With 150 pupils across Hertfordshire now involved in HFL’s KS2 Reading Fluency Project, Penny Slater reflects on what has been learned from the project so far.

Last week, HFL officially launched the first round of the KS2 Reading Fluency Project, involving 20 Herts schools. Based on our work carried out in a number of schools throughout 2016/17, we have good reason to believe that this project will go a long way towards supporting many of their year 6 pupils, who are currently at risk of falling behind, to reach the Expected Standard in the 2018 reading test.

Armed now with a great amount of qualitative data, and a growing database of quantitative data, we are in a position to share some of our early findings from this work.

The project began on a very small scale, in one school, where the SL was keen to ensure that those pupils who entered KS2 at a 2b/2c reached the EXS by the end of year 6. At the time when I was working with the school, they were concerned that many of these pupils, who were then in year 5 and year 6, would not do so. Observations of a sample of these pupils reading a well-pitched ARE text, indicated that they were far from fluent: their reading sounded choppy; robotic and monotonous. In addition, they had a disregard for punctuation, and they lacked the ability to monitor comprehension as they read (indicated by the fact that they often mis-read words, or at times completely missed out words – or whole lines of text – without realising and self-correcting). Their reading comprehension was poor (as judged by their inability to attempt many of the oral comprehension questions asked after reading the text). The school sought a swift and effective teaching strategy that would – as the lowest indicator of success  – support these children to quickly gain ground in advance of the impending test, but would – at best – turn these switched-off readers onto the joys of this particular pastime.

We decided upon a strategy that we initially named ‘modelled fluent reading’ sessions, but now, as the project launches into full swing, this has evolved into a more sophisticated model. The current project supports teachers to embed the following strategies into regular reading sessions of engaging, well-pitched ARE texts: modelled fluent reading; text marking; echo reading; opportunities for repeated re-readings and performance. The schools are asked to work with six children over an 8-week period, offering a double-dose of guided reading: session 1 to focus on modelled fluent reading practice and echo reading, and session 2 to focus on comprehension development. Following trials over the summer term in a number of different schools, led by HfL advisors Sabrina Wright and Kathy Roe, we can now present our early findings:

It works (for most children):

Of the 29 children who took part in the summer trials, 23 children made gains in comprehension of between 4 months and 5 years. Out of the number of pupils who made 4 months-plus progress in reading comprehension over the 8-week period, 16 children made over one year’s progress (10 pupils in that group made over 2 years’ progress!).

Data was gained using the YARC reading comprehension test.

• https://www.gl-assessment.co.uk/products/york-assessment-of-reading-for-comprehension-yarc/

It did not work for a small number of children:

Our trials helped us to refine our understanding of whom this project really helped. Six children did not make more than 8 weeks progress in their comprehension following the project. Much of our discussion following these trials have focused on what it was about these particular children that meant that they did not benefit from the project. As is often the case, each child prompted a different theory, but factors we have considered are as follows:

• Dislike of the project method – one child was particularly shy and disliked the reading aloud element of the project
• Pupil selection – in some cases, pupils’ fluency didn’t seem to be the barrier to learning and those pupils therefore didn’t make as much progress with their comprehension. We refined pupil selection criteria as a result

All of these considerations have enabled us to better support schools in selecting pupils who are most likely to make gains as a result of the methods used in the project.

More than simply reading aloud:

Repeatedly, we discovered that simply reading aloud to the children (despite doing so in a perfectly fluent and engaging fashion) did not support their comprehension development as much as we had anticipated. Because we found this aspect of our study so interesting, we explored it repeatedly during our trials. Through doing so, we reaffirmed our observation that echo reading (where a child has the opportunity to hear the words on the page spoken by their own voice following modelling by an ‘expert’ reader) allowed for better comprehension, compared to when the text was simply read aloud to the children. We have not yet gained quantitative data to support this finding (partly because the YARC test does not allow for this analysis) but we witnessed it time and time again during our observations and trial sessions.

Watch your speed:

Most teachers lament the fact that many of their children simply do not read quickly enough to get through the reading paper in time to have a hope of reaching the expected standard. I have long wondered whether this is the case, or whether the problem is that they read it too quickly, and too passively, merely hoping that by passing their eyes over the words, the meaning hidden within them will leap into their panicked brains. If they do this, then they will probably end up having to read the text over and over again during the test simply because it did not go in the first time. It might be more time-efficient, to read it a bit slower, but better.

Our small-scale studies showed that out of the 23 children who made gains in comprehension, seven children actually reduced their reading rate – their reading got slower! Eight of the pupils increased their reading rate (although all marginally) and the remaining eight recorded the same reading rate as their pre-intervention score.

Our study also revealed that prior to the project, the selected pupils rarely self-corrected as they read, demonstrating a lack of understanding. One child replaced the word monk with monkey and continued on, unaware. The same child read again from a ‘cold’ piece at the end of the 8 week project and re-read sentences and words for sense as she went along, demonstrating that she was ‘taking in’ the text. This may have slowed her pace, but aided her comprehension and retrieval.

It is important to get the simple things right:

When summing up our work to teachers and other colleagues, we have been struck by how the techniques we propose could be neatly summed up in a few minutes – or a few sentences, as above. However, as we state on our whole day project launch, it takes time, effort and skill to get the simple things right. In order to effectively model fluent reading, teachers have to be acutely aware of what fluency is, and what it sounds like when reading an age-related text. Prosody being perhaps the most challenging aspect of fluency, we support teachers to apply their own prosodic knowledge to the analysis of a challenging text that would test even an expert reader’s prowess. This proves to be a real eye-opener for many teachers and helps them realise what a door-opener prosodic knowledge is to reading comprehension. Teachers also need to gain confidence in knowing what a good text choice looks like if it is both going to inspire a reluctant reader to read, and prepare them for success in the KS2 test. Finally, teachers need the time and space to reflect on their current practice and consider how this is contributing – or not – to the development of prosodic understanding. All of these things take time, practice and most importantly, headspace: something that we try to offer on our launch day.

