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

But is the actual process of memorising spellings harmful to learning? It presumably also increases vocabulary and helps with the discipline of sitting down and memorising things.

In Singapore at the local schools a great emphasis is placed on spelling and grammar. Local children have to write out the incorrect word correctly 6 times. They generally spell well, it's a very old fashioned method but it does seem to work for the majority?

I have no idea whether it works for the most able all the time but when I think back to my school days the top table children got 100% every week. We were taught all the rules of spelling too, so it wasn't just about rote learning of random spelling lists.

Is it harmful? I think it's time that could be better spent doing something else.

And good grief did we waste a lot of time doing spellings with ds - it was very painful (think I posted about it on here somewhere).

houseofbamboo, it was probably the extensive focus on the use of English that helped your spelling, not a ten minute test a day.

My primary school did weekly spelling tests. Me and another girl always got 100%. Despite working very hard, she went on to fail her English CSE (probably an unidentified SEN, in hindsight, she worked very hard).

I have a double first degree including English, and know that I became good at spelling and writing in general through extensive reading and writing, not spelling tests.

Without being an expert, I would imagine that devoting 10 additional minutes a day to phonics/grammar/sentence structure would be more useful than rote learning.

You can only really 'know' your times tables when you 'get' what numbers really mean ie that 8 x 8 will be more than 6 x 7 without even thinking about it, and I suspect it's the same with spelling. Being able to recite tables or remember words for a spelling test doesn't actually teach children only teaches children a very small amount about maths or English.

It's not encouraging DCs to learn phonics and spelling rules and apply them in their work I mind.

It's bloody spelling tests. Get 10/10 five weeks running go up a group I object to.

DD1 spends 15 minutes a day learning her words, she gets 8/10 max.

DD2 forgets to bring her book home and gets 10/10.

As public humiliation go they are even worse than book bands.

Rosebud - I'm pretty sure that having to learn spellings and be tested on them was what made me focus my mind on the order that the letters came in. I guess we are all a bit different.

Quite. Which is why a 'one size fits all' test is so unhelpful.

Why would they only work for the most able though?

Because the less able (and also bright people with a poor visual memory) simply cannot cope with the memorisation (or mental imprinting) involved.

There is no logic behind most of the quirky English spellings (e.g. sEEk, spEAk, shrIEk). It's simply a matter of imprinting on your mind 'what looks right'.

The pressures of spelling tests do nothing whatsoever for naturally poor spellers, other than giving them sleepless nights and making them hate school.

They are great for good spellers (i.e. the majority of the people on this forum I should think).

A simple way of enabling all children to spell better would be to make English spelling more sensible (as all other European countries have done over the last two centuries, to varying degress). But that is not going to happen (because Sam Johnson declared 250 years ago that it must not be done).

So the number of poor spellers in the UK won't change much either, despite Gove's initiative.

My DC have had weekly spelling tests since reception. They also have to write sentences with those spelling words in them so they understand the context in which the words are used as part of their homework. One of them consistently gets 100% and is given extension words. Homophones are dealt with (night/knight or bare/bear). I don't have a problem with it and I think in the grand scheme of things it helps.

Gove is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't....

He would be less damned if he hadn't ignored the advise of the experts who he appointed to advise this review...

www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/jun/12/michael-gove-curriculum-attacked-adviser?INTCMP=SRCH

Rosebud - I'm pretty sure that having to learn spellings and be tested on them was what made me focus my mind on the order that the letters came in. I guess we are all a bit different.

But how can you be sure? How do you not know that you wouldn't be just as good at spelling if you had never had a spelling test? Never having done a spelling test myself, I think they must be a complete waste of time - so not really much use to good spellers or to poor spellers. Presumably, you can also spell most of the words that never actually appeared in your spelling tests.

I agree with bunting that it is far more important that children learn phonic and spelling rules and apply them to their work.

Gove has not said schools should or shouldn't have spelling tests.

All he's said is that these are the words kids should be able to spell.

There already is a spelling test in the Y2 and Y6 sats...... Just there is currently no list of words that the tests cover.

"I think they must be a complete waste of time - so not really much use to good spellers or to poor spellers. Presumably, you can also spell most of the words that never actually appeared in your spelling tests. "

Well - I was tested on ten words a day every day for 6 academic years (as far as I can remember), so I think I must have covered a fair few!

As I mentioned, there was also a huge emphasis on grammar and sentence construction. Also vocab, comprehension, listening to stories, rote learning of poetry, writing poetry and stories - which obviously all helped as well. But I really can remember the process of learning difficult spellings for tests and yes, I would say it made a difference to me.

I think the phonics system seems great, it's a shame we didn't have that too.

And btw from what I know of Gove (which isn't that much, to be fair, except for the appalling Free School system) I'm not a fan.

Why would they only work for the most able though?

Because the less able (and also bright people with a poor visual memory) simply cannot cope with the memorisation (or mental imprinting) involved.

There is no logic behind most of the quirky English spellings (e.g. sEEk, spEAk, shrIEk). It's simply a matter of imprinting on your mind what looks right.

The pressures of spelling tests do nothing whatsoever for naturally poor spellers, other than giving them sleepless nights and making them hate school.

They are great for good spellers (and the majority of people on this forum probably fell into that category at school).

A simple way of enabling all children to spell better would be to make English spelling more sensible (as all other European countries have done over the last two centuries, to varying degress). But that is not going to happen (because Samuel Johnson declared 250 years ago that it must not be done).

So the number of poor spellers in the UK won't change much as result of this latest return to basics. Teachers turned away from regular testing before because it was found to be of no help at all to those who are not naturally gifted spellers.

Well, Marsha, it wouldn't completely surprise me if Gove decided to change the whole structure of the English language as his delusions of grandeur seem to know no bounds, so we shall see.

Oh good grief Rose, don't give him any ideas.

I remember having my last spelling test ever in the year before I took the Dutch equivalent of A-levels - it was carnage, 95% scored a failing grade (not me, I was a swot).

They weren't one-word tests though, they were formal dictation of whole sentences which included pitfalls of grammar and punctuation as well. I think on the whole this sort of thing would be more effective than single word tests. We took the same sort of tests in French, English and German.

Sorry about posting my reply to HouseOfBamboo twice. I hadn't realised that the thread had moved on to a second page and thought it had not appeared the first time. (Have to relearn the ropes after being away from this forum for quite a while.)

But don't worry Rosebud05, there isn't the slightest chance of someone like Gove ever becoming in favour of modernising English spelling. Only someone who is interested in all children's learning, not just the top end, will ever be in favour of that.

Most politicians will claim that they do, but what they are really after are policies which appeal to the middle classes because they are the ones that vote most. There would be no votes in spelling reform. Back to basics has a much greater appeal.

at my dcs grammar school they continue to have spellings all the way through ks3

ariadne - having spelling tests isn't the same as being taught spellings.

My sister gives her KS3 kids spelling lists as homework to keep the parents happy - but she never teaches them spelling. (And indeed I don't think would have clue how to.)

Why don't you write to Mr Gove and ask him to add 'deprivation' or 'graffiti' to the list - then all the children in SE England commuter villages will also have their time wasted.

Indigo and there you have the crux of the matter - if we don't teach children about how our language works, where it comes from, its internal logic and the exceptions to that logic then indeed we are not teaching spelling, only useless parroting. Children need to be taught the underlying patterns of language the same way they should be taught the underlying patterns of numbers. That will involve a measure of rote learning - but it's learning of the underlying rules, not memorising a set list of words.

Well a 10 year old should be able to spell yacht in my experience is it not the most common thing on nursery friezes for "y"