does your reception child know all 45 set words yet?

[emandjules]

and can read, write and spell them. Just being naughty and comparing to see how dd is doing. She was barely talking a year ago, so just wondering how she compares to her peers.

soupie - do you mean they have removed those 45 words from all written stuff at his school ?!

That would be fun

a
all
am
and
are
at
away
big
can
cat
come
dad
day
dog
for
get
go
going
he
I
in
is
it
like
look
me
mum
my
no
of
on
play
said
see
she
the
they
this
to
up
was
we
went
yes
you

Ds can read them all and can spell about 30 of them and write them. He can also read about 2/3 of the year 1 words. However, I would far prefer it if he knew none of the words and could make friends with just one of his class mates .

There are a great set of fridge magnets with all the words on and he loves them (GLTC do them amongst others)

oh those-yes he can

I am guessing about 14 they (twin boys) would struggle with - although many of the others they are likely to sound out before they say them.

No real idea although looking at the list hula has posted I think dd can read all of those, but the only words I have seen her write off her own bat have been "baby" and "love", and her name. She won't be told

Actually, I tell a lie, ds could read those words by about Christmas in year 1, I think.

No, throckenholt, they don't prat about with a list of words. They teach them how to read, not how to recognise 45 words.

dd does know all those could spell them too but she has not been taught them per se . She knows them from reading and her super memory!

This is so sad
I have no problem with schools doing phonics, recognising graphemes, learning to read etc.

But pushing children to write at this age is just wrong. If they focus on reading, the spelling will follow. Many children (especially boys and summer born) are just not ready to write much at this age.

Fine if they want to. But what if they don't?

This is so sad
I have no problem with schools doing phonics, recognising graphemes, learning to read etc.

But pushing children to write at this age is just wrong. If they focus on reading, the spelling will follow. Many children (especially boys and summer born) are just not ready to write much at this age.

Fine if they want to. But what if they don't?

Looking at hulababy's list I'd say dd could read all of those and spell most of them. But she's never been given them as a list, just in general reading and writing.

roisin, dd's teacher told me that by the end of Reception they hope that most children can 'write' (i.e. using any phonetic spelling they choose) (and with no attention paid if letters are written backwards etc.) most of a list of about 25 words I think. She said they don't do spelling until Y1.

soupie - much better idea. I just had a vision of them deleting all those particular words as a protest.

My kids school don't make a big deal of them either thankfully.

DS1 who won't be 5 until June can read all 45 (and more) out of context. He can't write them all down though.

DD1 who was in Reception last year, only knew about 30 by the year end, and she was old for the year. She's now above average for the class - which demonstrates that good/bad readers don't exist in KS1.

flame - one of our local primaries puts the names of 'those that can' up on the wall. Is the purpose to belittle 'those that can't' and encourage the parents to be competitive d'you think? And this school has 300 words as it's Reception target (it's highly oversubscribed due to it's academic success rate and although it's our catchment, we chose to go elsewhere).

DD's school doesn't "do" the lists of words either. They didn't have flash cards and words to bring home to learn. They just started reading books, picking up words as they went. No tests, no nothing. And it seemed to work perfectly fine.

DD didn't start spelling until this year (Y1) and even then they only do half a dozen or so - all very simple with just 1-2 tircky words added in as they go.

Those 45 words were part of the cucrriculum for teachers to use - they are the words children should be able to READ by the end of reception. There was no requirement to be able to spell them at all.

They have, however, now been changed. The new curriculum includes different words t different stages, some for reading and some for spelling.

ds1 didn't start school until he was 5+2 months. In his nursery they did no formal learning at all, certainly no writing, and none of these key words or anythign else. (There were writing/drawing materials around and they were free to draw or 'write' if they wished to). He could read very fluently by this point (basically taught himself at home), but hardly ever wrote at all. He could write his name after a fashion.

During the summer hols we taught him letter formation, because we were moving and he was joining a system where they'd done formal reading/writing for a full year in reception.

By the end of the first term (according to his teacher) he was consistently writing far more than any of his classmates.

I do think reading is key, and spelling/writing logically follow reading. But they really should not be pushed at an early age, it can just put children off learning/school altogether.

That sounds identical to dd's school hulababy.

Surely there's some sort of guideline that regulates how many words children are 'expected' to read by the end of Reception? 300 seems quite cruel. If I think of some of the children in dd's class (I help out with the 'struggling' readers group), there's no way they could achieve that.

At Rezmum's school they only needed to learn 44 words, "play" being seen as an obscene four-letter word that slipped in from one of those gross state-school establishments.

(I'm running away now...)

Doodletoyou I was just answering the OP and explaining what my dd's school do. They don't teach to any lists as they don't follow the national curriculum. They teach reading in an old fashioned manner ie no phonics intially and use old readers eg "Happy Ventures" and "Ladybird keywords - Peter and Jane" therefore she can sight read 300 words+ and spell a majority of them. She can read,write and spell those words from her general reading and from written work they do in class.

She is quite happily reading "Horrid Henry" and some "Rainbow fairies" on her own. at school they read topic books etc on their own, then make their own little books on the topics and they also write their news every monday on their own. Of course, some of her spelling is phonetic but it is "corrected" so she learns the actual spelling. She has had weekly spellings since January.

IF - those 45 words were the guideline for wha they were expected to be able to read - the key high frequency words. If they can read them then they can be presumed to be able to read other words too. The teacher will moniotor this.

For example: all is on the list; prob right to then assume they could read ball, call, tall, etc.

It is different now but I can't find the link to the new stuff.

DD's school is similar in its ascheme in that it using traditional methods along side phonics. So, yes DD did Peter and Jane first, and then began a mix of ORT and other reading schemes. There is no one reading scheme as the school feel they can limit breadth of learning and vocab aquirement. It does seem to work.

Certainly DD knew how to read more than 30 words by the end of reception, BUT there was no expectation to have rrached that level. the girls were given no lists, and there was no reference even to parents of the high frequency lists - I knew about them through MN initially not school.

But the key here is that the child should not feel pushed or presured, they should be learning through play and natural curiousity, tests and stuff are a ridiculous idea at such a young age, and it is important to remember at this stage of education the range of abilities will vary hugely - there will be some children reading and writing almost fluently and others who are stuggling with simple CVC words.

School at this age should be nothing less tan fun!

Yes, I can see that hulababy. But none of these lists include the other words they pick up along the way like 'happy' 'laugh' for instance. I guess if you totted up all the words they can read including the various varieties of words with 'all' as part of them, all the simple CVC words, then they probably mostly could read 300 words. But not 300 different types of words.

If you do find a link to the new regime I'd love to see it. I've been trying to suss out what's happening for ages. Is it the 'letters and sounds' website you mean?

DS2 really struggles with his 45, he did them all and is now starting to get 3 words twice a week spelling tests (very casual though). Ds2 just turned 5 this week, so is mid way in the age range for year.

Ds2 teacher reckons once they start spelling the word it gets easier, and it has tbh. Ds2 reads ORT level 1+ books, mostly without any help. Happy with level he is at, I know ds1 was further ahead, but to be honest it's not a race, I just want Ds2 to enjoy reading,and not see it as a chore.

fircone...of course my dd plays at school. A lot of her "formal" learning is through play like the money man game for learning about money. Also they use a lot of "orchard" games.

yes she goes to a prep school but I have no issue with state schools in fact there are some veryg good state schools near us but we aren't in the catchment area.