Phonics

[welshboris]

phonics

DS1 has learnt to read purely through synthetic phonics (Ruth Miskin) - which really appeals to him as he is such a rule-based person.

DS2 is learning in a different, and more mixed way - relying very much on visual and aural memory and letter recognition as well as phonics. He really likes, for example, the Dr Seuss books - whereas they just left DS1 completely cold.

I learnt to read through phonics and agree that it makes sense - we represent sound through letters and letter groups so why on earth wouldn't we explain that to people trying to read?! What a bizarre idea. Of course people who can read recognise words by their shape - that's why words in block capitals are harder to read - but you need to know how to read first before you recognise the shape. You can't decode something if no-one gives you the code!

I had friends at senior school who had been taught some bizarre methods and had real problems with reading and spelling as a result. And just look at any group of adults trying to spell English - we are bad enough here on MN. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the last few decades of teaching reading and writing, is it?

RE 'bad ideas' in teaching reading. I come from the era of the Initial Teaching Alphabet. Thank go I missed it, but I know many people who were totaly thrown by this idea

Catflap. Jolly phonics and the PIPs book. That was literaly it, they didn't deviate from these not even for reference. They adapted the PIPs games to fit in with whatever they were teaching at the time.

I know I'm an upper junior teacher (although have often taught Y3) but despite everything I've experienced, (and everything you've posted)I still firmly believe that a good teacher needs to have a range of resources and methods at their disposal.

Lasvegas - I know you asked Catflap not me, but Janet and John is "look and say", which is anathema to the phonics fundamentalists. I don't know whether Janet and John is still around, but Peter and Jane, the Ladybird look-and-say scheme of my youth, still was a few years back. There's also an updated Ladybird look-and-say scheme called "Read with Me" (if I remember rightly)starring Tom, Kate, Sam the dog, Tom and Kate's multicultural circle of friends and their working mum. Tom and Kate are real modern children, unlike Peter and Jane; they have sulks, lunchboxes and crocodile fixations. I used this scheme successfully with my three sons between the ages of three and four. It's a good age to teach them, when they've had the phonics and symbol linking logic upgrades but still like repetition.

I was raised on Janet and John.

I can still remember that the last of the series of books was pink and had the story of Chicken Licken and the sky falling in!

Martianbishop and Caligyulea - the time I referred to when parents were told to leave it to the teachers was the Initial Teaching Alphabet era. I narrowly missed it myself, and it was partly fear of the education system coming up with anything as bad again which led me to teach my children to read and not risk leaving it to the school. My fears were not justified, but I believe my children have benefited from learning to read early.

I was in the Janey and John era, a year of two after me, they copped the ITA! So I consider 'look and say' the lesser of two evils

Obviously that should be literally.

Martianbishop - Ladybird still do a series of fairytale readers which link in with their main schemes (or did last time I looked). What most stuck in my mind was the way Mummy Pig and Little Red Riding Hood's mum told their offspring to go out in the world and not get eaten by the Big Bad Wolf. I think we're so overprotective these days...

Catflap - you talk about there not being any discussion on the best way to teach the fundamentals of any other subject. I have friends who did teacher training recently - I gather they did a lot of work on how to accommodate different learning styles in their teaching. In numeracy there seems to be a lot of emphasis on the pupils doing basic arithmetic in the way that makes sense to that individual so long as it works - a far cry from the regimentation of my youth. As for music, I couldn't agree with you more. I think there's only one way to do it, and that standard musical notation is a wonderful pure phonics system that actually works. My children's school doesn't agree though - they don't do notation. Ds3's recorder lessons seem to consist of listening and playing along with tapes, and judging rhythms by thinking of words e.g. No More Milk.

Have you never failed to understand something, asked someone else and been given an explanation that was objectively no better than the first one but just "clicked" for you? It's been a common experience for me!

I worked with loads of synthetic phonic loving NZ and Ozzie learning support teachers a few years back. Didn't work any better than anything else- (I'm presuming that mixed methods were initally tried at infant level) with the kids we were working with (all had special needs of one sort or another.)

issymum I would still go for it!

edam - LOVED your post; very eloquent and to the point: wish I could do that. Great thoughts to be pondered upon - particularly your closing point.

homemama - oh. a bit disappointed there! It doesn't sound like they did the best possible job I understand can be done from a school doing sp properly as a whole school. I can see why you weren't that enthralled. Have you read about Nobi Kazrul school in Inner London headed by Ruth Miskin? Or the St. Michael's school in Bristol who are a JP school? They seem to have it - and they don't use PIPs. At all.

