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

Gizmo. You do not seem to understand the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions.

You cannot be a good reader without phonics.
But yes of course you can have good phonics without being a good reader as of course you need comprehension, inference etc.).

The year 1 test is a phonics screening test not a reading test. It is there as far as I understand because too many children were not being given a good enough grounding in phonics by teachers who think it isn't really needed.

I also looked at the stats posted way earlier. I was shocked at the spike at the 32 correct mark. It seems to me there are clearly children who are being cheated of extra phonics support because they 'pass' when they should probably not have done.

Have you considered that the inability to accurately read the words in a text will be detrimental to your ability to comprehend what you read?

They're not really saying that, gizmo. Their argument goes, a good reader can already decode accurately. It's a sort of circular argument. In fact, most of the phonics arguments tend to assume that good reading incorporates good phonics, (which it probably does) but that doesn't necessarily mean that good phonics incorporates good reading (which is the argument many people who dislike made up words make all the time.)

No CG good readers can read anything accurately without guessing - good readers don't assume they will never meet a word that isn't familar - good readers read what is in the text rather than make it us as they go - good readers don't read strom as storm!

It is a decoding "test" not a reading test

In previous years my "good readers" (those with Reading Ages double their chronological age) have always scored 40/40 effortlessly

They do in the sentence:

The rain and trees are bashing against the windows in this heavy strom.

If a lorry goes past with STROM stencilled on the side then they'll read it as strom. (A bad reader probably will too.)

The rain and trees are bashing against the windows in this heavy strom.

Surely in this case they should read strom, and then say to themselves/adult "strom? don't know that word, maybe it's a mistake and should say storm". They should not read 'storm' straight away.

And in the phonics test (which was after all the point of this thread) where there is no context, they certainly should read it as 'strom'.

Well, quite. But the assertion that a good reader won't read strom as storm is not wholly correct. The truth is that it depends on where you put the word.

As simpson pointed out, we need to separate our readers and our decoders. They're not the same.

agree with TeenAndTween why would a 6 year old assume that because a word isn't in their vocabulary they should substitute a word that is

Anyway, I'm off to watch Sprots Relief.

Readers and decoders can be the same thing.

DD has done the phonics test twice already (once in nursery, although split over 2 mornings and once last year in reception) and passed both times.

Not particularly worried about it this year (yr1) either.

DD reads loads of words that are not in her vocabulary correctly (this evening - "aqualung") however she couldn't decode "tsunami" correctly.

I hesitate to step in to this heated debate but

I am a governor and a year 1 parent, (and a teacher in a former life)

Our school has pretty good record at teaching phonics, they do it well and reinforce it strongly all through reception and year 1. The classes have a phonics slot every day, and within that they do practise real and non real words.

They do a practice test in feb, just to see where the kids are. The kids don't know it as anything but a phonics practice session.

Our school has very high level of FSM and is in a deprived area, we consistently score 90% on phonics, as against national average of 69% (I think)

My youngest has done this intense phonic training, my two eldest did letters and sounds in a much more watered down way. They are all excellent readers and can all decode new words using a variety of skills, BUT my youngest, who is the only one who has done it in this depth and to this extent, is massively better at spelling. She uses phonic spelling patterns, and one of the interesting things to me is that English is actually much MORE phonetic than we think it is, because we don;t know our own phonics. My dh is not from UK and he often says, when helping dd2, he wishes he had been taught English phonic rules when he was learning English.

It is just a decoding test, but there is no reason why most kids shouldn't pass it, it really should only be 2-3 in a class that don't.

Exactly, good post.

My youngest has done this intense phonic training, my two eldest did letters and sounds in a much more watered down way. They are all excellent readers and can all decode new words using a variety of skills, BUT my youngest, who is the only one who has done it in this depth and to this extent, is massively better at spelling.

My two children went to the same primary schools and were taught by the same teachers. One taught herself to read before school and has alway been an excellent speller - without any formal phonics whatsoever.

Her brother had phonics at school but has always been a weak speller and still makes more mistakes.

Some children are simply born with a better aptitude for learning to spell, while others are woefully short of it.

English is actually much MORE phonetic than we think it is

I took the trouble to establish exactly how phonetic English spelling is by analysing the 7,000 (give or take a few) most used English words - words which an average 16-yr-old can be expected to have met.

I found 4,217 words with one or more unpredictably used letters (was, said, key) which have to be learned word by word.

For reading things are a little better. I found only 2,039 in which one or more letters don't have their main sound, like 'ou' in soup or double.

But they are the reason why English-speaking children take an average of three years to become passably confident readers, while other Europeans manage in one year or less.

I took the trouble to establish exactly how phonetic English spelling is by analysing the 7,000 (give or take a few) most used English words

Gosh, did you, Masha? I had no idea. You should have said!

found 4,217 words with one or more unpredictably used letters (was, said, key) which have to be learned word by word.

In your opinion, and to support your spelling reform agenda.

'good readers read what is in the text rather than make it us as they go' - sorry Mrz but when I mentioned that I had to correct a couple of typing errors in a post, in order to comprehend it, I was told that makes me a bad reader. So, seeing as I would like to be a good reader I can decode but cannot comprehend this, what shall I do?

simpson - 'It is a decoding "test" not a reading test' - so would blow to rhyme with cow be correct? (That old chestnut.)

Perhaps you can explain what is unpredictable about was (want, watch, wash, wander, wand, wasp, wallop, waltz, wanton, watt, quadrent, quaff, quagmire, qualify ......)

Zebedeee - AFAIK there are more than one correct answer to some of the questions in the phonics check. Your example would fit into that.

Sorry zebedeee I didn't realise you are only 6 years old