Same spellings in year 2 as year 1?

[jb707]

My son is in year 2. He has noticed that the spellings he has this term are the same as he had in year 1. Is this common place?

Spellings aren't commonplace ...each school has their own methods

that doesn't sound right to me, could it be that last year he was given some more advanced ones than the others in the class and this year the teacher hasn't realised that? I would pop a note in his bag saying that you 'think' the spellings are the same as last year, is he bringing home the right list? and then see what the teacher says.

DD's old school did that all the time. They called it "consolidation".

Unless he already spells them right every time he uses them in his writing, it probably doesn't matter that much (and if he does, you could just ignore them).

Words which teachers give for learning are almost invariably ones with some irregulary used letters (e.g. teacher, learning, ones). A few pupils are able to spell correctly after learning them once, but most need lots of relearning before they are able to do so consistently.

Count yourself lucky if your son is able to learn to spell easily.

Some spelling lists from one school's web site ...irregular masha?

away say
good again I’ll boy soon
cat round animals night
long tree never narrator
how things next
did new shouted first car
man after us
going lots three
where eat food need head
would everyone fox that’s
king
or our town
took way fish I’ve
school has been gave around
think yes stop mouse every
home play must something garden
take red bed fast
didn’t may ran dog right still
well sea found

Can't read the list properly, Mrz, and am in a hurry.

Teachers often mix regular with irregular spellings (partly because they are not fully aware which are which).

Spellings for some sounds (ee, long oo) are completely unpredictable (see me ski, fool rule).

I have a 1-2 split class and we are currently doing the first 100 high frequency words, so the year two children probably did do them last year.

Some of them are getting 4/10, so I don't feel bad about the possibility of repeating spellings from a previous year.

The formatting disappeared masha but some sample words from the lists

cat, man, did, long, bed, dog, and, yes, stop, red, fast ...

as a secondary school English teacher, any consolidation of spellings can only be a good thing. trust me!

even though the evidence shows spelling tests a poor way to teach spelling?

I think if this is married with using in context at school and home as well as learning any particularly rules it won't do any harm.

rules?

The school I teach at uses a variety of methods for spellings.

We do send home a weekly list. This may be fully personalised, based on an assessment at the start of each term that spots patterns that each pupil is weak at (eg words ending-ck, or -tion). Personalised lists can also come from errors I've highlighted in their written work (whith, sor, etc)

Alternatively, I set spellings differentiated at a group level based on that week's topics. This might be maths vocab (eg names of shapes) or a spelling pattern that we've looked at in phonics (we're doing irregular plurals this week).

The lists based on the assessments and their own errors may well cause repeats to occur if there are spelling patterns that a pupil finds more tricky. I will set 'with' again and again until the child starts to use it correctly instead of whith.

sorry things like silent e, adding ed, adding ful etc

Oh dear

"silent e"?

Thought we all talked about split digraphs nowadays?

www.spelfabet.com.au/2013/07/spelling-for-kids/

"even though the evidence shows spelling tests a poor way to teach spelling?"

Mrz - I have been reading these boards now for several years and I have huge respect for your expert opinions. But... My eldest dc was always in the top group for spellings at his infant school, and had little trouble learning them so always did well in his tests.

He then went up to the linked juniors. They didn't do spelling tests and I was always reassured reading here that they were old hat anyway. Spellings were instead being taught via phonics and what I assume to be the 'modern' methods. I really really tried to be open minded, trust me I did.

Unfortunately, dc's spelling in written work deteriorated significantly in the last couple of years. I was starting to get seriously worried. Now suddenly the school has had a change of heart and since the beginning of this term (now in yr5), a weekly spelling test has been introduced. And do you know what? My dc's spelling in written work has leapt forwards immeasurably.

Now it could be a coincidence. But... But...

Many children's spelling seems to deteriorate around Y2 and Y2, when they begin to do less controlled, independent writing.

There are at least 4,000 common English words with irregular/unpredictable spellings. Even bright pupils take around 10 years to learn them all. Many can still not spell large numbers of them 'correctly' by the time they leave school. Progress in learning them is by no means even.

GuinevereOfTheRoyalCourt I don't think I have said that children don't find it easy to learn lists only that all the research shows that sending home lists of words to learn is a poor way to teach spelling.

sending home lists of words to learn is a poor way to teach spelling

Sending home lists for learning is ok. It's class testing and how the results are used that can be pointless and absolutely horrible for poor spellers. (There is nothing wrong with children testing themselves on a computer as part of learning to spell.)

Even if no lists are sent home, learning to spell English is mainly matter of learning lists: blue shoe flew through to you too... leave, sleeve, believe, even... see me by the sea...

You might teach with your lists masha but some schools actually teach children how to spell without confusing them