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

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

This Wiki page contains a chart which purports to map all the sound/spelling correspondences used in English orthography. I have counted them, it amounts to 421 correspondences (though I would say that some of them are rather dubious, such as saying that the /oy/ spelling in 'gargoyle' is 'oy-e'). However, even including the dubious ones that makes it 421 correspondences to be learned as opposed to marsha's claim that 4,217 words have to be learned 'word by word'. A considerably lighter cognitive load?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_orthography

I should say that I didn't read the accompanying article so don't challenge me on anything it says or infer that I approve of what it says. I was just looking for a correspondences count.

P.S I got a bit lost off at one stage when counting; may have undercounted by 10.

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

A positively mouldy old chestnut. Of course it would be incorrect. The children are told which are real words and which are not. I can't imagine many 6y olds being unable to realise that 'blow' to rhyme with 'cow' isn't a real word.

However, even including the dubious ones that makes it 421 correspondences to be learned as opposed to marsha's claim that 4,217 words have to be learned 'word by word'. A considerably lighter cognitive load?

Maizie, the article deals with correspondences (seems an awful lot, BTW) whereas masha is talking about actual words. By learning all the correspondences, (surely nobody ever did) you still can't just know which one goes with which each particular word, particularly for spelling.

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

A positively mouldy old chestnut. Of course it would be incorrect. The children are told which are real words and which are not. I can't imagine many 6y olds being unable to realise that 'blow' to rhyme with 'cow' isn't a real word.^

Except when you are only 5 or 6, while you might be expected to know the word 'blow' which rhymes with snow, what you can't be expected to know is that that there is definitely no such word as 'blow' which rhymes with cow.

Just as well they don't include blow in the tests

By learning all the correspondences, (surely nobody ever did) you still can't just know which one goes with which each particular word, particularly for spelling.

Well, I must have done because I could read every one of their exemplar words.

What is certain is that there are by no means 4,217 words in English which have a unique correspondence in them.

I find it surprising that you seem to think that spelling is a question of 'just knowing'.

It has to be learned and the most effctive way to learn it is through grouping words by correspondences and comparing words. And writing them enough times to develop automaticity. And having little tricks by using a 'spelling pronunciation' for remembering the spellings of 'odd' words, and so on and so on. There are all sorts of things going on with learning spelling and learning, and noting which correspondence goes where is part of it.

At the rate of 10 a week (which everyone knows get forgotten rapidly) how many weeks would it take for anyone to sit and consciously learn to spell 4,217 words?

what you can't be expected to know is that that there is definitely no such word as 'blow' which rhymes with cow.

In which case, as we're always being told that these 6y olds expect words to have 'meaning', it's most likely they'd go for one which they 'know'.

Yes, obviously, maizie, we have all learned to read, so probably learned more by doing, rather than learning 421 correspondence as theory before being unleashed on the printed word.

There are very few words in English that have a unique spelling and because they are so unusual, they are easy enough to learn. But there thousands of words (possibly most words) that could have more than one phonically legitimate spelling and we have to get to know which actual spelling is correct. Your suggestions of grouping words by correspondences or having a 'spelling pronounciation' are useful ones - but there is still a lot to learn, whether by conscious effort or just by experience.

^"what you can't be expected to know is that that there is definitely no such word as 'blow' which rhymes with cow."

In which case, as we're always being told that these 6y olds expect words to have 'meaning', it's most likely they'd go for one which they 'know'.^

Id assume that children would be most likely to go for the one they know, but it tends to be critics of the test that tell us "that these 6y olds expect words to have 'meaning'", rather than defenders of the test. If the test is diagnostic, what does the test tell us about children who mis-read the real words in a phonically plausible way?

