Confused at to why Reception DD is being taught letter names so soon after sounds?

[Owlelf]

DD is in reception. When she she knew a few letter sounds and could form a few letters. She seems to have progressed really well and knows all get letter sounds, is decoding words and writing captions. To be honest I am really impressed that she has come on so quickly and have to credit her teachers.

I am confused though, that her phonics group are now learning the names of the letters. This evening we read her school book and she seemed to be confusing the letter sounds and names. To my (completely untrained) mind it seems too soon to be confusing her with letter names when she has just learned (?learnt?) the sounds.

I realise I could broach this with her teacher, but would prefer not to as they must know what they are doing- not least given DDs progress so far under their wing.

She is working within stage 3 phonics BTW (her class is split into several groups for phonics, so not all children are learning letter names at the moment).

So I am really interested as to why, at this early stage the letter names are needed? Can anyone explain please?

[EcoLady]

It's quite normal to be taught letter names in phase 3. They do get the hang of it. She'll be learning digraphs & trigraphs (such as 'ng' and 'igh') so they need to be able to say that 'igh' makes the sound 'eye' and is written with the letters 'eye', 'gee' and 'aitch'.

[Eggrules]

My DS's teacher has set this as an optional homework for some of the children. I took it as a sign he was progressing well.

[SoundsWrite]

I'm constantly amazed, Owlelf, that there is this insistence on teaching letter names in YR. When the national curriculum was first conceived, the recommendation was that letters names be taught at the end of Y1/beginning of Y2 and, in my view, that was about right.
The problem, as you suggest, is that many children are confused by being taught both sounds and letter names. They simply don't know which to use.
So, which is it? You need letter names to do dictionary work and to spell your name over the phone. YR children don't need to do either! Moreover, if you use letter names to try and read a word - 'ess' 'ae' 'm' - you can do it until you die but you can't hear the word 'Sam'. Whereas if you say the sounds 's' 'a' 'm', you can easily hear 'Sam'.
When children are secure with sounds and spellings, letter names are a short cut. So, when my daughter asked me how to spell the sound 'ee' in 'stream' before she was really secure with sounds, I showed her by writing the spelling . When she was secure with sounds, in the case of 'archaeology' in Year 5 and she asked me how to spell the 'ee', I would say, "It's the 'ae' 'ee' spelling.

[learnandsay]

My 3yr old daughter learned the ABC song before she knew anything else about writing or letters. She learned in at kindergarten when she was about two. And we used to watch Sessame St. She loves Elmo and can watch him singing the song all day on an endless loop. And she does think and spell using the letter sounds. She spells dog 'dee' 'oh' 'gee' and cat 'see' 'ae' 'tee' etc.

Probably not all that surprisingly, when I want to encourage her to read a word I spell it in letter sound form rather in letter name form. But that gives a major clue to what the word is! So I say things like Baby is bu-aye-bu-ee and she says baby! Hmm, no great surprise. We haven't done it yet. But I reckon she'd spell baby 'Bee' 'ae' 'bee' 'yu'

In fact, thinking about it, maybe that's why she doesn't naturally break written words down into their component letter sounds, perhaps she just doesn't see written words like that! hmmm, I guess traditionally we do have a mixed up approach. I think it's quite natural for kindergartens to teach the ABC song. But maybe it has long lasting side effects which weren't considered!

[CecilyP]

Why would it be quite natural? Those 2 year olds are hardly likely to be looking up words in a dictionary.

[SoundsWrite]

That's what we did with our daughter, Learnandsay. When she was around two and a half, we began playing games with sounds with her. My partner and I would say some sounds and she would put them together to make recognisable words. So, we started with simple CVC words and gradually built up to much more complex CCVCC words. There are lots of variations on this game: reading a story to your child and, instead of reading a word, saying the sounds - One day a big, brown 'f' 'o' 'ks' crept into the farmyard. When picking her up from nursery, I'd also say things like: We're going to 't' 'e' 's' 'k' 'oe' 'z'. Where are we going? And she'd reply 'Tesco's'.
By the age of three she'd also started to segment sounds in simple CVC words. By the age of four, she could segment anything, including some very long non-words. And she got to be so good, she was better and quicker at it than me! Just to make this clear: we weren't looking at any written words at all when we did this. It was all done orally/aurally.
It's just a question of keeping it fun, not doing too much but doing it often, and giving varied practice. Then when they are ready to start learning to read and they can identify sound-spelling correspondences, they can blend and segment anything.

[mrz]

The EYFS profile had a goal of knowing the sounds and names of the letters so teachers panic and teach letter names before children are secure in phonic knowledge which results in some children mixing up the sounds and names when trying to decode and spell so you end up with mAk (make) and nIt (night) Bcoz (because). A pet annoyance of mine are the teachers who tell children lower case are sounds and capitals are names ... NO they aren't!!! [grrr]
Singing the alphabet with young children is a totally different to explicitly teaching letter shape to name correspondence.

[Bonsoir]

My DD was taught the letter names with the sounds à la EYFS profile described by mrz below. She has never mixed the two and has, in fact, always been extremely secure in spelling out loud with letter names (never with sounds) and learned to read easily. She was, I think, well taught but she also covered that ground unusually slowly.

[maizieD]

It might not have confused your dd, bonsoir, but unfortunately it confuses a very significant number of children.

