Are your children’s vaccines up to date?

Set a reminder

Please or to access all these features

Primary education

Join our Primary Education forum to discuss starting school and helping your child get the most out of it.

Why is MN so obsessed with reception reading?

1000 replies

skiphopskidaddle · 04/02/2011 10:00

It's a marathon, not a sprint. It doesn't matter if Johnny is on red and Amy is on lilac as (a) different schools go at different paces and (b) children develop different skills in different order.

I can't quite believe the number of reception reading threads I've seen this week along the lines of "what colour book is yours on?". I'm going over to the behaviour/development board now to check for obsessive posting about when children learn to walk. Cos it doesn't matter either, in general.

OP posts:
Are your children’s vaccines up to date?
Mashabell · 24/02/2011 19:14

Indigo
I am sorry to hear that your dd had so many problems, but very glad to hear that they have been or are being cured.

But am not blaming reading difficulties on the English language - only on the way some of its words are spelt. And I am by no means the first person to do that. There is plenty of research evidence for it too.

Most speakers of English don't speak many other languages, and apart from Chinese, no others are even nearly as hard to learn to read as English. So even if they do, they do not appreciate how different English spelling is. Other languages simply do not use identical spellings for different sounds, as 69 English ones do:
a: and ? apron, any, father
a-e: came ? camera
ai: wait ? plait, said
al: always ? algebra
all: tall - shall
are: care - are
au: autumn - laugh, mauve
-ate: to deliberate - a deliberate act
ay: stays - says
cc: success - soccer
ce: centre - celtic
ch: chop ?chorus, choir, chute
cqu: acquire - lacquer
e: end ? english
-e: he - the
ea: mean - meant, break
ear: ear ? early, heart, bear
-ee: tree - matinee
e-e: even ? seven, fete
ei: veil - ceiling, eider, their, leisure
eigh: weight - height
eo: people - leopard, leotard
ere: here ? there, were
-et: tablet - chalet
eau: beauty ? beau
-ew: few - sew
-ey: they - monkey
ge: gem - get
gi: ginger - girl
gy: gym ? gynaecologist

ho: house - hour
i: ink ? kind
-ine: define ?engine, machine
ie: field - friend, sieve
imb: limb ? climb
ign: signature - sign
mn: amnesia - mnemonic
ost: lost - post
-o: go - do
oa: road - broad
o-e: bone ? done, gone
-oes: toes ? does, shoes
-oll: roll - doll
omb: tombola - bomb, comb, tomb
oo: boot - foot, brooch
-ot: despot - depot
ou: sound - soup, couple
ough: bough - rough, through, trough
ought: bought - drought
oul: should - shoulder
our: sour - four, journey
ow: how - low
qu: queen ? bouquet
s: sun ? sure
sc: scent - luscious, molusc
-se: rose - dose
ss: possible - possession
th: this - thing
-ture: picture - mature
u: cup ? push
ui: build ? fruit, ruin
wa: was ? wag
wh: what - who
wo: won - woman, women, womb
wor: word ? worn
x: box - xylophone, anxious
-y-: type - typical
--y: daddy - apply
z: zip ? azure.
The above give u just one example of the different pronunciations for identical letters, but some inconsistencies (ea, ou, ow) affect dozens of words. That's what makes learning to read difficult and slow.

mrz · 24/02/2011 19:16

ARGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Feenie · 24/02/2011 19:23

You may think you are helping people with your blog, Masha. But I am not sure you are helping any parents on MN.

mathanxiety · 24/02/2011 19:43

SP is an accelerated form of phonics that does not involve establishing a sight vocabulary but instead proceeds with letter-sound correspondence and blending until whole words can be sounded out. It involves learning the 42 letter-sound correspondences in English, blending for reading and segmenting for spelling. Children start at letter level, progress to digraphs, then word level, then text. The transparent alphabet sounds are taught before the opaque -- what works in a straightforward way is tackled first. SP works only partially for the irregular or 'tricky' words and these are introduced later, once the previous steps are accomplished. This is a very basic description of SP.

Feenie -- the reason it matters is that some sounds are specific to certain words and are therefore irregular and cannot be just sounded out. The method of learning to recognise and spell these words is not fully phonetic.