ThreeTomatoes it's actually a hoax that went around the internet for years before being reported in various newspapers.

www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CEEQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmedizin.ikamed.ch%2Fdefault.asp%3FFILE%3Ditems%2F1194%2F158&ei=sqwuU5aWH-fy7Aai_IGwBg&usg=AFQjCNGfitxgD_488T1Zkscguy58ZRsaug&sig2=Bfy8UlaQLuuFXW-3yuaiRw&bvm=bv.62922401,d.ZGU

copper.chem.ucla.edu/~jericks/Fonts/Deseret%20Objections/bogus%20word%20jumble.pdf

www.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/people/matt.davis/cmabridge/

Cecily P it's actually much easier to apply the alternative sound/spelling relationships for reading as it is a visual process and trying the alternatives can be done quickly (as long as the readers knows there are alternatives) to arrive at the right word but spelling requires deeper memory that develops with repeated exposure over time.

It's interesting that the actual research based on the hoax found that jumbling the letters in words resulted in slower reading speeds (36% decrease) and reduced comprehension significantly.

mrz I know that whenever I've encountered paragraphs like that, I can read them fairly quickly- but not nearly as quickly as a 'real' paragraph. And at a much more conscious level- I definitely have to work out some of the words. To me, it's just like reading a paragraph full of typos- there's a split second of hesitation as I register what is written (or at least that it's not a word I know) before I 'translate' it into what is actually meant.

So, for me, I never have believed the point that they were trying to prove.

The hoax text keeps the first and final letters the same and jumbles the middle (which limits the number of words which can be changed) the research showed that jumbling all letters including 1st and last, significantly slows down reading speed and ability to understand the text. As the research involved university students, so presumeably fluent, experienced readers, jumbling letters has more impact on reading that the hoax suggests.

Cecily P it's actually much easier to apply the alternative sound/spelling relationships for reading as it is a visual process and trying the alternatives can be done quickly (as long as the readers knows there are alternatives) to arrive at the right word but spelling requires deeper memory that develops with repeated exposure over time.

True, mrz; if they misread a word, it doesn't make sense (except on very rare occasions when it might) so they try another alternative, there is no such help for spelling which is why there are far more poor spellers than poor readers.

Spot on, CecilyP.

And as mrz rightly says,
spelling requires deeper memory that develops with repeated exposure over time.

But exposure alone is not enough for most people - only the ones with exceptional visual memories. Most people learn more by writing or typing words. They need the help of the physical memory.

Maizie: At the rate of 10 a week (which everyone knows get forgotten rapidly) how many weeks would it take for anyone to sit and consciously learn to spell 4,217 words?

That's why nobody becomes a proficient writer of English in less than 10 years; why most only manage it by the end of their further education; and why half of all speakers of English remain very uncertain spellers for the rest of their lives.

The whole test is POINTLESS. You will get the results in the end of year report with the actual words PASS OR FAIL which is an outrage for a 5/6 yo. It will not mean they will or will not be brilliant readers as they go throught school and by Y4 and Y6 they are such hugely different children it won't matter and you won't even recall their result.

Do not even mention it to your child, they hardly notice they are doing 'a test' and to put even 1 ounce of pressure ona child to pass a test at this age is an outrage.

What matters at this age is progress and happiness, progress for them, not what a test says.

It is not a test! It is a screening check to assess which children possess specific phonics skills and which children need additional support to ensure they do. It should not be necessary because schools that are teaching and assessing phonics knowledge on a continuous basis will already know which children can and can't blend and segment well, which sounds they know and which sounds they have still to master. But, as is apparent from the low pass rates in some schools, not all schools are doing that and the screening clearly focuses their minds in that direction.

When I said repeated exposure I didn't mean simply looking at the word masha

If you get the results in the end of years report as pass or fail that is down to the school not the check grants

You will get the results in the end of year report with the actual words PASS OR FAIL

And yet it is referred to as a screening test which should be screening for something specific, rather than having an arbitrary pass mark. I will ask again what is to be made of a child mispronouncing one of the real words in a phonically plausible way? What if this mistake takes the score one below the pass mark?

As I said if the school chooses to report the result in the end of year report as pass or fail that is down to their failing nothing to do with the check cecilyp

we use the check as part of our ongoing assessment of phonic knowledge, the overall mark is actually irrelevant to us but the results show which sounds each child is still not secure in so we can work further on these on an individual basis. I