By the way, to folk discussing various books - Ladybird do a phonics range now, which aren't bad! They include such titles as 'Splat Cat' and 'Stunt Duck' and go through various sounds spelt with single letters, digraphs and spelling variations.

hallgerda - I know teacher training institutions do loads on learning styles - it is the 'in' thing at the moment. But there has been a wealth of research and evidence to show that a) assessing a child's learning style is very hard, particularly at a young age and that b) adapting teaching to each child's learning style doesn't actually work any better than how things were taught before.

Also - some subject areas are more suited to one style than others. Does this mean we should only teach art to visual learners? Should we only teach music to auditory learners? Should we only teach PE to kinaesthetic learners? Although, if you think about it, most areas encompass all learning styles one way or another - surely all relevant styles have to be encouraged to appreciate and be able at a subject. You need to be visual to do art, so develop and encourage that. You need auditory awareness to have a go at music - and some visual for reading music, so develop that. Reading words is a visual AND auditory process, so both should be developed. And as with all areas of learning, a good auditory learner won't need so much work on the phonological side of things. A good visual learner won't need so much work on the visual side of things. The synthetic phonics approach often involves a lot of multisensory activities because doing things appeals to most of us - of course you adapt your teaching to suit how you perceive children learn best but you need to make sure all areas are expereinced within the correct method of teaching what reading involves. What the mixed method people are advicating is teaching to a wide variety of learning styles, whilst teaching something that is misleading and incorrect.

Of course I have frequently failed to understand things - for all I can do about phonics is echoed in the perfect opposite in all i can't do about maths. Some people can explain things to me and i get it; others try and fail miserably. Of course I have experienced that. And I have experienced that with children in my teaching of reading. But at least I am teaching them to decode the written word - not experiencing them failing while guessing at words or trying to memorise shapes of words, when that is not reading!!!

and scummymummy, I think I was just agreeing with issymum in that i have experienced that too from that side of the world - I know there is a huge sp practice over there too; the RRF has a section devoted to it. I didn't mean to be misleading in my assessment of the teaching practices of nz and oz.

Catflap, I'm sorry but I really must take issue with your postings.

I feel that you are insinuating that the only reason I have have not come over whole-heartedly to the exclusive teaching of SP is because I lack exposure to how 'amazing' it is. I absolutely dispute this.

I have freely admitted on this thread and others that I see it as a very important tool. However, I fundamentally believe that other avenues need to be accesible to the teacher for her to deploy where she sees fit; ie where it isn't working for a particular child for whatever reason.

Quite frankly, I feel insulted that you regularly suggest that teachers who don't embrace the method are teachers who can't teach a child to read. My teacher training placed heavy weighting on the teaching of reading with great emphasis played on the need for a SP based approach. We were taught that 26 letters does not equal 26 sound etc. I have also attended many insets and courses on various aspects of reading given by speakers of all persuasions.

I have formed my views on this based on my own intelligence and experience. It is not the result of either poor teacher training or any misfortune at not having the pleasure.

I see your dismissive attitude as an insult to my integrity as a teacher and your assumption that it's your way or the highway as rather arrogant.

I have always found the best teachers to be those that are open-minded to new ideas and willing to embrace a range of strategies to ensure the best education for their pupils.

Thank you Catflap.

Tichy - wafer is very regular in that the 'magic 'e'' makes the 'a' say its name not its sound.
Jolly phonics teaches kids that 'ou' can be sounded 'ooo' or 'ow'.
My ds is just over four and has assimilated all these rules remarkably easily. And he can read. I am delighted and so is he. And I'd never heard of Jolly Phonics before Catflap posted, so I for one am grateful. he's having a lot of fun reading everything - signs, my mumsnet postings, books, cereal packets. Of course he doesn't read like I do, but he reads well enough for it to be fun, not a horrible chore. And I can confidently explain most spellings to him which is fantastics. I was flummoxed before, only knowing the 26 alphabet sounds.

homemama - how extraordinary that you are so insulted by my posts; I wonder why, as I really don't feel I have done half of what I am accused of. I wonder why you are so sensitive.

It's MY way or the highway?? Whatever gave you the impression I was promoting something that was MY way?? You have taught it - therefore, you know it's got nothing to do with me! I'm not here promoting something special that I have discovered or created as you very well know so why take issue with me for this? Plenty of people are out there promoting it, so I'm hardly doing this on my own or for my own benefit.

I am also basing general thoughts about the vast majority of teachers - and you only have to visit teaching messageboards to hear teachers admitting they don't know how to teach children to read adequately. Many are shocked and disgusted they can't. There have been many threads on phonics boards asking for people to mention training colleges that teach trainees how to teach reading effectively and so many say they haven't been.

OF COURSE there will be exceptions and of course phonics teaching is getting very thorough as the creation of PIPs has made it more effective than of old, but similarly, 26 letters = 26 sounds does still happen because I read about it all the time.

