Phonics

[DaisyRaine90]

To wonder how the hell my child is supposed to get from phonics to reading actual words?

She knows the letter names
She knows the phonic sounds

What next??

I swear she’s getting more confused not less.

at the idea of phonics being a current fad. Reading has been taught through phonics since 1600.

It was the introduction of the les successful whole language methods after the war that were the fad.

A version of what had been trialled in the US, woman? I doubt it was phonics.

"I can’t see how phonics will help when it comes to a child learning Latin, French, German, etc."

So you don't think a learner would benefit, when they hear a German word, from knowing the possible spellings and how to look it up in a dictionary? Or if they see a word for a first time, it would be useful to have a reasonable shot at the one ot two pronunciations it might have?

Rote learning, where using correspondences is simply not possible, in languages such as Chinese, where classrooms are filled with rote-learning DC barking at print.

I didn’t say phonics could never be beneficial, just that their are other ways of teaching to read too and I’m wondering if either combining methods or changing them might help her grasp it more easily.

I may well be wrong 😊
That’s the fun of parenting, eh?

Article on how regional accents don't work with SSP.
www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/teacher-blog/2014/mar/04/reading-lessons-phonics-world-book-day

Jolly phonics was around decades ago, but it wasn't a £25m matched funding compulsory programme with schools and teachers punished for a failure to 'deliver' it. And stressed little kids and parents.

Learning should not be stressy Especially learning to read.
Good luck OP , hope it clicks happily, soon.

?.?

That article says exactly the opposite - that phonemes can be said differently in different accents and it still be correct, as phonemes are abstract. Also point about 'clow' shows total misunderstanding of the test. Clow to rhyme with sow (the pig) is correct, as is clow to rhyme with sow (what you do with seeds). But clow to rhyme with moo is wrong.

Also I think it's a very bad article because it seeks to portray the phonics test as a reading test. Which it isn't, never has been, and has only so described by detractors trying to damn it for not being something it never has been.

We have a language with a phonic code. C is for cat anyone? A is for apple? That is phonics!

Phonics is how we all read, if people are not 'taught' phonics they have worked it out for themselves, or they would not be able to read an unfamiliar word. How can you break something down into syllables if you can't then sound out the syllables?

Our whole language is based on grapheme/phoneme link. It is complicated of course, but that is MORE reason to teach it specifically rather than not bothering at all. 'Oh it is really complicated and has variations, MUCH better not to bother with it then' . Tell that to the twenty per cent of children who struggle under mixed methods. Or does anyone actually care about the evidence base?

That article's written by Andrew Davis. It should be taken with a pinch of salt.

Although I suppose he's making a good argument for scrapping the real words in the phonics screening check and just screening using 40 pseudo words.

Phonics is how we all read, if people are not 'taught' phonics they have worked it out for themselves, or they would not be able to read an unfamiliar word. How can you break something down into syllables if you can't then sound out the syllables? People always say that but by the same token if you only use phonics how do you read the "tricky" words? Both ways of learning to read utilise the other method. If you learn with phonics you have to just learn the words that don't work. If you learn with look say you eventually start working out words you don't know, initially there are clues in the pictures, anyone remember when aeroplanes first appear in look say books and there is a big picture of an aeroplane, children also work out words by using context and they start using phonics quite naturally.

I learned to read 60 years ago, my eldest learned 40 years ago, my GS who couldn't get going with phonics learned 2 years ago. The thing we all did was start reading with look say and then started to use phonics. I don't agree that we all use phonics to read, I recognise whole words and if I am reading something medical or scientific where I don't recognise the word then I work it out with phonics. When I hear a medical or scientific person use the word I sometimes realise that the phonics didn't work.

To me it is obvious that you have to start with one method but if that method doesn't work then try the other one. If people are so hung up on a theory that they will leave a child floundering for years then I don't think they should be teaching.

Phonics (if it is taught well) works for 95%+ of children, while other methods work for around 80%. So while it doesn't necessarily work for every child, it is the best method that we have. So do we just sacrifice the 5% or do we get to a place where we say that is working for this child so we will try something else?

