Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Education

Join the discussion on our Education forum.

Phonics

103 replies

welshboris · 01/12/2005 10:08

phonics

OP posts:
sinclair · 01/12/2005 12:03

I know there a loads of fans of this approach, but frankly my heart sinks whenever I hear Ruth Kelly droning on about her latest initiative and this was no exception this morning. Schools should be allowed to teach how they like, surely?

ENIDeepMidwinter · 01/12/2005 12:07

i agree sinclair

esp about the droning

thecattleareALOHing · 01/12/2005 12:08

Sinclair, even if the way they teach doesn't work for a significant number of their pupils and leaves them functionally illiterate at worst and not reading as well as they could at best?
I don't think so.

thecattleareALOHing · 01/12/2005 12:08

Sinclair, even if the way they teach doesn't work for a significant number of their pupils and leaves them functionally illiterate at worst and not reading as well as they could at best?
I don't think so.

homemama · 01/12/2005 12:10

Where are all these mad militant schools that refuse to teach phonics?

I've never come across one. Every school I've ever taught in has used a phonics based approach in the infants.

ENIDeepMidwinter · 01/12/2005 12:20

dd1s school doesnt use jolly phonics

they use some phonics work in conjunction with ORT

She is not a good example as she struggles with reading - but the rest of her class are flying on with their reading. Her teacher is adamant that you need a mix of approaches as obv the phonics approach doesnt work with loads of words.

Scattercat · 01/12/2005 12:21

The problem has been that, although most schools do teach some phonics, it has been alongside other methods, so it is confusing for children and their parents as to how they are supposed to read the words. With a purely synthetic phonics approach, children are not required to guess at words - they are only expected to read words they have been shown how to decode.

sinclair · 01/12/2005 12:22

My DD has significant learning difficulties (she has DS) and she is in a mainstream setting and is learning to read just fine without the aid of phonics. In fact for children like her the use of phonics is discouraged before around 7 (she is Y1) Her school uses a what works best for the individual child approach, rather than a one size fits all; she has defintely benefited by not being in a learning straitjacket, altho other children are being helped by a phonetic approach.

But my argument is not with the method, but the application of that method to the exclusion of alternatives, which seems to be what govt are advocating, altho whether they can make it happen I'm not sure. Of course if you think there is even the slightest chance that your child will end up 'functionally illiterate', you would wade in and get the method you believed could help applied.

MARINAtivityPlay · 01/12/2005 12:22

She does drone awfully, doesn't she.
Ds' school has always felt a mixed approach works best and like Enid's, uses plenty of synthetic phonics with the fun approach ORT. Glad they finally ditched the hideous Ginn Spirals though

thecattleareALOHing · 01/12/2005 12:27

Enid, I'm not going to go on and on about his (honest!), but the synthetic phonics approach works on nearly every single English word, so I think the 'problem' here is that the teacher (who may be wonderful in so many ways) really doesn't know about or understand synthetic phonics.
Having used Jolly Phonics with ds (4) I would certainly not recognise them as a 'learning straitjacket'. He really enjoyed them and is now reading brilliantly IMO. He understood the rules very easily.
And you don't have to do it for long. A few terms of JP and they are off and you don't need poxy reading schemes.
Studies show it works well for all children and esp boys and kids who are struggling.

HRHQoQ · 01/12/2005 12:30

I don't see anywhere where it says

a) Jollyphonics will be used

b) that other methods won't be used alongside the phonics.

I've tried doing phonics with DS1 - and he just doesn't "get" them - however he's starting to read quite well now (ok he only started in September so nothign amazing).

Yes we all know phonics teaching has better results than other reading methods - however I haven't seen anywhere where it says that it's 100% successful and all children will therefore be completely literate from using that method.

homemama · 01/12/2005 12:34

But it's not magic! Even in schools were they adopt a pure synthetic phonics approach you still always have children coming up to the juniors unable to read.
And then what?
You are no longer taking a phonic based approach to the literacy hour because it now demands you move on to more complex decoding skills, text clues and analysis and inference. Now, because they've never been exposed to any other methods, they haven't a clue!

HRHQoQ · 01/12/2005 12:34

nearly every single English word?????

thecattleareALOHing · 01/12/2005 12:37

Yes, nearly every single English word.

ENIDeepMidwinter · 01/12/2005 12:37

isn't it just a fad?

like those weird beatrix potter books they used to have in the library when I was little, written in odd phonetic language?

thecattleareALOHing · 01/12/2005 12:38

Nah, of course not! It's just a more sophisticated version of C-A-T spells cat which certainly predates guessing words from pictures!
And every single study says it works better than anything else. Often extremely dramatically so. And it's not hard to teach or horrible or anything.

HRHQoQ · 01/12/2005 12:39

how would English be said phonetically??

elastamum · 01/12/2005 12:42

Its not new though, just another government bandwagon. Our sons school has been teaching it for years and it seems to work well for most kids

homemama · 01/12/2005 12:44

It is better than anything else but it still doesn't work for all children and they need something else.

julienetmum · 01/12/2005 12:51

Dd's school do not use synthetic phonics, but I have just started it with her at home (she is in nursery at the moment) and the results have been amazing. I am a big fan and she loves the achievement of being able to read proper words.

sinclair · 01/12/2005 12:53

Enid I remember those books, was it called ITA or something? It was taught at one of the local schools so library had a smattering of the books. Considered a bit 60s progressive for the rest of South Lincs, back then. Rest of us got Janet and John.

singersgirl · 01/12/2005 14:50

I'm also a big synthetic phonics fan and like Aloha (whose Christmas name I've forgotten!), my 4 year old is reading brilliantly because of it. It just makes so much sense and is very enjoyable too - children love to be able to do things, and by explicitly teaching the written code, rather than hoping they will sort it all out for themselves, we make it easier for them to read.
Many thanks here to Catflap for her many helpful posts on the subject, one of which caused me, about a year ago, to buy the Jolly Phonics handbook.