I was actually quite excited to hear about your school and teaching as I love to read about other schools' practices and experiences but I guess your more in an unnecessary strop with me to be in the mood to discuss it further.

I amo not making any of what I say up in my own head. I am basing it on what I have read, heard, had told to me, and experienced in classrooms.

I analysed and subsequently doubted my own practice years ago and taught myself through reading what I now teach. I have had many people really thankful that they have been alerted to the same issues as colleagues of other message baord users. There are so many people that agree with me. I do of course encounter plenty of opposition, but that is going to have to be your problem and the problem of any children you MIGHT teach that perhaps DON'T learn to read my mixed methods, because they do exist. I'm certainly not criticising any specifics of your teaching, because I don't really know you or your class, do i.

As i've said before - I just want all children to learn to read because those who fail and struggle is just too sad. Does that really make me a bad teacher or a horrible person??

Also, the wafer/wnker exceptions were not quite in accordance with what I was saying - when the SOUND 'o' follows the SOUND 'w' then it is spelt 'a'. In wafer, the 'a' is there for the 'ai' sound and in wnker, the 'a' is there for its usual 'a' sound so this doesn't fit into what i was saying.

This might mean, therefore that when seeingt he words wafer and w*nker, you might not be sure what sound to say when blending it, but SP kids would know all the sounds 'a' can be used for and would try a variety until they got it - also using context as a support - within a secure phonological understanding this is good!

Just seen entertaining comment piece in Indie on Sunday. Apparently Frank Green, described as the guru of look and say method (think that's what it's called - the one that replaced phonics in schools) said: 'Learning is spontaneous and effortless. It requires no particular attention, conscious motivation or specific reinforcement.'

Was he calling for the abolition of schools and teachers?

No wonder the last 30 years have left generations unable to spell English or understand grammar, then...

learning is effortless??????

Hhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Wonder how many classes he has taught just reacently????

Learning requires effort, even for the very brightest children. This is why some of them don't want to do it, it takes effort and if they don't 'get it' first time they get switched off.

And this is true of my A level classes and my top set y11 (nothing below an A grade predicted), just as much as my sn kids in year 7

Doncha just love educational 'experts'?

Catflap, it was the tone of your post which I took offence to not the content. Of course it is great that you post so enthusiastically about a subject that you believe in and that it appears to have helped so many mums on here.

However, I felt that your replies to myself and others who disagreed with you, were rather condesending.

Let me clarify please. I am very keen on a pure SP approach being adopted at the beginning of reception (or earlier if possible). However, I strongly believe that other methods need to be on hand to accomodate those children for whom it isn't working.

I am not keen on letterland because I feel that it confuses children no end. What is the point in a phonics based approach that teaches 26 letters rather than the 40 odd sounds we use?
Neither am I keen on ORT. I have never seen it as a stand alone resource, adequately teach a good number of children to read.

I also dislike teachers message boards. I find them to be full of whinging people who don't appreciate the importance of their job. Who complain about the pay and conditions but who do a sloppy days work every day. (I'm not at all suggesting that this is you.)

Without sounding trite, I'm actually quite proud of the job I do and of the way I do it. I am always keen to update my professional knowledge and I regularly take students into my class in the hope that it can be a mutual learning experience for both of us.

When I was f/t, I was a leading maths teacher. Everything from that experience taught me that there are 'many ways to skin a cat'. There was always the easiest, most straightforward way to teach a calculation. One, which for most children, including those with SN, just helped it click. However, there would always be one or two children for whom this method didn't suffice. They needed something else and it was my job to make sure they were given another tool to help them reach their potential.

So, it is not through ignorance that I come to disagree with your puritanical SP approach. I don't want to trade personal or professional insults. I apologise if my post came across as rude but not that it came across as defensive. I saw a clear message in all your postings insinuating or perhaps merely suggesting that the only people who disagreed with the approach were those who either hadn't seen it or didn't understand it. This is the issue I dispute.

I really hope we can agree to disagree on this and that you will not leave the thread totally dismissive of my point of view.

homamama. Totaly agree with you that you have to have a variety of ways to teach anything. This seems to me utterly self evident, and fits in with VAK and other throries of learning.

My dd, 8 with a reading age of 13, took to letterland and ORT, like a duck to water since she has a highly visial bias to her learning. My son is only reaing now they have concentrated on phonics.....hourses for courses IMHO (and how I run my classes in secondary BTW)

Thanks MB! I'm a bit of a resource and theory tart really! I'll jump on anything that'll work!

Thanks MB! I'm a bit of a resource and theory tart really! I'll jump on anything that'll work!

often apparently!