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.

Hmm, I'm finding all this stuff about ASD very interesting. I have long wondered whether DS1 might be somewhere on the mild end of the spectrum (he could be summed up as very bright but also fairly obsessive and socially pretty inept). I had no idea that sight reading might be linked to ASD, but, reading this thread, the fact that he was able to sight read pretty fluently by age 3, makes me think that maybe he is on the spectrum. Not sure whether it's something I should investigate .

Elusive - I'd recommend investigating it. Research it a bit more, then if you still think he 'definitely maybe' - go to your GP and ask for a referral to a paed.

rabbitstew but I haven't met your DS
I wasn't for one minute suggesting that all natural readers are on the spectrum just the few I have met.

Sorry mrz, I didn't mean to suggest that you suggested that, I just meant that, in conjunction with other factors, it might perhaps be an indicator of ASD.

Sorry I was replying to rabbitstew as I didn't want her to think I was suggesting her son is on the spectrum.

Gosh, aren't we all being frightfully polite for a MN thread .

It's Primary, we're all v. civilised over here, doncha know.

Phonics is ok to start with, but fast readers leave it behind very quickly and move on to reading both regular and tricky words mainly as wholes.

For spelling, phonics is even less useful, because 4 out of every 7 English words contain one or more tricky letters (said, head, friend, build, touch, tough, Monday) ? all of which are listed at englishspellingproblems.blogspot.com

So phonics gives children a good start, but no more than that. And the type of phonics is immaterial. In last week?s TES there was an article about a recent Ofsted report which said:

--Effective phonics teaching was found at all of the primaries inspected, with pupils taught "letter-sound correspondences", "how to blend individual sounds together to read words" and "how to break up individual sounds to spell them".

Inspectors observed a "wide variety of effective approaches" using phonics, and there was "no notable difference in attainment" whether schools devised their own programmes or used published schemes. ---
So schools are doing pretty much ok now, but each parents still makes a huge difference to their own child - with encouragement and support.

Well I can only speak from own experience. My ds is 7 and I always read to him extensively. He never learned phonics but is a free reader and has been for a while. My mum says I was the same. Personally I think reading to your child is the single most useful thing you can do for them to learn to read. Interestingly though he IS ASD.

Reading to your child is great to promote language and vocabulary but does not guarantee succes with learnng to decode.

Yes, there are many children whose parents have read to them every night and still find that they are struggling at the age of 6-7. That's one of the reasons why there are so many private 'dyslexia' tutors.