Children enjoy it!

We knew from our early work – which relied predominantly on watching the transformation in children’s reading following a well-planned modelled fluency session – that children got so much more out of the sessions than simply better comprehension skills. When we observed children complete a cold read of an unknown text after 20 minutes or so of intensive reading work, the children had changed. Not only did they read better and certainly they understood a lot more, but there was more to be observed: they sat up a little straighter; they turned the pages with a little more gusto; they inhaled breath a little less dramatically between each sentence (in the baseline observation, one child gulped air between each sentence as if he were preparing for the next bout of a wrestling match). Most notably, fatigue did not hit quite so hard and so fast. The children kept going, or ‘performed’ (to mimic the language we use on the project), for longer, and appeared to enjoy doing so. The results of the pupil voice surveys from our summer trials confirmed that the techniques used in the project go further than simply preparing children for a reading test. Below are some of the quotes from children and teachers who took part in the summer trials.

Has it made you feel differently about reading?

– I didn’t think I noticed it helped, but I’m reading a lot more.

– I used to read David Walliams, but now I’m reading Alex Ryder because I liked the suspense stories we read.

– I’m reading more mysteries and suspense now.

– It’s made me step up the hours.  I’m reading more now.

– I’m reading with more expression.  It made me enjoy reading more and choose a different variety of books.

Teacher Comments:

-The children have really enjoyed the sessions and having a challenging text.

– The children seem a lot more confident.

– The children in this group seemed more resilient during an end of year assessment.  They are the children that may have previously given up.

– This project enabled me to know the Y6 text pitch really well.

– It meant they had exposure to texts like the end of year assessments.

– I have struggled to get ‘X’ to pick up a single narrative this year, and now he is reading Roald Dahl.

– The children have been taking the skills they’ve been learning and applying these outside of the sessions.

We acknowledge that we are in the early stages of our work, but with 20 schools (and 150+ pupils) launching whole-heartedly into the project last week, we look forward to developing our knowledge of how these techniques can help to raise reading standards, and to sharing these findings in the near future.

Read more about the HFL Reading Fluency Project or contact reading.fluency@hfleducation.org

With thanks to the following schools for their participation in the summer trials:

Beechfield Primary School, Watford

Woodhall Primary School, Watford

Summerswood Primary School, Borehamwood

De Havilland Primary School, Hatfield

With special thanks to Reedings Junior School, Sawbridgeworth for their early involvement in the project.

Reading that informed the project:

• Dowhower (1994) Repeated Reading Revisited: Research Into Practice, Reading and Writing Quarterly, 10
• EEF (2017) Improving Literacy in Key Stage Two, Guidance Report
• Heitin (2015) Literacy Expert: Weak Readers Lack Fluency, Not Critical Thinking
• Heitin (2015) Reading Fluency Viewed as Neglected Skill, Education Week, http://www.edweek.org
• Marcell Putting Fluency on a Fitness Plan, The Reading Teacher Vol 65 issue 4
• National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (2000) Report of the National Reading Panel; Teaching Children to Read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction, US government Printing Office
• Rasinski, Yildirim, & Nageldinger (2011) Building Fluency Through the Phrased Text Lesson, The Reading Teacher Vol 65 issue 4
• Rasinski (2012) Why Reading Fluency Should be Hot!, The Reading Teacher Vol 65 Issue 8
• Rasinski (2014) Delivering Supportive Fluency Instruction, Reading Today
• Rasinski & Nageldinger (2016) The Fluency Factor: Authentic Instruction and Assessment for Reading Success in the Common Core Classroom, Teachers College Press

Thoughts occur when you are inspired. On this occasion, my inspiration came from a session that I attended, delivered by my colleague, Martin Galway, entitled 'What do we mean when we talk about reading (and writing) fluency?' This session was delivered at Oxford Reading Spree in October 2019, and these are the thoughts that it provoked.

During the session, Martin referred to the difference between ‘in the moment’ or automatic processing in reading, and processing that takes place after the event of actually ‘reading’ the text. I am paraphrasing and extrapolating from Martin’s exact words, so you may wish to refer to Martin’s original blog linked to the session for where his talk went from here.

Sometimes, depending on how the reading act has been framed,  children read for a less-than-desirable purpose – usually because they have been told to read by a teacher and therefore they get on with it, without perhaps bringing much more than an attitude of ‘let’s get this business over and done with’ to the table. These children could also be classified as passive readers. These are the children, who when faced with the most hilarious/terrifying/interesting text, barely raise an eyebrow. They have figured out the real way to read (or at least they think they have) based upon the reading experiences that have been presented to them on numerous occasions. Having learnt the deal, they tackle a reading task as follows: they pseudo-read the text (the eyes may be on the page but the mind is probably somewhere else) before waiting for the inevitable questions that will follow the piece – these can be oral but are often written. At this point, they reluctantly drag their gaze back through the entire piece hunting for words or phrases that might match the question brief. To the passive reader, the text represents little more than a blob on the page. A first read may not begin to involve such processes as sematic inferencing, visualising, summarising, prediction etc, and as such the reader may lack a sure, or even partial, grasp of the text.  If asked to share something of their understanding, some resort to re-reading the whole text again, from top to bottom whilst others may well pluck information from the text in the hope that it hits the mark.

It is easy to see how this passive form of reading could become habitual for the child who has repeatedly encountered the ‘reading followed by questions’ formula. It is also easy to see why teachers might go down this route. The ‘text then question’ formula does after all mimic the SATs reading test that children will face at the end of KS1 and 2. But, as reflective practitioners, we must become persistent in asking ourselves difficult questions; in this case, just because reading is tested in this way, does it mean that it should be taught in this way?

To clarify, I am aware that very few teachers would simply present children with a cold text, expect them to read it, and then present them with questions relating to the piece to answer, without adequate discussion. However, I would argue that even when post-reading discussion based on key questions takes place, we may still be reinforcing the notion that children can get away with a passive first read. When following this approach, the teacher is directly modelling a distorted reading behaviour; that is, reinforcing to the children that good readers read a text and then they think about it. I do believe that post-reading questioning is important, however, if we want to shunt passive readers towards becoming active readers, then we need to place greater emphasis on modelling the ‘in the moment’ reading behaviours that accompany an engaged reading experience, rather than focusing exclusively on modelling the post-reading behaviours that allow us to reflect back upon a text at a deeper level.

If we want to create active readers, then we need to remind ourselves of what they look like. Active readers can be a joy to behold, especially in child-form. Hopefully you will have all seen one in action. When reading silently, their heads are abuzz with sound. Internally, they are engaged in a meaningful expressive read of the text at hand. When they get to a funny bit, they laugh. When they get to a scary bit, they shiver. When they are perplexed, the eyebrow raises. When the teacher arrives at a cliff-hanger in the class read-aloud, they provide the obligatory doof…doof…doof (Eastender style). In adult form, they can be even more amusing – although it can be unsettling when you sit next to one on a train! Ultimately, we want all of our children to become active readers. Our mission should be to create whole carriages of train chortlers!

Hopefully we are agreed that this is what we want to achieve, but how?

Below you will find a list of my top tips aimed at moving passive readers, to active ‘in the moment’ readers.

Prepare them for reading

If you know that there is a funny/scary/interesting/disgusting bit in the text that you are about to read with the class, prepare them for it. For example,

‘When I first read this text, children, I burst out laughing at one bit. I wonder if you will do the same?’

Following the read, praise the children who reacted so they know that this is the right and proper way to engage with a text.

Re-brand silent reading

I dislike the term ‘silent reading’. I worry that it may inadvertently imply to a child that silence occurs both outside and inside the brain whilst reading. Instead, I prefer to use the term ‘busy brain reading’. When this term is established, you can start talking to the children about the busy brain activities that may be taking place inside their heads at the point of reading.

Modelling busy brain reading

It is not enough to model post-reading thinking. If we want to nurture active readers, we must nurture ‘in the moment’ reading. This could be as simple as reading the text to the children, and then returning to the beginning and re-reading, but this time pausing to share reading reactions as they occur. There will be far too many links/reactions/thoughts/strategies taking place in your head at any one point to warrant modelling them all. The challenge of teaching is knowing what your children can do, and what they cannot yet do. It is the latter that will inform the aspects of busy brain reading that you choose to model.

Prompt and provoke

Instead of simply listening to children reading, why not take the opportunity to listen to children think whilst reading. This is easily done. When working with a child one on one, or in a small group, invite them to read, but let them know that you will be interested in their thoughts as they read. Invite them to pause when they come across anything of interest/concern/alarm etc and tell you about it. In my experience, this really is a game-changing. Instantly, the children know that you expect more from them that simply barking at the text: instead, you expect them to both read and think at the same time – this is the goal of the active reader.

With these simple approaches, we may go some way towards nurturing engaged readers; children who read like nobody is watching!

If you are interested in considering further strategies for promoting active reading in the primary classroom, please join us at one of our KS2 Reading Fluency Project Roadshows, which will be taking place in various locations around this country this year.

Please visit the HFL Reading Fluency Project page for full details of forthcoming events.

If you are keen to host one of our events, please do get in touch at reading.fluency@hfleducation.org

 

 What’s the issue?

In 2014, the National Curriculum catapulted spelling at KS2 into the limelight. The 2016 KS2 interim assessment framework document further intensified the focus on spelling, as children could not be judged as ‘working at the expected standard’ if they had not first demonstrated that they could spell most words correctly from the years 3/4, and then from the years 5/6 programme of study. The ‘spelling geek’ inside me was quietly thrilled as were many of the teachers and colleagues I work with. Not because of the prescriptive way it had been ‘forced’ upon us by a strict secure fit model (ITAF), more that finally, spelling wasn’t having to play second fiddle to other aspects of writing. There was an overwhelming feeling that something more had to be done about spelling, and not just at Year 6, but throughout KS2.

My colleague, Penny Slater, had previously stated in a blog that the side-lining of spelling had ‘led to a skewed perception of spelling as an add-on to the process of becoming literate, rather than an integral part of it’. This statement really rang true with me, and seemed to be a message that I too had been led to believe during the early stages of my teaching career.

I know not everyone celebrated this ‘catapulting’ in the same way I did, and I completely understand reservations, or preferences towards a more creative and flexible approach to writing and composition that takes into consideration a child’s particular strengths and weaknesses. However, in my experience, the more fluent a child becomes in spelling (and handwriting) the more they are cognitively freed up to focus on the composition, so to my mind it’s a win either way.

A whole school approach

It was during this period I started working on a project with the English Subject Leader and staff at Oakmere Primary School, in Potters Bar, Hertfordshire. The number of children achieving the EXS standard had increased in writing by 24% from 2016 to 2017 to 70% However, monitoring including book scrutinies, and discussions with teachers still identified the teaching and application of spelling in writing as a key development priority across KS2. The school and Subject Leader were keen to raise standards and try something new. We agreed to focus specifically on plugging gaps for pupils that were struggling, and focus on how to manage teaching ARE, whilst still meeting the needs of pupils who were struggling with spelling.

I delivered an INSET at the beginning of this academic year. During the INSET, the teachers buddied up and had a detailed look at the spelling of a group of low-attaining pupils in their class. They analysed the spelling errors for those pupils and then used this to identify key areas to prioritise in teaching. A spelling track back document was then used to see which year group misconceptions had stemmed from; consideration was given to how to build on the ‘last good’ bit of learning and how to link their pupils’ gaps to their year group expectations whilst teaching the whole class.

Once the gaps for the children had been identified, teachers began grappling with a slightly different way of planning and delivering the teaching of spelling.

See below an example of the Steps to Spelling document which can used to:

• track back and identify where any misconceptions or gaps in learning may be present;
• differentiate for pupils who need to accelerate to age-related expectations;
• support teachers in securing their subject knowledge.

The Steps to Spelling and Essential Spelling resources are now available from the HFL Education shop.

Just a couple of days after the INSET, one of the teachers tweeted the following reflection:

 

I could not have summed it up better myself. In his reflections, I think his tweet really hit the nail on the head. In the past, I too, had used these methods (including hope), and oddly for some of my pupils this had actually worked. However, to really make a significant difference to children’s learning we have to have deep knowledge of the areas we are teaching: ‘hope’ is no longer good enough.

The Sutton Trust review acknowledges the importance of teachers having very secure, deep subject knowledge if they want to support children in tackling tricky concepts:

When teachers’ knowledge falls below a certain level it is a significant impediment to students’ learning. As well as a strong understanding of the material being taught, teachers must also understand the ways students think about the content, be able to evaluate the thinking behind students’ own methods, and identify students’ common misconceptions. (Coe R, Aloisi C, Higgins S and Major L.E. What makes great teaching? Review of the underpinning research. October 2014)

To summarise the approach taken by the case-study school:

• develop teachers’ subject knowledge in order for them to identify misconceptions accurately;
• complete a gap analysis of pupils’ spelling errors in their independent writing;
• prioritise key learning areas to focus on from the analysis;
• use the analysis to track back to where the pupils are working from;
• use the track back information to teach from and build on the last ‘good’ bit of learning.

Five months on at Oakmere, many parents from the Year 2 class have reported that they have noticed an improvement in their child's spelling ability and confidence to spell, and the class teacher has commented that it appears to be having a good impact on the pupils’ writing. In Years 4 and 5, they have now established a really effective sequence of assessing: teaching in differentiated groups based on the tracking back that feeds in to the initial sound/spelling statement and a final assessment to track progress. In Year 6, some children have made progress, but there still seems to be a group who have been frustratingly resistant to making progress. The class teacher feels this may be due to individual factors that influence the effectiveness of their learning. I will be considering these pupils and possible next steps in the second part of this blog.

I can’t pretend that for many children the way we have always taught spelling and still do (for some) hasn’t worked, because it has. It just doesn’t work for all of the children all of the time, and if what you’re doing isn’t working, then you’re just going to have to try something else. If you are looking for that ‘something else’, then the approach used at Oakmere School might be worth a try.

With thanks to Oakmere School, Potters Bar, Herts.

Blog written by Sabrina Wright.

It fills me with such delight that more and more schools are reading Shakespeare with children in the primary phase. There are many wonderful theatre groups now working with schools on this too. It can be really tricky to get that first encounter right. If we select a play too complicated, too dark or too romantic, we can inadvertently put children off future exploration. There are a few great contenders for KS2 in my opinion. A Midsummer Night’s Dream offers the ‘play within a play’; I have seen children delighting over the antics of Bottom and his motley crew in the classroom. I distinctly recall being utterly swept up with the magic of the forest and the fairies as a child of 10 or 11 – this was my first encounter with Shakespeare and I’ve been hooked ever since. My personal favourite for teaching in upper key stage two though, is Macbeth.

This is Shakespeare’s shortest play so it is possible to explore the entire play over a teaching sequence. The scenes with the three witches are deliciously fun for children to (over)act and we also have murder, betrayal, ghosts and battle to plunder and explore. I have won the hearts and minds over of many a reluctant reader through walking in role across the heath, cackling in role as a witch or descending into madness in role as Macbeth. There ought to be a finely-struck balance between reading - and acting - the original Shakespearean text, and reading extracts from narrative versions to a) get through the entire play and b) assimilate the complicated structure of the plot. When I say acting here, I don’t necessarily mean adorning robes and taking to the stage. Many schools do decide to link a Shakespeare unit of work with a school performance and this is a wonderful and memorable opportunity for children. But for some pupils, this would fill them with dread. I advocate meaning-laden read alouds in class from the text, with plenty of time for peer collaboration and rehearsal. Reader’s Theatre is a brilliant strategy for facilitating repeat re-reading in an inclusive and non-threatening way, whilst allowing plenty of freedom for those keen and able to express themselves dramatically. Other drama pedagogical approaches such as Paired Improvisation and Freeze-framing also work brilliantly – all this can be done in the classroom, in the English lesson.

Not only will a rich and exciting unit on Macbeth satisfy the statutory requirement that children read from a wide range of books, including fiction from our literary heritage, it can also inspire some superb writing outcomes too. Pupils in year 5 at St. John’s Catholic Primary School in Rickmansworth, Hertfordshire, used HfL’s Detailed Exemplification Planning to explore Macbeth. An overview of the 5-week long plan is available as a free download here. During this lesson towards the start of the unit, pupils enjoyed exploring the heath, acting in role:

This is an example of writing generated at the end of the lesson:

The opportunity afforded to pupils here to enter the world of the text and to experience being on the heath first-hand has greatly enhanced the writing. The reader is drawn in and carefully led through this dramatic setting through controlled use of noun phrases and precise vocabulary choices – all acquired by this pupil during the drama. How delighted I would be by writing of this quality at the start of a unit!

Pupils are asked, as another incidental writing task early on in the unit, to write a letter in role as Lady Macbeth, demonstrating their understanding of the prophecies and their recognition of Lady Macbeth’s murderous intent...

 

 

 

Not only have the children at St John’s absolutely loved reading and acting from Macbeth in class, they have also been producing writing rich with audience and purpose that they are keen to share.

 

 

 

You can access the Macbeth Detailed Exemplification Plan in full here, along with detailed plans for other year groups in key stage one and two. A free download of the overview is available on the TES website here.

Huge thanks to Nicola O’Brien and year 5 pupils at St John’s Catholic Primary School in Rickmansworth, Hertfordshire.

 

​ Analysis of the papers can take many angles and I don’t hope to cover them all in this series of blogs; instead, I intend to use an analysis of the reading SATs to allow for insights into our current teaching practices in the hope of developing and sharpening classroom pedagogy.

If I miss anything of particular interest, please do get in touch, and I will try to explore that avenue.

Inference – there’s more to it than meets the eye!

I have long since stopped the (to my mind) fruitless task of analysing past papers to see which tested domain presented the area of greatest weakness for my pupils. Following several years of laboured analysis, I realised that I was reaching the same, rather unhelpful conclusion: the children struggle most with questions relating to inference (tested domain 2d).

I now see that there are several reasons for this: firstly, it tends to be one of the most heavily tested domains; secondly, the question format tends to be the most challenging, in that the questions tend not to fall into the easier ‘tick a box’ type response. Clearly, if a domain is heavily represented in a test, then it is more likely that at some point children will make an error or two on one of the many questions within this sub-set, therefore making it likely to look like an area of weakness. To exemplify this point, let us turn to the figures…

In 2019, inference remained a testing domain heavy-weight, commanding 18 of the potential 50 marks from the test! Compare it to domain 2c (which tests the ability to summarise) - which was allocated a measly 1-mark question across all three texts -  and you begin to get a sense of the weighting.

If this weighting is taken too literally however, misinterpretations begin to form: if not careful, we may form a skewed perspective on how the testing domains relate to potential classroom teaching of reading. The weighting analysis could lead us to conclude that teaching ‘inference’ is more important than teaching ‘summarising’, after all, it appears that the children will need to flex their inference muscles a great deal more than their summarising ones.

Instead, it is helpful to step back and remind ourselves of the bigger picture, and specifically how the reading skills required to make inferences might marry together. To support with this, I refer you to a well-aged blog, published back in 2016 entitled Reading Re-envisaged, where we explored the potentially interrelated skills of reading comprehension. When considered in this way, we can see that the ability to summarise is an essential skill in allowing inference to flourish, not a mere by-stander in the comprehension process. Therefore, neglecting the teaching of ‘summarising’ in favour of teaching ‘inference’ is not going to win any marks in the long-run.

The message here then is that extrapolating insights from the reading tests, and using them to directly shape and guide classroom pedagogy, can be short-sighted and can lead to reductive teaching practices (the example here being that of the weighting towards inference questions: just because inference is tested more, it doesn’t mean that we should isolate this skill and try and teach it). Instead, we need to think wisely about the errors or gaps that we see displayed before us and respond in a measured and informed manner, bringing to the fore our understanding of what it takes to become a skilled reader.

Most often, the solution will be to provide holistic, rounded and well-informed reading guidance, allowing room for plenty of teacher modelling and pupil practice of a wide range of skills, using a wide range of quality texts, rather than honing in on domain specific questioning. Of course, this doesn’t provide a quick route to reading proficiency, but it certainly provides the most successful one.

It’s Vocab, Jim (but not as we know it!)

Another ‘hidden’ tested domain relates to vocabulary. Although according to the test mark scheme, only 6 marks were accredited to questions listed as testing domain 2a (‘give/explain the meaning of words in context’), as teachers, we know that word knowledge, and specifically vocabulary breadth, is fundamental to reading comprehension success. As the model of comprehension referenced earlier denotes, if you don’t know the meaning of the words on the page then you have great difficulty moving across to the outer circle of the comprehension model.

Every question within the test assessed proficiency within domain 2a. I am no doubt preaching to the converted when I state that vocabulary exploration and development must underpin everything that we do. Its power to support - and impede - the young reader cannot be understated.

Seeing as vocabulary knowledge and breadth is pivotal to reading comprehension, it is worth looking in depth at some of the questions in the 2019 paper relating to this domain, in order to gain an insight into the children’s strengths and weakness in this area. Indeed, a closer inspection of the question styles, and the data outcomes, does reveal something that may be helpful for guiding our classroom practices.

One of the most poorly answered questions, pertaining to texts 1 & 2, was question 8 (a lowly 65% correct national response rate). Question 8 is presented below.

If your children – like those nationally - stumbled over this question, then you may have reached the concluded that they struggle with word knowledge. As a responsible teacher, you may already be setting to work thinking about how you could address this area of supposed weakness. But, hold on! There may be more to this than meets the eye. There were two other questions pertaining to domain 2a within the question set for text 1 (question 4 & question 9) – both are represented below.

 

At a national level, both these questions received significantly higher correct response rates than question 8 (Qu.4  = 95.1%; Qu.9 =  92% correct response) with the vast majority of children who had a go at the questions getting them right. The challenge then appears to be less about poor word knowledge per se and more about an issue with question style. If you had already set to work to resolve this issue by introducing more ‘copy and find’ style questions into your repertoire, you are unlikely to solve the issue. In fact, most children seemed ok with this style of thinking and questioning. Instead, what they struggled with was the ‘explaining’ element required by test question 8.

Most teachers would acknowledge that the ability to ‘explain’ is far trickier that the ability to ‘spot’. Knowing this should therefore guide our practice towards creating learning opportunities that develop the art of explaining language meaning, rather than simply spotting synonyms.  In reality, this means planning activities that allow children opportunities to explore language in context; allowing them time to tease out alternative meanings and to attribute the most likely one to the text in hand; to debate the nuances of language and then, most importantly (from a test situation perspective at least), to learn how to encapsulate this understanding into a pithy explanation or definition. This, you can see, is a very different approach to one which might have led to adapting some paper-based comprehension task to incorporate more generic domain 2-type questions.

The key to developing improved responses to question 8 – and others like it - will be achieved through regular well-planned language discussion, based on a wide range of quality texts, not through silo working on well-intentioned comprehension exercises.

The journey required to achieve this deep knowledge of words and language is undoubtedly longer, but ultimately, when dealing with vocabulary development, we have to recognise that we are in the business of securing long-term gains, rather than short-term wins.

I hope that this blog provides enough to get teachers thinking about some of the ways in which they might interpret the findings of this year’s reading SATs paper outcomes, and how their findings might be translated into effective classroom pedagogy.

 

The truth is that writing is hard. What’s more, teaching it is even harder! Every teacher knows that supporting a child to master what we might call basic sentence construction takes years. Too often, we encounter children in years 5 and 6 who, despite years of practice of this particular skill, still haven’t quite grasped it. Yet basic sentence construction is just the beginning. Beyond that, there appears to be so much more to learn in order to allow our pupils to articulate their thoughts in coherent and well-considered prose. The list of terminology held within the National Curriculum VGP appendix pays testament to this and often seems overwhelming: adverb, preposition, conjunction, pronoun, parenthesis, active, passive…the list goes on. It is not surprising therefore, given the lengthy list of terms that pupils are expected to learn, and the feats of syntactic artistry that children are expected to perform by the end of KS2, that teachers feel a sense of urgency to get on with the job of covering all this stuff, often at a rate of knots. Unfortunately, it is this ‘need for speed’ that so often forces teachers down a path of rapid-fire teaching and light coverage that results in false gains and subsequent gaps in key knowledge and skills. Although this need to push on is understandable, speedy coverage combined with lack of planned time for repeated practice, is most definitely your enemy when it comes to improving basic writing skills.

Although the curriculum remains packed at KS2, at KS1 the expectations regarding writing, and specifically sentence construction and demarcation, have been stripped back somewhat in recent years. It is important to remind ourselves that some of the aspects of writing that were expected to be taught pre-NC 2014, have been shunted into the KS2 Programme of Study (PoS). For example, according to the NC, ‘inverted commas to punctuate speech’ does not need to be introduced until Y3. Adverbs of time and place used to sit squarely in the Year 2 PoS, but again, this has been shifted to Year 3. Of course, the NC clearly stipulates that it remains the school’s decision whether or not they choose to introduce key stage content during an earlier key stage. My experience, however, is that teachers are often teaching this knowledge in KS1, not because they have engaged in deep consideration about whether or not it is relevant to their pupils’ needs, but because they still think that they have to. Even though the NC can no longer be called ‘new’, I find that some schools have yet to engage fully with the PoS laid out within it, and to have those crucial conversations about what should be taught within which year group, and most crucially WHY. I imagine that the conversations that are surfacing about curriculum design and sequencing may well provide a good platform from which these conversations can now take place – hence the timing of this particular blog.

In regards to the WHY question, my response is simple. Any stripping back of the content of the KS1 writing curriculum is a good thing due to the fact that what is left within the PoS is hard! Essentially, we are left with what some might unwittingly call ‘the basics’. That is, the skill of recognising and writing simple and multi-clause sentences, using the correct end punctuation and correct capitalisation. Year 2 takes this a little further by encouraging sentence embellishment: specifically, the addition of detail for the reading through the inclusion of adjectives and noun phrases. Fundamentally, when looked at coldly, there is now scope within the KS1 PoS to focus on the big stuff. Quite right too. As I stated in my opening line, writing is hard, and nothing is harder than supporting young writers to master the concept to transforming their thoughts into well-shaped sentences.

The key word in the last sentence is ‘master’. By this, I mean that they can write a sentence that has a capital letter at the start; that has the appropriate end punctuation; and that may, or may not, be extended by the use of a limited range of subordinating or coordinating conjunctions about any topic (within reason) in any context, be it an English lesson or history lesson or geography lesson and so on. Sounds simple, but the reality is that every teacher knows how hard this is to achieve.

No doubt, the key to success in this pursuit is practice, and lots of it. The danger is that, as I see it in the many classrooms that I visit, time for practice is regularly eroded away by teachers’ beliefs that they constantly need to be pushing on, harder and faster. As soon as the children appear to have grasped a concept (a very different ability to ‘mastering’, I’d like to point out), the teachers feel the urgency to move on: ‘Well done for starting some of your sentences with a capital letter. Now try to vary your sentence starters.’ Thus dashing on before the basic skills are embedding and running the risk of destabilising the yet-to-be-secured foundations. This is a common ‘next step’ that I hear teachers share with children in Year 1/ 2 – I also often seen it modelled in writing. I understand the drive: writing does have a much better rhythm when the sentences start in ways other than beginning with the noun, but there is a time for this next step, and while the children are still in the process of grasping basic sentence security, the time is not right to move on. Instead, what the children need is practice to be able to do this anytime, in any place and in any context.

Put simply, practice is the act of doing something that you can already do, thus allowing that skill to become automatic or second-nature. And, herein may lie the problem. As a profession, we have become nervous about asking children to do something that they can already appear to be able to do. ‘Where are the errors? Where is the challenge? Where is the ambition?’ we might be asked by a well-intentioned observer.

The fact is that we need to develop a bravery about stating what we know best about our subjects. And, one thing teachers know is that getting children to the point of mastering basic sentence construction and punctuation is a challenge. Hence the need for lots of opportunities for practice. This practice need not seem repetitive to the children. It may not occur to them that when they are writing about Lowry’s interpretation of life in Northern England, or the life cycle of a butterfly, that they are actually practising the skill of writing sentences. We do not in fact need to make this explicit to them, after all, it is the factual information of the task at hand that is key. It just so happens, however, that due to our recognition of the importance of time to practise the developing skill of sentence construction, we have engineered a task to share and embed this new knowledge that requires the recording of information in complete sentences. Therefore, when we design tasks across the curriculum that allow time for children to practise the skill of writing sentences in line with the English PoS, we are recognising that the time required to truly master this learning requires more than is available in the specified English lesson teaching time.

Time to practise this vital skill should not just be left to tasks undertaken within the wider curriculum – core practice time should also take place within the English lessons. Time to practise within the time allocated to English lessons falls within what was once called ‘phase 1 teaching’. Although this stage may now fall under different titles in different schools, it refers to the time within the English unit when you explicitly teach reading: both decoding and comprehension in KS1 moving to the dominance of comprehension tuition in KS2. When we teach reading, we often require children to express their understanding of what they have read in order to appreciate if they really have grasped what the text is telling them. We might, for example, following a read of a text featuring a dastardly villain, invite the children to discuss the appearance of the character and then write a WANTED poster recalling the distinguishable features of the accused. To give another example, following a read of a text featuring a character in distress, we might encourage the children to explore their thoughts and then record them in the form of a diary entry. The purpose of these writing tasks is to convey the children’s understanding of what they have read. In that sense, we are not teaching them how to write; instead we are allowing them time to practise the writing skills that we have already taught (perhaps in a previous unit) for the purpose of shedding a light on their reading development. As a teacher, when looking at these written outcomes, not only can we gain an insight into how their reading for meaning is developing, but we can assess their understanding of the key skill of sentence construction and demarcation. The beauty of this way of working is that we are able to see how well the children are able to construct sentences and demarcate them when sentence structure and demarcation is not the focus. If they can maintain those skills when they are focused on another matter e.g. conveying their understanding of character or reflecting on a character’s motives, then you can be assured that they are well on the way to mastery. If on the other hand, the burgeoning sentence demarcation skills that you celebrated in their last piece of focused writing (perhaps at the end of a previous unit when sentence demarcation was stated loud and proud as the success criteria for the piece) are now sadly absent, then the subsequent writing focus needs to be…yes, you’ve guessed it…basic sentence construction and demarcation.

The simple truth is that moving on too soon from this focus is futile. Until the children have really mastered sentence construction and demarcation at a basic level, it will just keep on coming back to bite. Look ahead by all means, but think carefully about moving on until the KS1 PoS is well and truly secure.

 

​In my previous blog, KS1 mathematical recording is not just for Ofsted I considered the question that I am often asked by teachers when reflecting on their maths teaching, “What should it look like in their books?” This led to reflection as to the purpose of recording in maths. I concluded that recording is essential, although how this is achieved depends on the purpose of the mathematical recording - whether it aims to make connections between models, practise a new skill, record the journey through a problem, develop precision in reasoning, focus on reflection and evaluating strategies...

In this blog, I have tried to capture some ideas which might support teachers (KS1 especially) to develop manageable and meaningful mathematical recording. What follows are some practical suggestions and examples of what is achievable in KS1. All examples show work produced by Year 1 children and have been provided by some of the amazing practitioners that we have the pleasure of working with. They show how recording can be manageable and meaningful and support pupils to deepen their understanding of maths; they show just how important recording in maths can be.

Encourage pupils to record alongside concrete models

Through supporting pupils to move from concrete to abstract, through pictorial representations, mathematical understanding is deepened. In this example from Ashtree Primary School in Stevenage, I was delighted to watch as pupils chose their level of challenge and then busily built their part whole models, recording them independently.

 

​

Encourage pupils to record pictorially and abstractly together

In addition to supporting transfer between models to build depth of understanding, recoding pictorial representations alongside abstract ones, ensures that those pupils who find recording difficult can still prove their mathematical understanding and provides an opportunity to practise the elements of recording the pupil is finding hard.

For example, the pictorial representation of 31 below, produced by a Year 1 child from St. Paul’s Catholic Primary School in Cheshunt, leaves no room for doubt over the intention of the pupil and allows the teacher to identify that further practise in writing the numeral 3 is required and provided.

 

In the example below, from St. Alban & St. Stephen Catholic Infants, pupils have used abstract representations to show understanding of the connection between the part whole model and addition and subtraction.

 

 

Develop depth of understanding through encouraging multiple representations

In the example below, from Boxmoor Primary School in Hemel Hempstead, the pupil is recording their understanding in many different ways including using their own representation and each different representation is exposing something different about their understanding. 

 

 

Similarly, from the same school, the representations below all show the same thing, but each tells us something different about what the child understands.  For example the tens frame model showing understanding of the two parts of the whole, the part whole model emphasizing the understanding that the parts go together to create the whole and the bar model highlighting understanding of the relative sizes of numbers.

 

 

Provide pupils with opportunities to complete representations to show understanding

Often activities can be “tweaked” so that the amount of recording needed is limited or to enable pupils to record in different ways, for example by completing representations.  This example from Millbrook School in Cheshunt, provides an excellent example of just that and ensures that the focus can be placed on showing mathematical understanding.

 

 

Similarly this example, from St. Gregory’s Catholic Primary School in Northampton, has provided the opportunity for the Year 1 pupil to complete the representation to show understanding.

 

Provide opportunities to annotate representations to focus on reasoning

When the focus of the recording is reasoning, providing representations in questions can enable children to be able to annotate what is already there to show their understanding and so the focus can be placed on explaining how the pupil knows. 

 

 

Encourage pupils to prove how they know

Proving does not need to involve words.  Consider how, in the example below, the pupil has proved that one more than 12 is 13.

 

 

However, Year 1 pupils can reason in writing.  In the example below from St Paul’s, the pupil has proved their understanding pictorially and in writing.In addition, it has given the teacher an opportunity to provide the pupil with precision.

Support pupils to develop independence in recording

At St Teresa’s in Borehamwood, pupils have access to blank tens frames and part-whole models which they can use at any time to support their recording; developing both independence and mathematical recording.

Use questions with limited recording to uncover understanding that is not yet secure

In the question below, pupils are being asked to think deeply about the structure of the problem, but the recording required is limited.

 

 

Use recording to challenge

Using the example above, challenge could be added by asking pupils to prove their selection or by considering how else the problem could have been presented. What could the worded problem be? Challenge can often be offered by simply using the command: show me another way.

Support pupils to know how the recording could look through modelling

Through models on working walls and providing recording scaffolds, pupils can be shown how the recording might look. Where these are used most effectively, pupils will use them repeatedly from many different starting points and will start to develop their own links too. Having used the same recording frame many times, starting at different points, pupils have the opportunity to reinforce understanding, make new links and develop independence.

 

 

Give pupils the mathematical vocabulary

vocabulary precisely is essential in the development of a mathematician. By providing the mathematical vocabulary and using this recorded task, the teacher has made the focus the use of accurate mathematical language.

 

Give pupils the language to communicate mathematically

Pupils need to be supported to talk mathematically before they will be able to record in this way and we know that the quality of this talk is crucial.  This is one of the reasons that speaking frames are so integral to the new ESSENTIALmaths resources.  The talk has value in itself and so will not always be recorded, but the same speaking frames used to support the talk, can be used as writing frames where appropriate.  In addition, talk can be captured where this is purposeful.  Some schools achieve this by using post-it-notes or stickers written on and stuck into books or by recording directly into the book.

I am not advocating that this be used all of the time for every child, but it could be a great use of an adult in the room as it helps you assess understanding that you may not have seen yourself and it builds self-esteem for the child.  It can also help everyone to focus on the importance of reasoning rather than just the answer.  When considering capturing talk you might consider:

• When is this most achievable and beneficial?  Carpet time/small-group discussions/during practical activities…
• Who would it be useful to focus on? 
• How will talk be captured? 

In the examples below, key mathematical noticing and explanations have been captured effectively by other adults in the room.

 

 

 

Other schools use i-pads or other recording devices to capture the rich reasoning in their classes and to offer the children a different audience and medium to share their recording through.

Remember recording DOESN’T have to be all about books…

Pupils tend to like recording in unusual places.  Sometime the allure of a post-it or coloured sugar paper can work wonders and can allow for collaboration and recording on the run … 

In the example below, pupils worked together to consider the number nine and all the ways that they could record this.  Whilst the post-it note came from a quick challenge question from a teacher who said “4 is 4 less than 8.  How else could we say that?”

 

 

 

 

Value recording for the maths

KS1 pupils sometimes identify the best mathematicians as those who record most neatly and this can be a telling sign of what we show that we value in our classrooms.  It can be important to make sure that we are show how we value recording which really shows the mathematical understanding.

In summary, I would suggest that we enjoy developing mathematical recording with our pupils, thinking carefully about the purpose that the recording has in each case and ensuring recording provides opportunities for all pupils to access tasks independently, develop their understanding and to demonstrate this.  If we focus on the needs of our pupils and developing their mathematical understanding, we won’t be caught in the trap of thinking that we need to record to provide evidence for Ofsted!

Top tips for developing manageable and meaningful maths recording in Year 1

• Encourage pupils to record alongside concrete models
• Encourage pupils to record pictorially and abstractly together
• Develop depth of understanding through encouraging multiple representations
• Provide pupils with opportunities to complete representations to show understanding
• Encourage pupils to prove how they know
• Support pupils to develop independence in recording
• Use questions with limited recording to uncover understanding that is not yet secure
• Use recording to challenge
• Support pupils to know how the recording could look through modelling
• Give pupils the mathematical vocabular
• Give pupils the language to communicate mathematically
• Remember recording DOESN’T have to be all about books…
• Value recording for the maths

​