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:
Epiffany · 01/12/2005 20:00

Without reading any of the posts
I would like to say
That
I would never leave it up to a school to teach my child to read
Had I left my ds he would barely be literate
Scuse me

HRHQueenOfQuelNoel · 01/12/2005 20:06

oh and please direct to me to somewhere where it says that it has 100% success rate.

Just been reading the analysis of the test in Scotland thought this (from the summary section)

"At the end of Primary 2, the girls who had had the programme at the start of schooling read better than those initially taught by the standard analytic phonics approach. However, the timing of this programme had no impact on the boys? word reading skills at the end of Primary 2."

and

" At the end of the experimental programmes, the synthetic phonics group read 7 months ahead of chronological age, and 7 months ahead of the other two groups. They were also 7 months ahead of chronological age in spelling, and spelt 8 to 9 months ahead of the other two groups."

were interesting - does it really matter if our children are only at the "chronological age" of reading, writing (or any other subject for that matter)?? Why do we want them to be ahead????

HRHQueenOfQuelNoel · 01/12/2005 20:12

"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??"

ermmm Homemama said that NOT all children coming from pure synthetics reading schools were able to read when they got to juniors .............

Glitterygook · 01/12/2005 20:19

HRH, if the child said the sounds as they learn them phonetically they'd say 'e' 'nn' 'g' 'ul' 'i' 'sh'

The 'n' is not said how you would just say the letter, it's the sound iyswim 'nnnnn' not 'ne/nu' and the 'l' is not 'le/lu' is 'ul' iyswim - hard to explain! If you put all that together, even if you have 'e' instead of 'i' at the beginning the rest makes sense enough that they can fathom the word! LIke when they do 'the' they say the 'th' sound and the 'e' sound and still work out it's 'the'.

Glitterygook · 01/12/2005 20:22

I would guess that say after first term of reception, those not learning phonics will have learned a lot of words but not really understand why they say what they do. So they may have a long list of words they have memorised because they associate them with a picture but if a new word comes along they wouldn't have the first clue how to work it out without a picture.

I wouldn't be able to tell you how many words ds1 can read because he can have a good stab at almost any word he comes across (OK, not multisyllabic ones but most 4-6 letter ones I'd say. In the Thomas book tonigh he could read 'humming' and 'brass band' blah, blah - words that I doubt most of those not learning phonics would have come across or even be able to work out.

I could be wrong, but this is my guess.

Eaney · 01/12/2005 20:24

When ds started to read I threw in what I remembered about sounding words out and he also learnt with flash cards.

Not being a teacher we stumbled along with me helping him breakdown a word he didn't recognise in whatever way I thought was right. When we came accross a word like 'laugh' I said that sometimes words are funny and you just have to remember them. What should I have done?

Not worried about ds as he is reading books a couple of years ahead of his age (perhaps I remembered better than I thought) but I have a dd who I don't want to confuse.

I never got any advise from teachers (probably because he was ahead) so cobbled an approach based on how I was taught.

Glitterygook · 01/12/2005 20:30

Eaney - in that case I'd have explained that 'gh' is usually pronounced 'fff' the same as 'f' is iyswim. Then they wouldnt' just have to remember the word laugh and then start again on rough but would be able to work out rough, cough etc when they came across them.

Sounds like it didn't do him any harm though!

HRHQueenOfQuelNoel · 01/12/2005 20:35

I did borrow some Jollyphonics stuff off a friend after seeing people on here saying how my DS would never learn to read without synthetic phonics..... (well not really actually after I read about it was curious) - but DS1 got hopelessly lost in the whole thing so I gave the stuff back and let school get on with their mixed approach - he now seems to be doing quite well - even managed nearly spell "dad" on his own the other day (but for some unknown reason he decided it had a "U" in the middle instead of an "A").

Mind you it doesn't suprise me that he didn't get on with it with the bit we tried - he's a bit like me - not very good at 'logical' things (I just hope he's not as bad at maths as I was ) and just needs to see it 'straight' to learn it. Although I did understand the Jollyphonics stuff, I know if I'd done it at school I would have been hopelessly lost - too 'logical' for my brain

Hulababy · 01/12/2005 20:38

The letterland CD has lots of songs (one for each letter) on which is great for teaching parents what the phonic letter sounds are

Glitterygook · 01/12/2005 20:38

You're an odd one HRH! It couldn't be any simpler!!

