This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/dec/07/ministers-are-reading-too-much-into-this-test
The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Don’t read too much into the Pirls literacy test results | |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| England’s nine- and 10-year-olds showed a modest improvement on the 2016 Pirls (Progress in international reading literacy study) reading test, compared with 2011 scores (English pupils improve results in international reading exams, 6 December). Contrary to the assertion by school standards minister Nick Gibb, an increased emphasis on phonics does not deserve the credit. The Pirls test is a test of reading comprehension: students have to understand what they read. Research consistently shows that phonics ability does not influence scores on tests of comprehension. This is consistent with results showing high scores on phonics screening tests do not result in better reading several years later. | England’s nine- and 10-year-olds showed a modest improvement on the 2016 Pirls (Progress in international reading literacy study) reading test, compared with 2011 scores (English pupils improve results in international reading exams, 6 December). Contrary to the assertion by school standards minister Nick Gibb, an increased emphasis on phonics does not deserve the credit. The Pirls test is a test of reading comprehension: students have to understand what they read. Research consistently shows that phonics ability does not influence scores on tests of comprehension. This is consistent with results showing high scores on phonics screening tests do not result in better reading several years later. |
| In our analyses of previous Pirls tests (2006 and 2011), the strongest predictors of achievement were level of poverty (negative) and the presence of a school library (positive). In our analysis of the 2006 results, amount of reading instruction was negatively related to scores; in the 2011 test, there was no relationship between amount of reading instruction and reading test scores.Stephen KrashenProfessor emeritus, University of Southern California, Los Angeles | In our analyses of previous Pirls tests (2006 and 2011), the strongest predictors of achievement were level of poverty (negative) and the presence of a school library (positive). In our analysis of the 2006 results, amount of reading instruction was negatively related to scores; in the 2011 test, there was no relationship between amount of reading instruction and reading test scores.Stephen KrashenProfessor emeritus, University of Southern California, Los Angeles |
| • Nick Gibb claims the Pirls 2016 results are the “best in a generation”. However, of the 50 countries that took part, England was the lowest ranking of any English-speaking country for pupils enjoying reading (34th) and was the lowest-ranking English-speaking country (29th), with the exception of Australia, for pupil engagement in reading. Twenty countries made greater progress in reading between 2011 and 2016 than England. Furthermore, 29% of pupils in this same cohort failed to reach the required standard in English in the 2017 key stage 2 Sats.Dr Jonathan SolityLeamington Spa, Warwickshire | • Nick Gibb claims the Pirls 2016 results are the “best in a generation”. However, of the 50 countries that took part, England was the lowest ranking of any English-speaking country for pupils enjoying reading (34th) and was the lowest-ranking English-speaking country (29th), with the exception of Australia, for pupil engagement in reading. Twenty countries made greater progress in reading between 2011 and 2016 than England. Furthermore, 29% of pupils in this same cohort failed to reach the required standard in English in the 2017 key stage 2 Sats.Dr Jonathan SolityLeamington Spa, Warwickshire |
| • Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com | • Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com |
| • Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters | • Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters |