So it's going to be essential for 10 yr olds to......

[spudmasher]

be able to spell 'yacht' apparently. Vital in my inner London primary. Don't know how they'll ever get by without it.
Sheesh.
media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/pdf/d/draft%20national%20curriculum%20for%20english%20key%20stages%201%202%20%20%20%2011%20june%202012.pdf

How will they write what they want their intended beloved to own when they sign on at Match.com if they can't spell yacht and Moët?

True, true. Let's hope they can spell 'prenuptial' as well. Don't think that was on the list. I'll ask Gove to add it.

Well, inner London primary school kids might like to write a story about a yacht. I don't think it's the choice of words per se that is the problem, more the whole loony idea of mandatory spelling tests.

And they need to spell bridal and bridle...

Once children leave Y6 at 11 they will never have another spelling lesson again.

If they can't spell yacht by Y6 - when do you expect them to learn it?

What on earth is wrong with expecting 10 year olds to spell yacht?

I learnt the majority of my spelling post year 6, but that's not a good thing. . . .

So once they leave primary school they'll never again read a book or magazine, write an essay with a spell check function on a PC? They'll never post on a forum and have half million posters immediately reply with "It's they're not their or there. HTH "

Spelling tests focus the mind on the actual process of spelling, what's so radical and dreadful about that?

Well, if the only problem in that 52 page detailed draft is one spelling word for one year group, they've done well.

If only, if only, that were the only problem, edith .....

I will be working my way through the y5/6 list with my 5 yearr old.....

don't worry, it will be me learning to spell and she will be checking...

i did not have good teaching at school and am an attrocious speller.

Twas the only thing OP though worth a mention.

I cannot spell yacht first go or a million other words, I'm dyslexic as is DD1.

DD2 has been able to spell better than either of us since she was 9.

For DD1 and I spelling tests should be covered by the Geneva convention - they are a form of cruel torture.

Bunting - this is the problem. Because you and other people find learning to spell hard should nobody be expected to spell properly?

It feels like some teachers would rather deemphasise spelling, then ask some children to do something which is to hard for them.......

Bad spelling is not penalised and for the vast majority of kids it should be.

I've not had direct involvement with a secondary school since, but the comprehensive I helped out at in the late 90s set spellings. Children had to learn to spell keywords in all subjects.

Having said that, setting and testing spellings in the conventional sense doesn't work terribly well ime.

I think the focus on teaching children to spell accurately at a young age is great. The habits of poor spelling start very early IMO. Tbh when I read something badly spelled by an adult it does give a negative impression.

I learnt the majority of my spelling post year 6

Everybody does.

Even the 11-yr-olds who learn all the words on Gove's list (which the majority won't) will still be a long way off spelling proficiency. There are at least 3700 common English words which contain one or more quirky letters.

I haven't counted them all, but I don't think Gove's list contains more than 1000. So even the best spellers will still have much to learn.

I think the point is that spelling tests don't actually improve children's ability to spell.

I don't understand why regular spelling tests wouldn't help with spelling. When I was at primary school (admittedly about 100 years ago) we were sent home from every night with 10 spellings to learn, and we were tested on them as soon as we got in in the morning. The whole process took about 10 minutes after registration.

I can remember learning the spellings on the bus to school every morning, which is something I otherwise wouldn't have done. I think the standard of literacy in our class was pretty good - we also did loads of grammar and sentence construction work at a young age (about 6).

I don't know either, but they certainly don't work with dd1.

She gets 100% in most of her weekly tests, but spells even the simplest words wrong in ordinary writing. She may possibly be mildly dyslexic, but whatever the reason, tests haven't helped!

I think the point is HouseofBamboo they don't work for everyone, only the most able. I think that's why they were phased out? I agree they seemed to work in my school too, but not for everyone.

I also have a problem with the whole 'one for all' spelling thang Gove's bringing in, in that I do think some kids learn later, some earlier, some in one way, some in another.

My sister (Masters degree, went to Oxford, blah blah) couldn't spell to save her life at primary school - I went to the same school, had the same teaching, but was an ace speller by Y6 (and an ace underachiever at Secondary).

Just to add by 'able' I mean those who can best learn in that particular way.

I couldn't spell at all as a child, it all seemed to sink in around 15 for some reason?

Why would they only work for the most able though?

If dyslexia is present then obviously the learning process might be different, but hopefully the child's teacher would take that into account.

I imagine they're not dissimilar to learning times tables by rote. I still don't know all mine. I can do sums on the fly, but I only managed that after working on tills for a while (barwork is excellent for improving mental arithmetic!).

You learn to spell (and to write in general) by reading, imo.