DD's teacher says that "bright" children don't need synthetic phonics instruction.

[Avocadoes]

DD1 started Reception two weeks ago. Last night was parents evening (already!). I asked for advice on how to help DD learn to read. She already knows her individial letter sounds. The teacher just said to read with her for 10 minutes every day. In teh teachers words "She is very bright, she will learn without special instruction".

I was a little surprisied by this advice. I asked if I should concentrate on teaching she the sounds of specific letter combinations like sh, ch, ou etc. The teacher said there was no need to. She said that approach amounted to synthetic phonics instruction and DD1 would not need that kind of "intervention".

Is it true that synthetic phonics is only useful in helping slow readers? I am really interested in how I can help DD1 learn to read and enjoy reading.

No, it's not true that only slow readers benefit from being taught synthetic phonics, but the teacher is right to say that not all children need to be taught them.

Synthetic phonics will help all children, and can be useful in helping to teach spellings, but some/many children seem to just learn to read by osmosis (ie just being immersed in reading - being read to and being heard read) I guess that's what the teacher is saying. Do lots of that

You can be perfectly bright and still struggle to learn to read. Synthetic phonics will help those particular children.

Phonics will help all children, whether with just the basic letter sounds or with blending them into digraphs as they progress.
She might be able to recognise the basics, but helping her more isn't going to do any harm is it?

The teacher is clearly ignorant of current reading guidance - I am pinching this from Maverick who posted it the other day, since it is clearly relevant here:

'(E)nsure that as pupils move through the early stages of acquiring phonics, they are invited to practise by reading texts which are entirely decodable for them, so that they experience success and learn to rely on phonemic strategies. It is important that texts are of the appropriate level for children to apply and practise the phonic knowledge and skills that they have learnt. Children should not be expected to use strategies such as whole-word recognition and/or cues from context, grammar, or pictures.'

Hardly an 'intervention'. And what about the phonic teaching your dd will need for spelling?

She is right, imo. Synthetic phonics has been introduced because it benefits the weaker children and is helpful for kids with dyslexia. It doesn't help with comprehension.

Just read with your child, and she will get it without phonics.

It's not meant to help with comprehension - that's an entirely separate skill.

How will she get spelling without phonics then - or decoding a difficult word she's never seen?

Hmm. I admit I used to feel like the teacher - I was reading by 4 just from word recognition etc, mum had never even heard of phonics. I guess I decoded it myself. But I've had my mind changed by Mumsnet and now I think that phonics is better, for many reasons.

As for the 'bright' thing, well that was at best poorly worded and at worst downright insulting - being bright is not always linked to reading ability - I have (DZ) twin DSDs, one is dyslexic but brighter than the other in lots of ways!

I think some children simply understand the phonic rules subconsciously - I learnt to read just by being read to and was always very good at spelling. However, I distinctly remember spelling unfamiliar words by working out how they were probably spelt, on the basis that certain letter combinations made particular sounds, despite never having a phonics lesson in my life. I also remember finding it very odd that many of my peers would struggle with spelling, because if they hadn't already learnt how to spell a word or seen it written down somewhere before, they wouldn't even want to attempt to work out how to spell it! I am therefore very sold on the idea that teaching to read (and spell) using phonics is a very good idea, as it helps the children for whom reading does not come naturally, and must surely be capable of speeding up the process of becoming a competent and confident reader in those for whom it both comes naturally and who get plenty of reading practice. And I let my dss sit through phonics lessons, despite both being fluent readers prior to starting school (eg reading Horrid Henry, Beast Quest and Roald Dahl) because I hoped it would speed up the process of them becoming confident spellers - it's not as if their writing abilities yet match their reading ages. At the least, it gave them the confidence to try and spell words they didn't already know how to spell, because they had been given specific tools to do this and told it was OK - otherwise their perfectionism might have got in the way, leaving them limited only to words they were already confident with.

