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

I've been doing a sample test with some Y2 children today. TBH not one of them tried to make a real work out of the pseudo words. They have a picture of an alien next to them, they are told they are pseudo words - they know not to try and make a real word.

A good reader will NT turn gex into gets. The will read the word that is there: gex.

If they say gets then they are not using their phonics knowledge or blending properly.

What happens if these children who think psuedo words are real words get shown pseudo words mocked up to look like company logos, on items?

Do they still "misread" them?

They don't think they are real words because the teacher will tell them every time the words aren't real so they know the words are made up. They get them wrong because they don't have an effective strategy for tackling unfamiliar words.

Does it matter whether the word is real or not?

It's only us as adults that know whether the words are real, young kids come across new words all the time (DD read "salutations" tonight and asked me what it meant).

It is a decoding "test" not a comprehension test.

No, it doesn't matter unless people are insisting that words which don't make sense are not words, and therefore should not be read, or that children are making mistakes because they think a non word is a real word.

If children thought the letter jumble was just that, a letter jumble, (like a company logo) and had no opportunity to mistake it for a real word, then perhaps the test would be fair to everyone.

I don't know if the alien idea/picture is enough for that to be true (maybe).

I asked my daughter if she'd been asked to read any made up words yet and she said she hadn't. (That doesn't necessarily mean it's true, but it means that she doesn't remember doing it.)

'A good reader will NT turn gex into gets. The will read the word that is there: gex.' - and a good reader will need knowledge of how words and sentences work in order to read and comprehend this. Maybe a light touch Y1 subbing check. A whole new range of materials for publishers to produce.

EH? I didn't quite get what your post was about, zebedee.

Can you reword it?

The typos. I had to turn NT into NOT and the into they to make sense of what was written. Does that make me a good reader or a bad reader?

It makes you a bad reader, zebedeee, because you assumed that the letter jumbles must be real words instead of reading exactly what is there.

Good reading is all about reading precisely what is there, regardless of whether or not it makes any sense, (hence the phonic check).

Actually, yes- it is about reading precisely what is there. If a text actually doesn't make sense, a good reader should recognise that and be asking why.

A lot of the children I teach struggle to correct their own written work, because when they read it back they read what they meant to write rather than what they actually wrote. Not helpful in any way. A good reader should read it exactly, mistakes and all, but then use their comprehension skills to ascertain what was meant.

In the text not shown, which of the following sentences is appropriate?

a) They had to work on examining its foot.

b) He had to work on freeing its feet.

c) I did not free her foot.

Proof reading for mistakes is a skill not required of 6 year olds. You need to be able to decode accurately and rapidly before you can spot a typo (and know it is a typo) with confidence. This is not screened for in year 1.

Are you suggesting there should be more/longer/different tests in addition to this one specifically for decoding?

Written work in class is already a compositional test. But the point being made by everyone recently is that the structure and composition of an individual word is not sufficient to ensure that it makes sense where it has been written. Or, to restate more simply, whether or not a word, or phrase, makes sense depends on more than how it is spelled.

Proof reading is part and parcel of teaching reading and writing, so yes, I would expect 6 year olds to be able to proof read their work and what they are reading.

I don't remember the "correct all the mistakes in this paragraph" type homework until well into KS2. Is it really done in year 1 now?

I don't remember the "correct all the mistakes in this paragraph" type homework until well into KS2. Is it really done in year 1 now?

No - for the reasons you outlined , meditrina.

Meditrina I'm not sure I see what you're saying. Firstly, I completely disagree that Y1 pupils shouldn't be/aren't expected to proof-read their work. I believe pupils should be taught to re-read and check their writing as soon as they start learning to write. I sure as hell expect my (young) Y1 daughter to check what she's written.

Yes of course they need accurate decoding skills to do this- that was the point I was making. It's one of the reasons why I support the phonics test, including its use of nonsense words. I know it doesn't check for speed of reading, but I think accuracy first, speed later is the way to go.

Personally, no I don't want to see more/longer screening checks- test the decoding early on, make sure the children are able to read accurately, then it's an awful lot easier to build on comprehension and all the other reading skills.

X-post. Not 'read this paragraph and correct the mistakes' but 'read through your work before you hand it in'.

At the most basic level- I'm imagining a group of YR children building words on whiteboards- teacher says, 'ok let's look- we're writing 'dog'. Let's check the sounds. D-o-g. Yes, that's right. Or d-o-p. Hang on, that makes 'dop'. We chose the 'p' instead of the 'g'- can anyone find 'g'?'

I don't spend much time in the EYFS or KS1, so I'd love to know if I'm way off with this picture!

I was saying it's a different skill, that would be taught at an appropriate time, and falls outside the purpose of this test. There is more to being a "good reader" than decoding and if you want to define "good reader" and test for it, you can do so, but not in a screening for the important building-block skill of decoding.

the important building-block skill of decoding
Decoding is only a very minor part of learning to become a fluent reader of English. Learning to read for meaning is far more crucial and far more difficult: ear - early; swan - swam; though - through ...

That's is what many children have problems with and need help with, not decoding.

The futility of the test is confirmed by quite a few really good readers scoring badly in it.

What are the "good readers scoring badly" figures like these days? I know there was a rash of complaints when the first test was launched. But it has had a year or so to settle in.

Learning to read for meaning is far more crucial and far more difficult:

In actual fact, marsha, the research completely disagrees with you.

Why don't you just stick to campaigning for spelling reform and stop spouting off your very ill informed anti phonics opinions.