We didn’t bother with letter names to reduce the amount of confusion. Blending sounds worked a treat

my DD uses reading eggs...which has a pleasing combo of word recognition and phonics/blending etc.

Actually it seems DD is mostly learning to read by waiting till she is old enough to properly grasp syntax, context and story telling so that she can extrapolate most of a sentence from the picture plus first letter of the first word....

After that it is just word image/sound association and positive reinforcement.

TBH I think the best thing for most kids would be to not bother learning to read till they are about 6/7. Then all these issues that confuse much younger children won't be an issue...

Its like toilet training....where you could either battle for 2 years with a partially trained toddler, or do it in 2 days with a perfectly competent 4 yo.

Also this would free up endless time in nursery/primary school for teaching kids important things like why exponential growth as an economic model is BS...and the rudiments of programming....

Morphene I think that is very true, although two of mine were very early readers I still think most children would do better if it was left for a year or two.

So do we just sacrifice the 5% or do we get to a place where we say that is working for this child so we will try something else?

Of course the latter.

Phonics works for most children and is current best practice. That isn't to say that it won't be superseded or that it works in all situations.

The point is is that teachers teach to the norm and then deviate from that.

The OP makes so many painful assertions such as "Sometimes I say words wrong, sure, but who doesn’t the first time they say a word they’ve never said out loud before. ". I don't. I understand phonics and the rules of stress according to English language rules and I rarely mispronounce a new word.

She also misses the point that high frequency words and tricky words ('is' is the most basic example) are taught separately from phonics. Non-decodable words are taught differently.

The OP may well be reasonably intelligent and the lack of understanding of phonics comes down to teacher's failure to explain what they are teaching her child.

I agree that phonics doesn't work for every child. It works for most and is the best method we have.

Phonics needs to be well taught. Pure sounds and graphemes / phonemes need to be used properly. "Knowing the alphabet" is useless for KS1.

granny I just don't understand why it should be different to any other learning milestone...you don;t spend ages forcing it before they are ready...you wait till they are ready and get it done quickly and most importantly painlessly.

Getting kids switched off and hating reading is a superbly dumb plan.

I come from a long line of very late readers, as does my DH. We make up for it once we get going though :)

The point is is that teachers teach to the norm and then deviate from that. Unfortunately that isn't my experience. After 4 years struggling with phonics and still on the same books as reception the only answer the school had was, "If phonics isn't working we do more phonics." He missed other lessons to be taken out of class to do one to one phonics. This isn't a one off as I have come into contact with other parents who have had the same experience.

In my GS case the school still think that phonics eventually worked. I wonder how many other children are in the same position with the school thinking that phonics worked? I know another child at his school who has had special tuition as he also failed to grasp phonics. Basically his tuition was exactly what I was doing with look say

As I said I don't care which system schools start with but if it doesn't work then don't sacrifice these children to the altar of phonics is best.

Getting kids switched off and hating reading is a superbly dumb plan. It is indeed and the damage to my GS confidence was terrible. He is so proud of himself now.

one of the problems with phonics is that many adults do not actually do it properly.

so we don;t say m-u-m
we actually say muh - uh - muh
because we don't sound out properly. No child can blend that into 'mum'

we need to be really careful and say
mmmm for M not muh
then it doesn blend mmmmuuummm.

Honestly, phonics does work. It is the basis for teaching reading. I taught at an International School which used phonics before it became fashionable in UK. I was amazed at how effective it was compared to teachign reading in UK.

A very few children do not do well with it. Interestingly, many ASD children don't get on with it.

Another problem we have is schools teaching phonics, and then instead of sending home early reading books which ONLY use phonic words, they send home Oxford Reading Tree _ good old Biff and Chip. None of the early books are phonics based, and you have to learn half a dozen 'tricky words' before you can read them.

Honestly, phonics does work.

A very few children do not do well with it. Interestingly, many ASD children don't get on with it.

How do those two sentences work? Surely the first one should be Phonics works for most children, or Phonics usually works.

If it doesn't work for all children, and it doesn't, then the first sentence is wrong.