I am not sure how phonics works with spelling - English isn't a phonetic language so there is an obvious limit to how much use it is going to be on that score.

I'm not saying phonics is bad - I have been quite impressed by it. But bright kids who are interested in reading can easily learn by word recognition. The phonics is just something that they seem to learn alongside. That is the case with my DD anyway.

Greeninkmama Tue 25-Jan-11 17:10:44

I am not sure how phonics works with spelling - English isn't a phonetic language
All language is phonetic by definition

Mrz:

Some languages are "phonetic". That means you can look at a written word and know how to pronounce it. Or you can hear a word and know how to spell it. With phonetic languages, there is a direct relationship between the spelling and the sound.

It is important to understand that English is not a phonetic language. So we often do not say a word the same way it is spelled.

www.englishclub.com/esl-articles/200104.htm

So if you are learning Spanish, say, you can spell out each word as it is written. If you are learning English, spelling out only works with certain words. You can do c-a-t and c-a-t-e-go-ry. But when it comes to say through, tough, though, thought, spelling out isn't going to help. Word recognition and context is.

I was going to say that Greeninkmama.

Having said that I do teach phonics to all of my Y1 children.

No Greeninkmamma ɪŋglɪʃ ɪz ə fənɛtɪk læŋgwədʒ
all languages are phonetic as phonetic refers to the spoken sounds in language what you mean is the English orthographic system

Ds is the same as Green's - has learned phonics but alongside reading via whole word recognition as he has a very good memory. He uses phonics to decode some new words the first time but mostly memorises things.

I think it has been useful but not the be all and end all for him as look and say would have been fine.

Well I was a bright child and I learnt to read perfectly well without phonics. Having said that, my spelling is pants.

Now ds1 is learning to read with the help of synthetic phonics I am continually amazed at all the connections b/w pronunciation and spelling I am discovering. I honestly was under the impression that there were no rules at all.

Maybe a really bright child will work out the connection themselves but I wish we had had a little phonetical instruction.

I agree with you Barbarian. I read before school without phonics and have always had poor spelling. Dd is pretty bright - and really enjoys the pattern aspect of phonics. I think it's helped her a lot - but she also just reads words by whole word recognition.

I'd be worried Avocadoes, even if your DD is picking it up easily, (and I do agree to some extent with rabbitstew, that some children learn the phonic rules simply by reading a lot) what about the rest of the class? It sounds as though the teacher is going to wait and see who fails, and only then consider some intervention for them.

DD is fairly switched on. Now receiving phonics instruction in YR2. Didn't get much of it before due to a different education system. Her spelling is improving and she can attempt new words by herself, before I used to have to just give it to her and hope it was repeated in the book again. She pretty much got to Turquoise level by sight alone. I don't think she is having to work so hard now she's learning more rules. If I explain a variation of a sound / spelling she can remember it fairly easily.

I am just looking into phonics text for my reception child. I'm not happy with Biff and Chip conflicting the way he's being taught in class. Thankfully he is pretty natural so he sounds out and can then make a good guess if it is a variation.

Good luck

My first four learnt to read before phonics were in vogue of them two of them could read before school anyway just by being read to and sharing books no special teaching. Dd now seven learnt to read at home and then was taught phonics at school.She never uses phonics to decode when reading because she recognises part words and transfers that knowledge to decode instead.She will use phonics to spell words that she hasn't already memorised the spelling of though.

"She never uses phonics to decode when reading because she recognises part words and transfers that knowledge to decode instead"

I can understand how 'part word' readers seem to be able to assemble words, but how do they cope with the bits which aren't recognisable as 'part words'?

I suspect there might be a bit of phonic knowledge coming into play there...

I find the strategy also falls down a bit when the 'words within words' don't actually behave the way the child thinks they should. How do they cope with words like 'capable' - 'cap' 'able'?

Even if they don't use it as much for reading - my own dd is very much a sight reader rather than a decoder - all children need it for spelling.