Glitterygook · 01/12/2005 20:39

Hula - Jolly PHonics has a CD too. I'm suffering it in the car atm! Cna't wait to put our Christmas one in

HRHQueenOfQuelNoel · 01/12/2005 20:42

I know Hula - I borrowed that too - I'm with some of the other "slight" sceptics - while I DON'T doubt that it's the most successful system for teaching children to read, I also don't think it works for every child (certainly if Homemama is to be believed - which I'm sure she is - not all children are successful with it)

I'm also not sure about this big thing about them being 7 or 8 months ahead of where they're 'expected' to be at that age with their reading - who cares - as long as they're learning, and are at the age they SHOULD be at (not zooming ahead - although obviously if they're bright kids that's absolutely fine).

I just don't understand why children have to be "x months AHEAD" in their reading, but every other subject it's ok to be at the 'right' age???? Confused

Glitterygook · 01/12/2005 20:43

Agree with you about 'being ahead' QOQ - I hate all this quickly, quickly get them to the stage of being 10 before they really are. Why?!

HRHQueenOfQuelNoel · 01/12/2005 20:46

oooo so we agree on something Glitter .

I just want my DS's to progress at their own (but reasonable) speed - of course it'd be lovely to go to the parent evenings next term and DS1's teacher say he's really advanced at x,y,z - but as long as he's not struggling and falling BEHIND where he should be at this age I really couldn't care less/

Catflap · 01/12/2005 20:48

QofQ - but I made that point; you have entered into the sounding out with the presumption that 'e' is always there for the 'e' (as in 'bed') sound - and good synthetic phonics teaches children that the 26 letters are used in all sorts of combinations for 40+ sounds and teach the children to recognise which sound to say when they see a letter or group of letters. And as I said before, even if English was sounded with an 'e' sound at the start, the rest is so easy it's ot going to be hard to work it out, is it? And that is one of the skills of synthetic phonics - 'tweaking' as yes, our language is extremely complicated as it has words form so many different origins.

But - all our words are phonetic as that means that the sounds are represented by letters - as they all are.

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????

well, to put it simply - YES

However, a little more accurately - all chidlren would learn to read. They would still vary in their rates of progress as do all people with everything they learn.

Visit the RRF and Jolly Learning sites for a start. The RRF has a wealth of information, statistics and evidence from all the studies and all the schools that practice exclusive synthetic phonics.

And, no - who cares about a chronological reading age. I think those figures are just used to illustrate progress and achievement as a good guide using commonly accepted assessment methods. What we want is for every child to be ABLE to read. Effectively and independently and quickly. Which they do using SP.

And now for a phonics lesson for those words you brought up that supposedly cannot be explained by phonics.

Remember that written words are constructed to each individual speech sounds is represented by a letter OR series of letters.

Letters are often used to represent different sounds, there is not just one sound assigned to each letter or group.

Synthetic phonics teaches children to recognise each letter and group of letters for all the sounds it represents and to be able to blend these to read words. They can therefore tackle any unknown or unfamiliar word with confidence and independence.

so, bearing these things in mind:

(in my explanations,I will represent the sounds by letters we most commonly associate with those sounds

said - the spoken word consists of 3 sounds: s-e-d
the 's' and 'd' are most common. The 'ai' is the tricky bit. 'ai' CAN be used for the 'e' sound in 'again' depending on how you pronounce it, in which case the words can be taught together. However, if not, then this is the only word where 'ai' is for 'e' but even blending it with a 'ai' pronunciation you can hear what it is supposed to be and 'tweak' it.

was - consists of 3 sounds: w-o-z
The 'w' is quite common. The 'o' sound is represented by the letter 'a' whenever the 'w' sound comes before it, as in want, wash, wasp, swan, swamp, squash. So this is quite common as well. The 's' at the end is usually pronounced 'z' as in many words except possibly 'bus'

one - this to me is one probably really weird word. The spoken word consists of 'w-u-n' and the 'w' sound really isn't represented, as far as I can see. I usually teach that the 'u' is there with the o_e as in done, some, love etc and the 'n' is common.

friend - all quite common except for the 'ie' for the 'e' sound where this is the only word. There is some history of the origin of the word that I tell concerning how Freya is the goddess of friendship whcih 'friday' is named after, so when writing the word 'friend' remember friday and start it off like friday begins. SOunds complicated written like that but it always helped my kids.

where - 'wh' for 'w' quite common and I teach 'ere' for the 'air' sound with 'there'

Our language is very complicated with all sorts of 'rules' but synthetic phonics teaches all these in a systematic and thorough way which is also fast paced so children acquire all these 'rules' quickly and with plenty of reinforcement in their reading so they can quickly learn to decode unfamiliar words by themselves.

