AIBU to think that phonics should just be called "learning to read"?

[lukeiamyourmother]

I was taught phonetically, so was my brother, husband, mother as was every friend I have talked to about this over a range of ages. I can't see any other way of learning to read? I am probably completely naive to this topic but I have overhead so many people praising phonics lately, so many forum posts about it, blogs etc.

Phonics just sounds like such a hot new buzz word for a pretty standard and old fashioned way of learning to read. I am 36 so it isn't even new! In fact I was a bit when someone recently proudly announced that their child was learning phonetically "Its just like, sooooooo great." Er... Doesn't everyone?

I would not call phonics "learning to read". I'd call it "learning to decode", because it's not the whole story - some children are excellent at decoding but don't understand what they read. It's also not the whole story because children should (obviously) understand what reading is for and alongside their phonics develop an appreciation of books - stories and pictures.

badtime

that's correct AFAIK

NowThen

there are many exceptions to phonics rules, as you say.

What helps me is the Internet dictionary as it will play the sound or break it up the way it sounds not spelt iykwim

My DD's reception teacher said that the Government prefer the phonics way of teaching, but they use a mixture of phonics and alternative methods

I'm 36 and didn't learn with phonics, my brother (31) did use phonics.

My DD in year 3 has struggled with phonics and school are now trying Look and Learn which is working really well with her so far - her reading levels have been stuck at mid-reception range as phonics and blending have never seemed to click

"I just think that teachers are always obsessed with whatever method they are taught to use at the time."

No, we look at the evidence. Well, some of us do, anyway. Those that are not happy to let 20% of children become labelled as special need without good reason.

And teaching phonics does not mean you don't teach any other aspect of reading. It just means that you can decode words in order to access a text. Rather important really.

Children usually learn to read using both phonics and look and say, whatever system they are taught by.

We need a combination of skills to be efficient readers. Phonics alone won't allow a child to decode phonically irregular high frequency words such as 'they' or 'said'. A child relies on visual memory and context to learn these.

Children with certain types of additional learning need eg Aspberger's, are often very quick to learn to read, initially, as they learn whole words by sight, having good visual memory (usually). They can come unstuck with spelling though and with new, unusal polysyllabic words that they don't have the phonic skills to decode. If an adult tells them what the word is once or twice, they'll usually remember it.

kim

I agree - which is the exception, and which is the rule?

yes, the english phonic code is complex. But the alternative is to learn every single word from scratch.

Phonics is about learning sounds. There are not 26 simple sounds corresponding to 26 discrete letters, though.

There are 42 / 44 sounds in English and about 180 ways of writing those sounds.

So, for the sound /s/ there are various ways to write it:

S - sock
Sc - scissors
Ce - dance
C - city
.....

So, children have to learn all the variations. That's the phonics code. That's why it is referred to as "learning phonics" rather than just learning to read.

Oh yes Humphrey

I think it's what makes English so interesting. It's so complex because it comes from so many roots.

20% of children struggle to learn to read with look/say or mixed methods. I may have mentioned this already once or twice.

Letsfacethemusicanddance

Words like "they" can still be taught using the phonics code. The word "they" follows the same pattern as "prey" where [ey] is pronounced as /ai/.

The code is not a simple one to one matching process. Some sounds have many ways to write them. All the variations can be taught. Then the decoding process works, so, a child who has learnt they using the code can also decode prey.

For my DH splitting up words into sounds doesnt work as he finds that the relationship between letters and sounds get confused (keeping in mind that classically he mixes up letters). For him spelling out is an iterative process. He has a wide spoken vocabulary which helps.

Memorising word shapes is what he uses now.

It doesnt help that dyslexia was (and perhaps still is) not recognised until fairly late on. DH had his dyslexia recognised when he was 13 (though nothing was actually done). Up until that point he was 'crap at reading/writing but strangely good at maths'.

I'm not suggesting that children should be taught using a variety of schemes but if a scheme isnt working for a particular child then something else might.

I just don't get the argument that phonics is too complicated so we shouldn't teach it.

Surely the exact opposite is true.

blog here explaining pros and cons of phonics with particular relevance to dyslexia

blog.geniuswithin.co.uk/uncategorized/bee-where-thu-fonix-polees

I think that my school started teaching us phonic blending stuff at aged 8 and I was well confused as already knew most of the words by learning them by sight and it seemed to late to grasp the phonic method.

on the subject of spellings I did wonder once at primary school what the fuck Adam Ant (adamant) was doing in the middle of my spelling test

Fobwatch - I think that's stretching something simple in order to make it 'fit' a system. By the time a child came to learn 'they' by a phonic route, most will have picked it up by seeing it frequently.

Phonics is the 'hot new buzz word' because schools are now required to teach it! Five years ago it was patchy and hit and miss whether your school taught reading that way. Now it is universal - all schools are supposed to deliver daily phonics sessions either following the government scheme 'Letters and Sounds' or another of their choosing.

And, in my school, 'Gove' will be decoded c. year 1 and 'love' c. year 2!

HumphreyCobbler

Look and say relies on the child working out the phonic code themselves from the words they have already memorised. Otherwise no one who had learned through look/say would ever be able to decipher a new word, would they?

No you learn the most common word and quite a few more - espailly if you have a very good visual memory.

Then words you don't recognized by reading is usually somewhere in your spoken vocabulary picked up from conversations round you - so you know what it means and how it sounds so you guesses it is that word and 'read' it.

Problem is if you know or can't guesses the word but need to read it out loud your screwed as you don't 'know' how to begin to pronounced it - well that's my experience.

If you can't split the words up it fucks up your spelling - plus it hard to look up in dictionary as you only know first letter. Thesauruses tend to be more use IM E.

Decoding is a very useful skill - its not all reading is - but mixed method have not been helpful for my DC. A large proportion of DC pick up the underlying rules themselves but if your one who doesn't or your DC aren't and phonics isn't taught or taught properly its very annoying and causes many issues.

Not a clue how I learned to read as according to my DM, I was reading at 2. Got to be a bit of a bugger after I started school though - I went through the Welsh Medium system, and Welsh is a phonetic language (really, it is), so when I was learning new English words, it sometimes took a few goes before I learned to pronounce the words correctly.

Cassandra, I think we may be making the same point.

I was trying to point out the futility of leaving people to work out the phonic code for themselves when you could be teaching it to them explicitly.