I'm afraid that reading can't be taught according to what works for your daughter; it has to be what works for the greatest number of children. Count yourself lucky that your dd has had no problems.

[SantaIsAnAnagramOfSatan]

ds is in reception too and read me a book for the first time the other night

he knew proper letter names before phonic sounds which i thought would be a problem but the reality is they quickly need both. there are actually few words that can be spelled out using phonics only and when you think of words like 'open' for example you need to know both. i'm no expert but it seems to me that phonics is just a tool for getting started and boosting confidence by allowing the blending and decoding stuff to get underway but the reality is it has to move on fast to rules and exceptions or they'd be completely stuck.

[SantaIsAnAnagramOfSatan]

even ds's name doesn't work phonetically. phonetics are just one tool in the box - kids have to get used to juggling their tools and variety to master this language.

[SoundsWrite]

I often hear people say that such and such a word 'doesn't work phonetically' but, if you think about it, all words (no exceptions) are comprised of sounds and all sounds have spellings assigned to them. This means that whenever we invent new words, we also decide which spellings to assign to the sounds in those words.
The real problem here is that the spelling system is rather complex: it doesn't work simply at the one sound - one letter level. This is why teachers need to be properly trained in how to teach phonics; otherwise, things can go very wrong.
I'm sure that some carers reading this thread may have children who have overcome being taught sounds and letter names, as well as some of the other contradictory stuff that's out there, but I think that maizieD is dead right: you want something that works for the greatest number of children.

[learnandsay]

That's not what the argument is about. The not-phonetic argument is about consistency.


fraught
laughter

does au sound line 'or' or does it sound like 'aaa'

[Bonsoir]

maizieD - my comment was just anecdotal - I wasn't trying to prove any kind of universal truth! Anecdotally, my DD was being taught letter names and sounds in French at the same time. She has never mixed any of them up - in fact, she happily spells French words with English letter names when talking to me in English, English words with French letter names when talking to DP in French, French words with French letter names when in French class, English words with English letter names when in English class etc!

[learnandsay]

Then some words are just bonkers cough should be spelled kof or cof

because what it actually spells is co-uh-gu-hu
which is certainly not what I do when I'm ill.

and of should be spelled ov

[mrz]

learnandsay Sat 10-Dec-11 12:59:40

That's not what the argument is about. The not-phonetic argument is about consistency.

fraught
laughter

does au sound line 'or' or does it sound like 'aaa'

Most five year olds taught well don't have a problem trying the alternatives to see which is correct

if a child is aware that augh represents or they may try l or t er first or they may try f a f t but when that doesn't work they will try alternatives.

[mrz]

You need to look at the word origins and meanings to work out spellings.

[SantaIsAnAnagramOfSatan]

point is there is no single system totally consistent method to teach reading and writing and why on earth should there be? we're teaching human brains not rats in a maze.

language is creative and so is the human brain and styles and means of learning.

we're not training robots.

[learnandsay]

Sorry, mrz, who needs to look at word origins? Me/us adults, or the child? Quite a few adults already know how to spell and good dictionaries tell their readers the word origins, or likely origins. My children aren't five yet, so I don't know what will happen when they are. But regardless of age

two, too and to
no, know
taught, tort, torte


and all of the rest of it, English spelling hardly makes any kind of sense, even if you can spell well in English that doesn't mean that English spelling is sensible.

[andaPontyinaPearTreeeeee]

A pet annoyance of mine are the teachers who tell children lower case are sounds and capitals are names ...

that is awful! How on earth could anyone think that is right? You seriously know of teachers who've done that?

DD does know letter names, she learnt capital letters (thanks to a hand me down computer toy and a street sign obsession) from about 18m, but thankfully she has kept it separate, possibly because she didn't really do any phonics properly until school. I don't even know how or if the school has covered letter names but DD knows that the letter A or a says /a/, etc, and can decode in capitals. I can see how it could cause confusion though.

[andaPontyinaPearTreeeeee]

because what it actually spells is co-uh-gu-hu
which is certainly not what I do when I'm ill.

I don't know learnandsay, I probably sound like that during chest infections :o

[mrz]

Yes andaPontyinaPearTreeeeee I know lots of teachers who tell children that. I'm having an ongoing battle with a NQT who insists it is correct because that is what she was taught at her university (and unfortunately I believe her because another student from the same university had the same misconception).

[SoundsWrite]

Mrz is quite right. Over time, if children are taught the alternative spellings for the sounds in the language they will know what to try.
I know that 'cough' looks to be a bit tricky, Learnandsay, but the sounds in what you do when you're not well are /k/ /o/ /f/, which we spell , respectively. is a common spelling for /k/ and /gh/ isn't exactly an uncommon spelling of /f/ (rough, tough, enough, laugh - pronounced the southern way!). The only slightly unusual bit is the for /o/.
As everybody agrees, the English spelling system is complex but if you start from thinking about it in terms of it having been invented/written to represent the sounds of the language, of which there are around forty-four, depending on accent, and you teach it from simple to more complex, you can't go wrong.

[SantaIsAnAnagramOfSatan]

it's not even big words like cough - it's simple things like 'put'.

[mrz]

two, too and to
no, know
taught, tort, torte

If these homophones were spelt the same then the meaning would be less obvious

I want to .... quantity, the act, or as well as?

no! ... negative or knowledge?

torte is a German word so a German spelling