Catflap · 01/12/2005 20:50

hula - scream - in frustration; I'm sorry.

Letterland is really incomlete phonics that can do a lot of damage.

There are at least 43 speech sounds - teaching these from the point of view if 26 letters is SOOOO limiting and misleading: it really shouldn't be encouraged.

HRHQueenOfQuelNoel · 01/12/2005 20:54

Catflap if you'd read my earlier post you'd see I'd not only been to those websites - on several occasions, but also borrowed some jolly phonics stuff from a friend - I didn't much care for it - and DS1 hated it with a passion and really didn't get on with it - I gave the stuff back and he's doing quite well at school now (although he pretends he can't do it at home - but I've over heard him reading to a friend and he did it brilliantly(.

Catflap · 01/12/2005 20:54

QofQ - "ermmm Homemama said that NOT all children coming from pure synthetics reading schools were able to read when they got to juniors ............."

ermmm ye-es...??

and my comment still stands! I am DISPUTING what she said!

There will always be one of two children here and there who cannot learn AT ALL with synthetic phonics, or perhaps with anything. These children will have severe special needs and are rare.

HRHQueenOfQuelNoel · 01/12/2005 20:57

"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????

well, to put it simply - YES

However, a little more accurately - all chidlren would learn to read. They would still vary in their rates of progress as do all people with everything they learn."

then you say

"There will always be one of two children here and there who cannot learn AT ALL with synthetic phonics, or perhaps with anything. These children will have severe special needs and are rare."

Slight contradiction there......or did you forget to put that in your post to me?

HRHQueenOfQuelNoel · 01/12/2005 20:58

Homemama is (I think) a teacher - so I presume she knows what she's talking about when she says some children go up to juniors not be able to read.

Catflap · 01/12/2005 21:00

"Catflap if you'd read my earlier post you'd see I'd not only been to those websites - on several occasions, but also borrowed some jolly phonics stuff from a friend - I didn't much care for it - and DS1 hated it with a passion and really didn't get on with it - I gave the stuff back and he's doing quite well at school now (although he pretends he can't do it at home - but I've over heard him reading to a friend and he did it brilliantly(. "

QofQ - I DID read your posts, but if you had have visited these site thoroughly enough, you wouldn't have asked to be pointed in the direction of information that supported the 100% of children (actually, it is nearly 100%) which is why I mentioned it.

I didn't like the JP stuff at first either, before I fully understood what it was all about. I would also suggest that many of the resources are just a support for those that fancy them - I taught with miminal JP resources as I didn't like many of them - it is the philosophy that is the most important and I used th pictures and actions as references for the sounds.

I'm glad your son is reading well - perhaps that is why you haven't had to truly understand it. Parents whose children read well don't really have to worry as much as those frustrated and saddened by their children failing.

Hulababy · 01/12/2005 21:02

I don't mean to use Letterland; I know it isn't a greta one. BUT the CD of songs did remind me exactly how to pronounce the letter sounds!

HRHQueenOfQuelNoel · 01/12/2005 21:02

so it ISN'T 100% then is it???

Well I think he's reading adequately for his age - I don't see the need for him to be ahead of his age. I just HATE this 'push' push 'push' 'push'. stuff over reading these days.

puddle · 01/12/2005 21:02

Catflap I find your posts so interesting. They have really given me an insight into how my son is learning - thank you.

he's in year 1 now and his reading is great - he's learnt through phonics.

Catflap · 01/12/2005 21:03

but has homemama taught in a school that teaches SP exclusively to see those children who go into the juniors not reading at all? - btw, it would be great to chat to her if she does have this experience. And I'm sure there are some children who don't, as I stated before, but they are very rare.

I'm a teacher. I haven't had the fortune to teach in a whole SP school, but have taught the same class two consecutive years by SP and all of them could read. All at different rates, of course, and I had many sorts of SEN. Tiny sample, I know,but it illustrates my point and then you multiply that for all the sp schools.

Swipe left for the next trending thread