Guest Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 L: Reading 'Links sounds to letters, naming and sounding the letters of the alphabet' Do you expect your children to name and sound ALL the letters of the alphabet to achieve this statement?
AnonyMouse_33773 Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 We have broken down the statement. Our children learn to decode CVC words at the same time as learning the letter sounds, i.e. learn to read 'sat' after learning 's', 'a' and 't'. Naming comes after decoding simple words with all letters of the alphabet and some digraphs at our setting, to avoid confusion. (Letter names are needed for spelling, which comes later.)
AnonyMouse_79 Posted March 10, 2014 Posted March 10, 2014 Within the original profile, 20 or more used to be the magic number ( sounding and naming). I would imagine this still applies?
SueFinanceManager Posted March 10, 2014 Posted March 10, 2014 Just for your information I have moved this to the new forum area I set up called 'Development Matters' It can be found in For discussion of non-setting based issues - Mix, mingle and chat! → Development Matters
Guest Posted March 10, 2014 Posted March 10, 2014 It doesn't state that they have to be able to do it for all letters, so I wouldn't expect them to for all letters, but at the same time, I wouldn't tick it as achieved if they can do it for like 2. I'd go for a snapshot number of say 10.
AnonyMouse_43750 Posted March 14, 2014 Posted March 14, 2014 20 certainly used to be the magic number. However within our City moderation a few years ago it was suggested that it should be around 13 or more.
Guest Posted March 14, 2014 Posted March 14, 2014 I was told more than half -so 14 at eyfs moderation meeting.
AnonyMouse_33773 Posted March 14, 2014 Posted March 14, 2014 '... sounding the letters of the alphabet' I would interpret this all letters of the alphabet. Because of the ambiguity we can't use the DMs; it would be unprofessional. We've had to create our own statements within the age bands. Over the past years we've analysed and further defined and clarified them as we've observed the children and provided learning opportunities for them. Even today we made some changes to the ones for the concepts for measures. Is anyone doing something similar?
AnonyMouse_30128 Posted March 15, 2014 Posted March 15, 2014 '... sounding the letters of the alphabet' I would interpret this all letters of the alphabet. Because of the ambiguity we can't use the DMs; it would be unprofessional. We've had to create our own statements within the age bands. Over the past years we've analysed and further defined and clarified them as we've observed the children and provided learning opportunities for them. Even today we made some changes to the ones for the concepts for measures. Is anyone doing something similar? I think the difficulty with coming up with your own system is that it doesn't fit with any one else's. The dm's (or should i say learning outcomes )are there as a framework of development. We use them much more holistically than is being described here. There will always be personal judgement in any decision and unless you are training all the schools that your children go to in your system it will not be effective. The statement in the OP lends itself to a emerging developing secure type system where emerging would be a few letters and sounds (probably from their name) developing would be naming and sounding letters in a variety of words and secure would be knowing all the letters and sounds of the english alphabet. I have to say we focus heavily on the sounds of the words because we follow letters and sounds but parents nearly always teach to the letter names...if we can join up these systems then we've cracked it!
AnonyMouse_33773 Posted March 15, 2014 Posted March 15, 2014 (edited) There will always be personal judgement in any decision and unless you are training all the schools that your children go to in your system it will not be effective. We're reducing confusion and subjectivity with our rewording of theDMs/LOs, and I'm spending far less time now moderating the judgements of colleagues. Our system is effective because it enables us to better support children's progress whilst with us. Primary teachers are happy with our summaries. (More specific wordings can't be less useful than vague ones.) And, in any case they make their own baseline assessments. Edited March 15, 2014 by Wildflowers
Recommended Posts