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?

and no I didn't think sham (or anyone) was saying the phonetic alphabet didn't match the English language.
What she and you keep saying is that English isn't phonetically regular and as phonetically refers to spoken not written language that is clearly untrue

Fine. I'll ignore attempts to patronise me... So we agree then that English spelling is irregular.

Which is what I said all along.

As I said, I think you're arguing over terminology, not ideology.

So, mrz - are you in a position to answer my plea above and explain how phonics SHOULD be taught?

Thanks for link, maverick.

Are you in fact in favour of phonics at all, though?

Possibly I have lumped you in with the phonics crew inadvertantly...

I am esp interested re the point I made about spelling - if anyone can clarify that, that would be great.

I have dipped in and out of the thread, apologies if I'm duplicating posts, BUT;
the thing with the pictures/guessing from the first letter has lots of purposes - the first and most important imo is to get the children to LOVE books. Seeing ds2 getting SO excited at reading his guided reading book to me (he is reception, and his book has words like 'kitchen', 'basket', 'garage' etc which obviously he hasn't learned to sound out - they haven't even done all of those letters yet) - but he can make a bit of a guess, the rest of the sentence is practising words he knows like 'he', 'is', 'in' etc. And his JOY at being able to read a book to me is wonderful. And imparting a love of reading and excitement at being able to read a book (especially when he reads it to the baby)is invaluable. What's the point of teaching them all the 'sounds' if they are bored rigid and think reading is dull?

(NB I'm not criticising phonics at all here, he is learning mostly through phonics, but the books require a tiny bit of deduction through pictures/initial letters etc, and although he enjoys learning the phonic sounds - they are doing Jolly Phonics - it is the book that he is most excited by).

The other really valuable lesson is to get them to 'have a go'. This was hard for dd - she was an excellent reader even before she started school, but as a result was very very reluctant to try something she wasn't sure about, and she really didn't want to have a go at a word which would mean she would be reading a book, reach a tricky word and give up. 'Having a go' was a difficult lesson for her to learn, but now she has overcome that, and I think this was helped by the reading, and the idea of having a go based on clues additional to the words.

So, yes, hurrah for phonics, but other strategies have their place too. I do worry about the statement in synthetic phonics that all the 'sounds' need to be learned before a book can be taken home, because for my children, it is the book and the story that is the incentive to read, and I am really happy that they all love books so much. And the love of reading is a valuable lesson, because without it, you just won't read.

Re spelling, I said earlier down, ds1 who learnt to read almost purely by sightwords (he never really got the hang of blending) is a much better speller age for age than dd, who is possibly a better reader, and certainly a better writer than ds1 was at her age, but her spelling can verge on the bizarre. My favourite word she wrote was 'jagn' - dragon. So the phonics enabled her to write something down phonetically, but she is now having to learn the spellings (she is v bright so this is mostly happening through reading, but it is certainly a slower process than for ds1 who just 'knew' the spelling because he had learned all the words by sight).

Interestingly, having learned by 2 very different methods (though in class they were taught identically), they both now are strongest in literacy, and well above expected standards for their age.

I do think phonics might make spelling harder - I certainly learned by 'look and say' methods, and have always been a good speller, dh was more phonic based, and is an appalling speller (though I think he may have mild dyslexia), and though a sample of 4 isn't really significant, I can see the logic whereby look and say would help spelling. As ever, a combination approach is probably best, and covers all angles!

I carnt beeleev that I hav waystid tyme reedeeng 6 payjis ov thiss in the hoap that it wud hav moovd on from fonix. Wot a shaym.

Yes as a reception teacher of many years and a SENCO I believe that phonics is the most effective way for children to learn to read. Once children have mastered decoding obviously other skills become involved - context syntax but never guessing and never using picture clues.

How I teach reading

Key Principles

* sounds are represented by letters
* longer words are made up of blocks of sound (syllables)
* sounds can be represented by more than one letter
* some sounds can be represented in different ways e.g. boat, go, snow, cone
* some spellings can represent more than one sound e.g. cow, snow

Phonological Skills

Segmenting - the ability to access the individual sounds in words.

Blending - the ability to push sounds together in words phoneme.

Phoneme manipulation - the ability to pull sounds in and out of words e.g. decide that ?ow? is not ?oa? in cow.

Code knowledge ? how the 44 sounds in the English language are represented.

All three elements, concepts, skills and information, are learned within the context of words and text. This means that the child learns about how sounds are represented as he or she uses them in the only context that makes sense ? to read and to write.

I use Jolly Phonics in reception because the children enjoy it and the parents like the fact it involves them

Day 1 child is taught how to make the sound /s/ is made in speech and what the letter that represents the sound looks like and how to write it plus the action which is used in the early stages as a visual prompt.

Day 2 we revise the sound /s/ and introduce the next sound (same content)

Day 3 we revise /s/ & /a/ and introduce the sound /t/
we can now begin blending and segmenting 2 and 3 letter words as - at - sat

day 4 we revise /s/ /a/ &/t/ and introduce /i/

more words is it and sit

day 5 we revise /s/ /a/ /t/ & /i/ and teach /p/

new words pit, pat, tip, tap, ...

so by the end of the first week children are reading and spelling 10 words

Phonics should be taught at pace (at least 3 sounds a week although I prefer to teach 5) it should be drip drip drip I find short sessions a few times a day better than one long session because of the age. Children need to revise previously taught sounds daily. Once children are blending words confidently they should be introduced to a good phonic reading scheme (not ORT at this stage)
I use whiteboards, magnetic letters and books for "dictation" at first the children write single sounds then 2 and 3 letter words then whole sentences.

We use Big Talk, so lots of opportunities to be storytellers and to compose class and group stories. Lots of talk on the premise that if children can't say it they can't write it.

Children will also begin to use the sounds in their independent writing - it may just be initial sounds at first then gradually whole words and sentences that can be read by others).

While this is happening children need a language rich environment I am a firm believer in 5 a day so we read 5 story books a day for enjoyment with pictures and discussion and predicting what will happen next (but not as part of the reading instruction)

the thing with the pictures/guessing from the first letter has lots of purposes but none of them have anything to do with learning to read.

Children need to have lots of experience of being read to, of sharing books with adults, mum, dad, granny,the teacher, and this is when talking about pictures is useful. The pictures enhance lovely stories and aid understanding in non fiction texts but they don't help children to read the actual words on the page.
Often the pictures can tell a story within a story so imagine the confusion if you are 4 and guessing using pictures that aren't showing the same thing as the words on the page.

Children need experience of books which is why I would never suggest to a parent to buy reading scheme books. Their purpose is for instruction and there are so many great children's stories out there to share.

granted, I can help with the spelling thing.

My DS is in YR2 and has one set of spellings per week to learn. The sets are organised by phoneme. So for eg if the phoneme for a week was /s/ he might have the words city, sun, castle and palace amongst others to learn (ie words that have the 's' sound but have different spellings (graphemes)).

On another note, when he is writing at home and is unsure how to spell a word, I encourage him to write it out with the different phonemes and see which version of the word he recognises. He invariably recognises the correct spelling.

Better post this as have been dithering with the idea for the past hour but have been busy supervising playdough, dinosaurs and blocks. Am now being pestered to read The Stick Man.

Will come back to this.

Spelling
at first children will spell words using the phonemes they know but gradually as alternatives are taught and they are exposed to the correct spelling they do what many of us do as adults - say "does that look right".
What happens in schools who use phonics correctly is that the focus gradually moves from teaching reading to spelling. It is more effective/efficient to teach words with the same grapheme (letter pattern) than to teach random lists of sight words.

And of course there are children who don't get phonics (my son) but these are very much in the minority which hopefully the government plans for testing in Y1 will reveal so that teachers can support those children.

You know, LilyB, your posts made me want to go and bang my head against a wall until I was senseless.

I am thrilled for you that you and your children have managed, so far, to come unscathed through the mixed methods mess that passes for teaching reading in many schools. I sincerely hope that you won't be anxiously posting about 'dyslexia' in a year or two's time (because that's what a goodly number of mixed methods taught children end up with- but that is another, equally emotive, topic).

However, this may be news to you but your dcs are not the only children in the world (I do know that we all think that about our children) and those of us who work in schools have to look at the bigger picture.

And the bigger picture has, for many years, shown that mixed methods fail about 20% of children. Which may not particularly bother you or other Mnetters, but it is our job to try to maximise every child's potential and to equip them as well as we possibly can for the world they live in. A world in which reading is a key skill and inability to read can have dire social and emotional consequences.

I am afraid that 3 or more decades of good scientific research into reading has not only revealed a great deal more about the actual reading process than was known when 'whole word/look & say' theories (note that these are only theories, still completely unsupported by scientific evidence)became popular, but has also shown us which elements of reading instruction work, and and which don't.

It is irresponsible of anyone teaching children to read, or remediating struggling readers, to ignore the evidence in favour of their own 'gut feelings' (which usually reflect their 'mixed methods' training) and 'opinions'.

It is downright frustrating when lay people (and I think that this happens in any discipline) are convinced of the rectitude of what they are saying when it is based only on their 'experience'. (I want a 'grrrrr' smilie...)

Convex Betty.
Why don't you start another thread?

My post isn't terribly clear - sorry.

I probably meant that I encourage my DS to write the word with the alternative graphemes that represent the same phoneme. Yep, I think that makes sense. mrz?

btw mrz I find your posts on all matters to do with teaching writing very informative, useful and encouraging. . There is a push on atm in my DS's school to improve boys writing and I have shamelessly hunted out anything you have ever written on here on the matter. Thank you very much for sharing your wisdom.

ConvexBetty: love it. Mrz, you'll be pleased to hear that I teach do all things that you do but do not have an aversion to letting children 'have a go' based on initial sounds and pictures, should they wish. I do not tell them to ignore the letters but some children who recognise very few for what ever reason, still need to feel like they are 'reading'. I tell children that we never stop learning and that they have started to learn to read. I believe the reading process starts way before children can actually recognise the letters. Before anyone calls me stupid ofr saying that, I also believe that when children learn to talk, which to me is very linked up with literacy in general, we are happy when bibies 'begin to talk'. We do not say to them 'you can't say every word, you can't join in with our converstation. Motivation to learn comes form enjoyment and confidence so 'having a go' and guessing have a place in letting children feel confident in their own straties. I agree with Lilybolero. I understand that English is phonically regluar, when you refer to the spoken word. I thought that as we call the teaching of writing the graphemes, reading the words and the graphemes and sounding out words: 'Phonics lessons' that you presume that I understood. I see now that without using the absolute correct jargon for it, I have, in your eyes, shown myself to be ignorant. To be fair Mrz, you have expressed you views in a more polite way than Moondog, who resorts to swearing as she clearly can't get her point across in a digified manner. I see now, from your lesson breakdowns, that were we to meet and you watched me teach, you would not find as much to worry about. The way that you have written, shows me that you like your correct terms. I've found that using plain language is quickest way of getting the point across with our parents. They appreciate that in our school and I have only had positive feedback from the parents I've had. I'd love a good debate on the white paper but really can not be bothered to do it here now. I'll talk to my friends and collegues abaout it. I don't think I'll bother with any education related threads again. I'd be worried the phonics police would hijack it and start hurling insults. Mrz, not you; you just have a lofty air but I have met people like you and respect the fact that you've taught a long time and clearly do know your stuff. Perhaps just trying nt to talk down to me would have done the trick.

yes that makes sense pickledsiblings- I know I often do the same thing as an adult to see which version looks right using my experience as a reader

You are most welcome Shamster.
I could start a new thread. I could copy and paste what the OP wrote and hope the content would actually reflect the title, or I could create a discussion about reading methods and then discuss the white paper.

Sham I think there is a danger when using a forum shared by people with different levels of expertise in a subject to use words that can clearly be misunderstood. There is so much mis-information out there regarding education that as teachers we should not be adding to it.
I often write things expecting others to have the same background knowledge and then find I have to reword things so they are clear to everyone.
Many parents and teachers wrongly believe that those long lists of High Frequency Words have to be taught by sight which simply isn't the case. Most words are decodable from a very early point others have "unusual" tricky bits that children may not have encountered so they need to be taught the word and the tricky bit so that when they encounter other words with the same tricky bit they can use previous knowledge. I would teach the word was for example but tell the children that often when the letter "a" follows a "w" it represents the /o/ sound so later when they meet "watch" and "what" and "want" they can be quickly reminded of the "rule".

I agree with that; we don't send home words that can easily be decoded; I don't see the point. I also look at was, watch, what together. I'm sorry if I wasn't specific enough. I was really upset when I thought that a few, and it was just a few, posters who were teachers were saying I couldn't teach. The way you teach 'phonics', if I'm still allowed to call it that, is the way that I teach it too. But I do still and always will, I'm afraid, believe in supplementing it with other things for those that do not make progress. English is a very difficult language to read and write for non native speakers because of the iregularities in the graphemes. I wish now, that I had said graphemeically irregular; it is what I meant. I didn't go into too much detail about the whole thing as it wasn't my main point until this happened. I have lost my faith somewhat, in mumsnet, for rational discussion. It did get too heated and some posters are very rude and personal, which I wasn't expecting. But I can tell that you care deeply about what you do and are passionate about it. I am too. We all are; but I don't think I've ever commented on another teachers practice without seeing it woth my own eyes. I shall use the correct terms from now on...

And maizieD, you clearly don't think that anyone who isn't a 'teacher' has the right to an opinion. I value what my parents experience is with their children and we work with them not against them in supporting their children. LilyB spoke about her children and has the right to draw some conclusions from her own experience, as do we all. Amongst my non teaching friends, teachers have a real reputation for talking down to parents and not respecting that they may have valid poits. You can see it all over mumsnet; it's really sad. Talking down to parents alienates us, as a profession, further.

I'm afraid you are totally wrong about maizie Sham.

My nickname is Shamster, mrz. The tone of mazieD's post to LilyBolero was patronising, whatever the sentiment behind it. Perhaps expressing oneself in a less sarcastic way would make the point more gracefully. I just don't understand why people have to put other people down. It's what we tell our kids off for. We're setting a terrible example.

There is a tendency on forums to shorten names when typing

but is that orthographically or phonetically correct?

Sorry, I didn't realise. I'm fairly new to forums. Haven't posted on too many since I joined and, maybe oversensitively, I thought you were referring to the Sham in my name as before. Sorry.