year 1 phonics check

[SmileAndNod]

Does anyone know if this is done in the summer term, or is there no set time for it? Also what exactly is it they check? That they can decode a word rather than read? It was mentioned at the start of the year but nothing since!
Thank you

It takes me about 4 hours in total cavell 30 children x 5 mins each plus recording and prep of mark sheets

Mashabell my DD is one of those good readers you're referring to, and I'm very glad that she'll be doing the check in June. She does still need to use her phonics knowledge every time she reads, sometimes automatically, sometimes with a little support and prompting.

Without the phonics check, I think there would be a very real danger that the school would make the assumption that she no longer needed to learn or use phonics, and that is one message that I absolutely don't want her to receive.

As a previous poster said, I think early readers need to be checked as much or more than others- once they start reading independently, it's important to check that they're approaching new words correctly.

Is it the pseudo words which both people so much?

If so, then maybe do a check with 20 words that already appear in popular children's books:

oompa
snozberry
lumos
grimauld
muggle
galumphing

etc.

I don't mean the phonics assessment using these words btw - just meant parents fussing over the existence of pseudo words included in the test.

I know the point of pseudo words in the assessment/screening is to avoid words a child may of seen/heard before.

www.spelfabet.com.au/2012/12/nonsense-words/

phonics helps with the phonetically regular bits, of which there are many. OK, so it's sod all help with the phonetically irregular bits, of which there are also many, but some help is better than none.

Which words from your post do you think aren't phonically spelt? I'd say 'english' is probably the least 'phonetically' regular, but I can't see anything else that isn't very decodable.

I don't really understand what you mean by later on theyre going to have to learn, for example, that "ight" is not i-guh-huh-t! off to google about this now!. Can you explain a bit more?

*threetomatoes" - phonics teaching means children are taught that the "ight" pattern of letters is pronounced "ite". It is basically about learning the correspondence between letters (either singly or grouped as in the "ight" example and sounds.)

The misuse of the term "phonetic" in that passage makes me wince, and I can only assume it was written by someone who either does not understand the difference in meaning between phonetic and phonemic, nor grapheme/phoneme correspondences, or someone whose aim is to obfuscate.

All language which can be spoken is phonetic got refers to the exact sounds made when speaking. The phonemes are the 'units' of sound which carry meaning. The grapheme/phoneme correspondences in English are not one-to-one (either way round). Phonics is the centuries old, well proven way of cracking the grapheme/phoneme relationships. And that is relationships plural. Suggesting that phonics is based on one-to-one correspondences is also an error.

I saw it as I pressed post, meditrina and was hoping no-one would notice I'd misused it. It usually makes me wince too.

If I'm not mistaken, and I could be, Andrew Davis is on a publicity mission. He is, or was, trying to sell tickets to some sort of conference he's speaking at, which he is running and is based on some 'research' he had published in a journal that he runs and edits. The research didn't actually appear to be based on any evidence or experience and was just a very, very,very long opinion piece. Or at least I think it was, I didn't actually get past the 1st 20 pages. That Guardian piece along with asimilar BBC advert was just advertising himself rather than any sort of reliable opinion. To say it isn't very accurate would be putting it mildly.

But they wouldn't threetomatoes if they'd been taught that 'igh' is one of the spellings of the sound 'i', in the same that that that they'd be taught that 'wh' is one of the spellings of the sound 'w' for example.

There are so many inaccuracies in Andrew Davis's articles it's very difficult to take anything he writes seriously. His own colleagues have distanced themselves from his claims.

He has admitted himself his objection is purely a philosophical one.

Threetomatoes it's very clear reading your post that you haven't seen good phonics teaching action. I think you would be astonished at how quickly and easily many children pick it up.

Among your bold words are many that a (well-taught) early reader in late reception or early Y1 would have no problem with:

Helps
Simple
Google
Really
Fully
Several
Example
Phonically
Have
Books
Making

There are also many words that might he read incorrectly at first, but the incorrect reading would be very close to the real world- so the child would probably be able to self-correct:
Because
English
Purpose
Value
Don't
Only

I used to believe that many words needed to be taught as wholes, alongside phonics. However, since beginning to teach DD1 to read, I have become a phonics convert and have been amazed by how much of English is easy to read by 'sounding out'. I have only consciously taught DD one word as a unit- the word 'one'.

Please excuse all the typos- my phone is playing up.

The simple fact is that English is fully phonetic although more complex than some other languages such as Swedish or Spanish.

I've been puzzling as to why why I never did get the 'Grimauld Place' joke. Just realised that I'm not thick, just English! Bring English I always read 'au' as /or/; JK Rowling is Scottish and 'old' in a Scottish accent does sound more like 'orld'. Think of Edinburgh being described as 'auld reekie'!

Phew!

Mrz: The simple fact is that English is fully phonetic

Yes, in the sense of using sounds rather than gestures, facial expressions or rubbing of noses to communicate.

English spelling is most definitely not phonetic, as defined in the OED (of a system of writing) having a direct correspondence between symbols and sounds.

Meditrina: The grapheme/phoneme correspondences in English are not one-to-one (either way round).
Indeed. English spelling is not phonetic – in the normal sense of that word (see OED definition in my last post).

And that's why English-speaking children take roughly 3 years to become even just modestly competent readers, while other Europeans become fluent in one year or less. And why they have very few adults with severe literacy problems, while all Anglophone countries have many.

Finnish children take just three months to learn to read any word in their language, because each spelling has just one pronunciation, and each sound has just one spelling. It is completely phonetic.
NO: and - Any Apron; on - Only Once Other; weight - hEIGHt; windy day- winding road ...
or
men - many; winning - women; so - show toe; blue shoe flew through to you too ...

Children who have problems with learning to read and write English have difficulty coping with the inconsistencies of English spelling. - NOT because they have an insufficient grasp of phonics.

The idea that fluent readers might need more phonics is utterly insane. - They will never quite finish learning to read or write, because almost nobody ever learns how pronounce, or spell, ALL English words - because English spelling is not phonetic.

Even very good young readers keep stumbling over some words for many years, but that's entirely because some letters in them don't have their main sound (echoed, lassoed, marine ...) – (eCHoed, lassOEd, marIne). NOT BECAUSE THEY HAVE AN INSUFFICIENT GRASP OF PHONICS.

I think the aim of fanatical phonics evangelists is to obfuscate – to obfuscate the fact that the inconsistencies of English spelling are the main reason why so many English-speaking children have trouble learning to read and write.

I think the aim of fanatical phonics evangelists is to obfuscate – to obfuscate the fact that the inconsistencies of English spelling are the main reason why so many English-speaking children have trouble learning to read and write.

I have some sympathy with this statement. Personally I think some phonicsy people try much harder than others to muddy the water. But, in the end, I think that the al of ones who keep banging away at the phonics drum endlessly, do have a genuine fear of mixed methods, and rightly so. The problem is that they attack anything and everything that isn't pure synthetic phonics, and much beyond phonics is not mixed. (tricky words, for instance, which phonics cannot do without, however much some argue black is white on that particular topic!!!) meaning not only do they chuck the baby out with the bath water but they stamp on her, disfigure her and expose her to ensure as best they can that a foster family can't rescue, dry and nurture her.

The fear of mixed methods is well placed. Using it, 20% of children do not learn to read well. Using phonics, then it is only 5% or so.