How do you actually teach a child to read?

[septemberremember]

I know they do phonics at primary school but I don’t know how they go about this and translating it into reading - obviously cat and dog are phonetic but what about other words? I was taught by a look and say method which was the rage in the 80s. But I believe that isn’t favoured now.

I always thought I’d teach my children loads and I haven’t

I think the rise of phonics is what contributes to so many children leaving school illiterate." which is nonsense.

There you go again. Calling someone's opinon nonsense because you don't agree is rude. It is presented as an opinion, by using the words 'I think.'

Also, since you're on the topic, phonics was BROUGHT back in, not bought.

If you saw some of the CVs I've read recently you would understand. These teens cannot string a sentence together. Statistics don't tell the full story. Unfortunately I cannot evidence this as its generally frowned apon to post personal data on MN. One person wrote it in text speak as well as misspelled. As in: 'I luv 2 spend time w my freinds n listen to music in my free time.'

10 years ago that would have been unusual. Now it happens on a regular basis. Honestly, ask anyone who works in recruitment and they'll tell you. The level of literacy in school leavers is shocking.

Children shouldn't be tied down to one method that clearly doesn't work on its own.

Word recognition does work for huge numbers of children. Especially when used in conjunction with some phonics techniques. I was reading at GCSE level before I even started secondary. I wasn't the only one, either.

The Harry Potter example is a good one. You say it's age appropriate for 9 and for the time it was written, I'd agree with you. However, none of the rest of her class are anywhere near that level, save for one or two. So which is it?

Either she is on target and the rest of her class are behind or she is ahead and they are on target. Either way, it's not convincing me that phonics is effective as a sole method. I'm still of the opinion that a combination is better, with a tilt towards word recognition.

Decoding is useful but a lot of words can't be decoded like that. So why are we teaching them a method, then having to teach another one for the words the first method doesn't work for?

Just teach them both to start with.

But they ARE taught both to start with. My DD is in reception and she already understands that words fall into 2 categories -

1. Those decodable with phonic sounds (either single sounds like "c" or special sounds like "igh" or "ch" for example)

1. And those words you simply see and learn - for example "Mr" "Mrs" "he" "she" and many others.

What's the problem with this approach? This is precisely what her state school is doing.

My children are older but even when they went to school the advice was to leave it to teachers.
My mother taught me to read before school and DS1 was raring to go. He was pretty numerate and could read before he started reception.

As others say this tends to mean some repetition once they get to school. With reading it was fine, he was allowed to progress as fast as he needed and it's easy to choose books for home.
Maths not so much, he was quickly bored at school and nothing we said improved things. This was a pattern all through school.

DS2 was much slower to get going and couldn't read before he started. He got there in the end and guess which child has the love of reading as an adult?

Decoding is useful but a lot of words can't be decoded like that. So why are we teaching them a method, then having to teach another one for the words the first method doesn't work for?
Just teach them both to start with.

Schools do teach both. In systematic phonics schemes they're often called tricky words or red words (depending on the scheme), and they're called common exceptions words in the national curriculum.

Can I also bring to your attention the irony of you calling out the PP for a grammatical typo, when you have used apon in your own post? 😆 Basic phonics would help you spell here. Also, since you're on the topic, phonics was BROUGHT back in, not bought.

Word recognition does work for huge numbers of children.

What do they do when they encounter a word they have never seen before so they can't recognise it?

Phonics alone does not constitute reading, which involves knowledge of grammar, understanding context etc.
However, it is important to help children to decode the symbols, both for reading and writing. So it’s an important skill.It’s comparable to learning to stitch before attempting to make a garment.
It’s xsitin 2 bee abil 2 cumyoonicate bee4 yoo no orl the standid spelin.

You compare it to a word you do know. So for example you come across the word wield. You don't know it but you do know field. That tells you how it sounds and of course, you know what W sounds like.

Can I also bring to your attention the irony of you calling out the PP for a grammatical typo, when you have used apon in your own post?

🤣 And this is why I should not be typing and cooking. To be fair, it was the correct spelling in the middle English era. I always do say I feel ancient. Guess my brain is catching up to my joints!

You compare it to a word you do know.

What if it doesn't look like any word you have already seen?

of course, you know what W sounds like.

So you know phonics. So you don't need to compare it to a word you do know because if you know what w sounds !ike, you presumably also know i e l d. So you can just read it, using your knowledge of phonics.

As much as I love the films, the first Harry potter isn't that easy to read and has no where near the range of words in something like a little princess or the lion witch and wardrobe etc.

@MissRoseDurward and look at the other words in the sentence.

It's really not hard the brain is a wonderful machine.
Many people don't understand or get phonics sounds they need sight reading.

Oh lord and the problems with spelling it causes!!

@MissRoseDurward

My level of vocabulary has fallen in the past 15 or so years.
But I can assure you my level of it exceeded my peers.
I can't understand the argument your making.
It's just fact that many people can and need to read without phonics

For someone speaking about spellings with such conviction, your message needs to say "you're" not "your". This sort of thing is also covered in phonics systems, under contractions.

I feel like a lot of parents saying "I just did x with my child and it worked" don't understand that teachers have to use a method that won't just work for bright children with lots of support at home. They have to at least try to equip children with tools to recognise groups of words and understand that blocking words are different. The fact that bright, supported children often do really well with this method too can make it seem redundant, especially when there are so many rules.

As parents, it can be easy to form misconceptions about our children's reading. We rarely show them words without context and it's easy to assume they're reading when they're not, or that proficiency with one word means lots of others will also be possible for them when this might not be true. And we never really need to have this corrected because somehow or other, our child does learn at the speed of light a little down the line .

@SittingNextToIt 😂 I understand contractions why would someone chatting on a forum worry about submitting perfect work?