What do you think of the Education White Paper?

[Shamster]

Our head went through the key points at last nights staff meeting and the effect was pretty depressing. Sounds stupid but two of us almost started crying! Just wondered if anyone has read it for themselves, rather than picking up whichever bits each paper decides to highlight according to their leanings. If you have; what do you think?

Just looked at teh link: I'm not phonicsphobic either...

I was asking my husband who yes, as a linguist, has studied phonetic systems and is an academic expert in the area. he said people are confusing phonics with 'regular' There are no alternative graphemes for regular phonetic languages and each grapheme makes only one sound.
So in fact you are talking about the English orthographical system not the Phonemes of the English language

"Too many children end up barking at text and not understanding what they have 'read'."

Do they? Gosh, that doesn't happen at our school. I wonder why? Oh hang on....

"who am I to tell them to 'Stop guessing and just look at the letters'

Erm...their teacher, the one that teaches them reading? Lordy.

and of course pictures enhance the pleasure children gain from books just as long as they don't think they need to guess the story from the picture

Can I just ask, how do you read a language and write it if you don't use the orthographical system? Seriously; I'd be interested? How can you read words if not via the irregular orthographical system?

I'm afraid it is very simple moondog has been trying to tell you since she entered the discussion. Phonetics is a branch of linguistics that studies the sounds of a language. When talking about how those sounds are represented you are talking about the orthographical structure. I'm surprised your husband doesn't know as it was something I was taught in my first year of linguistics.

The language is regular but the orthographical system is inconsistent

So I'll repeat, how do you teach reading if not through the 'inconsistent' orthographical system? I understand the difference betwen the phoneme and the grapheme, but to read you are looking at the symbol not listening to the sound. Can you also explain to me the difference between inconistent and irregular, which was the word that I first used. I now see that maybe I should have specifically said the 'orthographical system', which is what we call the grapheme with the children is not, is the 'inconsistent thing and not the sounds of the languge itself. It is what I meant but maybe I wasn't ebing clear enough. I agree with you; the 'orthographical system' is inconsistent and I'd love to know how you teach reading without using it?

You don't need to try and put my husband down. He thinks that the comment you have written makes absolutely no sense in the context of teaching children to read.

In the context of teaching children to read I teach them the orthographical system used in written English.
Does he think that your assertion that English isn't phonetic makes more sense? Or does he, as a linguist, accept that phonetic refers to spoken language?

I'm not trying to put your husband down I'm just confused how a linguist would mix up phonetic and orthographical systems.

Way back when this started, I corrected that phrase as you picked me up on it and said that I meant phonetically regular. You then responded to that comment. My husband wholeheartedly agrees with me that the written system used to represent the words we say is highly irregular. So then you teach children to read using the, you say inconsistent, I say irreguar orthographical system. I too use that system. For some children, the irregularity of it is what confuses them and it is then that I use other methods to supplement this. I have stated many, many times on this tread for those who were paying attention to what I was writing, instead of claiming that I wasn't teaching properly.

Actually I have never picked you up on it because I only read the thread from where you said phonetically regular which is what I am trying to tell you. The (phonetics) sounds of the English language are regular, what is irregular is the orthographical system used to record those sounds.

For the record, he did not mix them up. He's just absolutely bemused at the fact that trained people would argue over the fact that our written system is irreguar or not. Given that what we've been talking about is teaching is called 'phonics' but actually covers the written symbols and the sounds they correspond to, that maybe where the confusion occurs. He actually said can not think of a more irregular language in the written sense, and therefore it would follow that learning to read it must be more difficult than learning languages where the words are written exactly as they are spoken.It would be a much easier system for all children to crack, if there were not so many variations in the way each sound can be written. All I care about is helping children overcome whatever the barrier is to their understanding, and for some children, despite what you say, the variations prove very, very confusing. If that is the case, I will use ANY method that works for that child.

I agree with you on that; but we are using this irregular system to teach children to read every word and for some children, and indeed some words, this just doesn't work. If I seemd defensive, I am sorry, but I won't have strangers implying that I am crap. Forums like this can get very heated, but I've never been part of a heated discussion. I'd shy away next time. It's taken up far too much of my weekend.Anyway. I understand what you are saying. Can we leave it now?

I think the debate was whether it is a good idea to teach children to use pictures to guess what our irregular orthographical system says and whether the government's plans to train all teachers how to teach phonics as the primary method of reading instruction is good or bad.

You do a good line in patronising me. Ok, I'm done.

What a shame that you lot can't agree to disagree pleasantly. It is obvious that you all have a lot of skills and experience and genuine concern for the children in your care. FMPOV, Shamster, you do appear to be mildly phonicphobic and mrz et al are certainly picturephobic.

The kids look at the pictures, of course they do and many will naturally guess words from a combination of the picture and the initial sound of the word. Trying to prevent this process is utterly bizarre - you can't. It doesn't then mean that you don't get the same child to sound out the word that they have guessed (correctly or otherwise) phonetically.

Case closed. Now shake hands and make up.

mrz, I have a suspicion you're trying to confuse with long words.

Saying that the sounds of English are phonetically 'regular' seems meaningless in the context of reading.

You don't read with sounds, you read with letters, which are not used in a regular manner - that appears to be what shamster is saying.

Could you explain what you meant by "The (phonetics) sounds of the English language are regular". I'm fascinated to hear your answer.

Thanks.

'if certain people are rude enough not to accept that an ELT specialist is well placed to talk about how the English language works, then it highlights the lack of respect and understanding for what you do and a high level of ignorance.'

No.it highlights the fact that you have a worryingly confused attitude to what reading and language entails. 'ELT specialist' means jackshit anyway.

In the car, I was asking my husband who yes, as a linguist, has studied phonetic systems and is an academic expert in the area. he said people are confusing phonics with 'regular' There are no alternative graphemes for regular phonetic languages and each grapheme makes only one sound. He's looked at languages from ancient norse, through to modern english. He wants to totally revise the language to make it completely regular.'

If he's a linguist, how is it that he doesn't put his wife right on basic errors such as the assertion that Engliah is a 'phonetic' language? All languages that are heard are phonetic. Only something like BSL isn't phonetic as it is silent.

'As an SALT, Moondog,(that's a real surprise: I'd love you t meet our excellent SALT who thoroughly approves of what I do)you'll know about picture readthroughs, sequencing cards after you've read a story etc.'

Excellent by whose defnition? Yours?
Yes, SALTs spend hours (years) buggering about with picture sequencing. God knows why-very little evidence to suggest it is of any use to anyone.

lol pickedsiblings.

Will it work?

ELT specialist, moondog means exactly as much or little as SALT does.

Whether you think that your professional expertise and experience mean 'jackshit' is entirely up to you.

I certainly would be the last to argue.

And wow, do I feel sorry for any poor child unlucky enough to fall into your clutches. Really, really horrifying thought.

Oh God, it's you again,making an arse of yourself.
Do carry on.

*Pickedsiblings. Good try, but "The kids look at the pictures, of course they do and many will naturally guess words from a combination of the picture and the initial sound of the word. Trying to prevent this process is utterly bizarre - you can't. It doesn't then mean that you don't get the same child to sound out the word that they have guessed (correctly or otherwise) phonetically"

Well actually, it does, doesn't it - if you are Shamster, who still says "but who am I to tell them to 'Stop guessing and just look at the letters'"

PS pickedsiblings - I think my answer to my own earlier question was - no.

Good try, though. :0