the nature (and possible use) of the test.

* I am not definitively sure of this, but the UK literacy association claims it won't in their response here where they list what it will test.

[kiko]

They could indeed use rare words or Latin to test for 'non-word' reading, but...er... wouldn't an actual non-word be at least as good or better? (I mean, some children might know these rare words or even Latin... I surely wasn't the only child who had a parent who was a classicist?)

I think that the minority of dyslexic 6 years old English kids who are fluent in Latin can be dismissed without fear of repercussions.

[Maltaran]

If you've seen any of the "No to AV" ads around the place, here is a good parody generator.

The Bee Gees need a breakdancing robot army NOT an alternative voting system

Aragorn needs an undisclosed quantity lettuce NOT an alternative voting system

Say ARGH to spending made up numbers on AV

Edit: after clicking through a few times, it seems one of the things people need instead of AV is more cowbell :lol:

[Lummel]

Any of you folks have strong opinions or feelings on the AV referendum?

I moved from thinking that I might vote for AV to thinking that I might spoil my ballot instead, still not really sure what I'll do. I can't see that switching from First past the post to AV would really make that much of a difference nationally except for those elections where there has been a strong move away from one party like say in 1983 or 1997.

[Maltaran]

In past elections, I've lived in constituencies that are such safe Labour that there's hardly been any point in my voting. As such, I will be voting yes to AV, as it will (slightly*) increase the value of my vote.

*IMO, the proposed version of AV is barely better than FPTP, but it's a step in the right direction (meaning something that is properly proportional).

[mormont]

I'm voting yes for AV, though I am more than familiar with its shortcomings. Thanks to Clegg and the Orange Bookers we've already lost the chance for a decent version of PR: but still, it's marginally better than FPTP. More importantly, if the AV referendum is defeated, both the main parties will misrepresent that defeat. They'll pounce on the chance to say that the issue of electoral reform is dead, the electorate don't want it, case closed: and we won't get another chance for a generation. At least if AV passes, the principle of FPTP being the bestest and only choice will be crippled and we can argue for a better system from there.

[Teabag]

I'm voting yes for AV, though I am more than familiar with its shortcomings. Thanks to Clegg and the Orange Bookers we've already lost the chance for a decent version of PR: but still, it's marginally better than FPTP. More importantly, if the AV referendum is defeated, both the main parties will misrepresent that defeat. They'll pounce on the chance to say that the issue of electoral reform is dead, the electorate don't want it, case closed: and we won't get another chance for a generation. At least if AV passes, the principle of FPTP being the bestest and only choice will be crippled and we can argue for a better system from there.

That is essentially what they are aiming to do anyway. It was either AV or nothing in the Coalition deal talks, AV was only ever meant to be a stop gap, especially in the minds of the Orange Bookers.

[MinDonner]

More importantly, if the AV referendum is defeated, both the main parties will misrepresent that defeat. They'll pounce on the chance to say that the issue of electoral reform is dead, the electorate don't want it, case closed: and we won't get another chance for a generation.

This is pretty much my view also. Anything that gets the government and the public actually talking about electoral reform in practical terms is a step in the right direction, rather than the old mantra of "well we've always done it like this and it worked just fine thanks".

[Lummel]

In past elections, I've lived in constituencies that are such safe Labour that there's hardly been any point in my voting. As such, I will be voting yes to AV, as it will (slightly*) increase the value of my vote.

I know the feeling. With the exception of European elections I have only voted for the winning candidate twice in all my years of voting, once in a local council election and once in a general election.

Even with AV I'd probably still be better off moving constituency or turning my politics upside down if I want my vote to count. Won't it still be another generation before we get the chance to move from AV to something that is actually proportional?

[Maltaran]

I'm looking at it as a step in the right direction, even though it's hardly better than FPTP. If we'd had AV at the last election, I'd probably have ranked the parties like this

Lib Dem

Green

Official Monster Raving Loony Party

Labour

Tory

UKIP

BNP

Of course, with what the Lib Dems have done since then, I'd probably swap them and the Greens around if we had one tomorrow - maybe even put the Loonies up a spot as well.