Catflap · 01/12/2005 19:47

It is such a shame for the education of children nationwide that opposition stil exists for this teaching method - but more so, that the comments by the critics just illustrate the lack of understanding and knowledge around synthetic phonics. I have never come across a negative statement about synthetic phonics that is based on evidence, fact and a secure understanding of how it works and what it consists of. The same can be said about reading this thread.

Could I just clarify some things brought up in some of the posts:

Sinclair said "Schools should be allowed to teach how they like, surely"

  • really?? what, even if they are failing children? OFSTED were brought in to monitor teaching and learning in schools and the curriculum exists to provide guidance as to a balanced coverage of instruction at all stages. Now, whils I have plenty to say against OFSTED and the curriculum, I do agree with the broad objective of keeping a check on schools to make sure children are actually learning and succeeding as in the past, children have left school quite unable because the teachers were teaching what they liked and not what they should... I remember a teacher in my sister's primary school getting into a bit of trouble when a few pupils began reporting how they did PE every day for hours because the teacher loved it - and they hardly did any maths and English and it was found that so many chidlren were falling hugely behind. Well, not in PE, but you see my point. The teaching profession and the Government hsa to be responsible for what children are learning.

homemama asked "Where are all these mad militant schools that refuse to teach phonics"

  • THERE AREN'T ANY!! No one ever said schools weren't teaching phonics! It is a central part of the National Literacy Strategy and pretty much all schools do it to some degree.

Enid said of her dd's school: "they use some phonics work in conjunction with ORT....She is not a good example as she struggles with reading"

  • This is a PERFECT example - have you ever thought your dd might be struggling BECAUSE she is learning phonics mixed with ORT? The two are incompatible - children can hardly ever practice what phonics they have learnt because ORT is a whole word based reading scheme - that is its purpose and how it was created. So, children learn how to build words up and sound them out and then have to resort to other strategies to read the ORT books because those words are far too complicated to read with their current phonic knowledge.

Sinclair also said: "school uses a what works best for the individual child approach" and "she has defintely benefited by not being in a learning straitjacket"

  • this attitude never ceases to amaze me. How on earth do you think this can realistically work with all subjects with all children?? Do you really think that children should be - and could be - taught ever subject purely according to their own personal needs? Of course not! Firstly, because there are 30 kids and usually only a couple of adults if that and there is no way any human, no matter how dedicated or fantastic they may be, can teach everything 30 different ways. How do you even suppose you go about assessing what children's individual ways are?? And secondly, because sometimes there is only one way to learn something properly. "Learning straitjacket" is just hilarious - reading is taught the most effectively by phonics because that is how our written language is constructed and that is what people need to know in order to decode it! Is there another way to teach children how to make different shades of green paint? Is telling them that yellow and blue makes green a learning straitjacket?

"But my argument is not with the method, but the application of that method to the exclusion of alternatives"

  • this is the success of synthetic phonics, though and THE WHOLE POINT - it is the confusing mixture of methods that is failing 25% of children across the nation. These poor kids NEED some sense in their reading curriculum and this is it!! It is precisely the chucking in of all strategies that is failing them! It is these kids that we want to save, as well as all the middle-achieving that could progress with more speed and confidence and hey, even the able ones would do better as well - they wouldn't have to work it out themselves through all the chaos.

HRHQofQ - "Yes we all know phonics teaching has better results than other reading methods - however I haven't seen anywhere where it says that it's 100% successful and all children will therefore be completely literate from using that method"

  • you haven't read very much, then....

Also, HRHQofQ - give us an example of words that you think are not constructed 'phonetically'. You've stated that you think many English words are not in fact regular before, but I asked you for examples then and you never did. Well, as you are still making the claim, I ask again. Because, like Aloha says, yes, nearly every single word is! Please give me your exceptions.

You asked how 'English' would be said phonetically.... what an odd question! It would be said 'English' of course? Think about what you asked - what does it even mean?? I think Iknow what you were getting at, and you are thinking of the all-too-limited traditional phonics where the 26 letters of the alphabet = 26 sounds which is SOOO limiting and where phonics has gone horribly wrong in the past. The only tricky bit when sounding the word 'English' is that the letter 'E' is actually here for an 'I' sound due to the history of the origin of the word, but even of sounded out with an 'e' (as in 'bed') sound, any child would be familiar enough with the rest of the sounds to be able to hear what it was supposed to say.

"But it's not magic! Even in schools were they adopt a pure synthetic phonics approach you still always have children coming up to the juniors unable to read"

  • homemama - yes it is! Isn't that GREAT?!! Surely we should all be excitedly embracing this rather than trying to make it go away. You see, many schools HAVE adopted a pure synthetic phonics approach and all the children ARE learning to read! There are many illustrations and case studies available online. Wouldn't you want that for all children in all schools??
HRHQueenOfQuelNoel · 01/12/2005 19:57

Well I certainly don't say EN glish - I pronounce it IN glish.

said, was, one, friend, where, - that's off the top of my head -

HRHQueenOfQuelNoel · 01/12/2005 19:59

are you HONESTLY telling me that if a purely synthetics approach was taken to teaching british children to read EVERY child would learn to read as well as the next child????