Oh granny don't be so pedantic, what I saud was perfectly clear

Phonics does work.
If something works for 95% of children then it is fair enough to say it works.
I qualified it by saying it doesn't work for a few children.

I would also say though, that I wonder how well it is taught. I suspect it isn't always taught well, as I said many adults mispronounce the phonics letters.

I am also going to try to get her to memorise some common words such as “and”

But you can sound out "and". Why make it harder? One of the first high frequency words my DS learned.

she is starting a school that does not use phonics.
Is it in the UK?

if you only use phonics how do you read the "tricky" words?
Most of the tricky words are, by the time you've learnt ALL the graphemes, not tricky any more.

If you can read new words, you are using phonics.
If you learned to read, but nobody taught you phonics, you taught it to yourself.
Poor readers who find phonics instruction tricky do have to learn phonics some time or they will never be able to learn an unfamiliar word.
They may find it harder but, rather like it not being possible to learn to ride a bike by getting in the pool with your swimsuit on, however bad you are at riding a bike, you do actually have to learn to ride a bike by - yes - riding a bike.
You may find swimming easier and it's a handy skill but it won't teach you to ride a bike.
So kudos to the patient teachers who work with the DCs who are poor at phonics because they do need to grasp it in some form.
And yes, they may get to the other end of the pool faster if they swim - but they won't get very far on dry land.

steppemum, you might think it is being pedantic but it is true and you know it. If it doesn't work do something else, it isn't that hard to figure out.

I assume it was well taught at my GS school as there were some very strong readers in his class. I used to help in his class and I can tell you that 4 children out of a class of 30 did not do well with phonics, the two who then had help with look say caught up with the rest of the class. The other two are still struggling.

@grannytomine

How old are you?

I'm the same age as many grandmothers (born in 56) but still teaching (a head).

Phonics works. We don't need to qualify a sentence such as that with 'in most cases'. Phonics works as a method of decoding the vast majority of English words. Considering it's such a mongrel language, that's pretty impressive.

Some words are classed as 'undecodable' but these are few and far between. It's better to learn these exceptions individually.

There are a few children who simply can't get phonics. These children tend to have their own issues or abilities.

I'd be delighted to discuss literacy in education, semantics or modal logic / discrete mathematics. All of which I would stake my house on being better read in than you. We're only discussing the first so stop trying to score cheap points against @steppemum.

Look / say has its benefits. I don't think any teacher should be devoted to one method. However, having spent 2 decades programming computers to recognise spoken language (largely phonics based), nothing will dissuade me from the benefits of phonics. It fits most words for most children. 15% of a class not 'getting' phonics sounds like an anomaly or simply that it was poorly taught.

Look / say works for tricky, non-decodable words. It's an inefficient way of learning to read but there's an argument that children teach themselves phonetic rules from look / say. This is a slower and less beneficial route though.

You're yet to answer how you could read an unseen word or nonsense word.

@grannytomine

How old are you?

I'm the same age as many grandmothers (born in 56) but still teaching (a head).

Phonics works. We don't need to qualify a sentence such as that with 'in most cases'. Phonics works as a method of decoding the vast majority of English words. Considering it's such a mongrel language, that's pretty impressive.

Some words are classed as 'undecodable' but these are few and far between. It's better to learn these exceptions individually.

There are a few children who simply can't get phonics. These children tend to have their own issues or abilities.

I'd be delighted to discuss literacy in education, semantics or modal logic / discrete mathematics. All of which I would stake my house on being better read in than you. We're only discussing the first so stop trying to score cheap points against @steppemum.

Look / say has its benefits. I don't think any teacher should be devoted to one method. However, having spent 2 decades programming computers to recognise spoken language (largely phonics based), nothing will dissuade me from the benefits of phonics. It fits most words for most children. 15% of a class not 'getting' phonics sounds like an anomaly or simply that it was poorly taught.

Look / say works for tricky, non-decodable words. It's an inefficient way of learning to read but there's an argument that children teach themselves phonetic rules from look / say. This is a slower and less beneficial route though.

You're yet to answer how you could read an unseen word or nonsense word.