Feenie · 24/02/2011 19:46

Why are you telling me? Which sounds do you suppose are specific to certain words?

mathanxiety · 24/02/2011 19:54

We've been through this upthread, Feenie. But here's Mrz's long list of words that have sounds specific to them, whether consonant or vowel combinations or both.

abought
aforethought
afterthought
afterthoughts
although
besought
bethought
borough
boroughs
bough
boughed
boughpot
boughpots
boughs
bought
boughten
breakthrough
breakthroughs
brougham
broughams
brought
chough
choughs
clough
cloughs
cough
coughed
cougher
coughers
coughing
coughs
dogfought
dough
doughboy
doughboys
doughface
doughfaces
doughier
doughiest
doughlike
doughnut
doughnutlike
doughnuts
doughs
dought
doughtier
doughtiest
doughtily
doughtiness
doughtinesses
doughty
doughy
dreadnought
dreadnoughts
drought
droughtier
droughtiest
droughtiness
droughtinesses
droughts
droughty
enough
enoughs
forethought
forethoughtful
forethoughtfully
forethoughtfulness
forethoughtfulnesses
forethoughts
fought
foughten
furlough
furloughed
furloughing
furloughs
gunfought
handwrought
hiccough
hiccoughed
hiccoughing
hiccoughs
infought
interborough
interboroughs
interwrought
lough
loughs
merrythought
merrythoughts
methought
misthought
nought
noughts
ought
oughted
oughting
oughts
outbought
outfought
outthought
outwrought
overbought
overthought
overwrought
plough
ploughed
plougher
ploughers
ploughing
ploughs
rebought
refought
resought
rethought
rewrought
rough
roughage
roughages
roughcast
roughcasting
roughcasts
roughdried
roughdries
roughdry
roughdrying
roughed
roughen
roughened
roughening
roughens
rougher
roughers
roughest
roughhew
roughhewed
roughhewing
roughhewn
roughhews
roughhouse
roughhoused
roughhouses
roughhousing
roughing
roughish
roughleg
roughlegs
roughly
roughneck
roughnecks
roughness
roughnesses
roughrider
roughriders
roughs
roughshod
slough
sloughed
sloughier
sloughiest
sloughing
sloughs
sloughy
sough
soughed
soughing
soughs
sought
sourdough
sourdoughs
thorough
thoroughbass
thoroughbasses
thoroughbrace
thoroughbraces
thoroughbred
thoroughbreds
thorougher
thoroughest
thoroughfare
thoroughfares
thoroughgoing
thoroughly
thoroughness
thoroughnesses
thoroughpin
thoroughpins
thoroughwort
thoroughworts
though
thought
thoughtful
thoughtfully
thoughtfulness
thoughtfulnesses
thoughtless
thoughtlessly
thoughtlessness
thoughtlessnesses
thoughts
thoughtway
thoughtways
through
throughither
throughly
throughother
throughout
throughput
throughputs
throughway
throughways
tough
toughed
toughen
toughened
toughening
toughens
tougher
toughest
toughie
toughies
toughing
toughish
toughly
toughness
toughnesses
toughs
toughy
trough
troughs
unbought
underbought
unfought
unrough
unsought
unthought
wherethrough
wrought
yarborough
yarboroughs

mrz · 24/02/2011 19:58

but unfortunately not quite correct

All ?phonics? involves teaching letter-sound correspondences for the 44ish phonemes in English.

The adjective ?synthetic? refers to the fact that children are taught to ?synthesise? (i.e. put together or build up) pronunciations for unfamiliar written words by translating letters into sounds and blending the sounds together (?blending = ?synthesising?). With synthetic phonics children are taught to read and spell at the same time. They are taught to convert letters into sounds and then blend the sounds to form words. For example c-a-t = cat, or sh-oo-k = shook. It also teaches children to segment (pull apart) those sounds in order to spell. For example dot = d-o-t, or cheek = ch-ee-k.

Analytical Phonics uses the analysis of word forms to structure phonic instruction. The letter groupings in words have patterns and those patterns will often (although not always) be linked to a particular pattern of phonemes. So the principal is that if a child knows /goat/, /boat/ and /float/, then the word /moat/ will be easy to read, even if it is the first time that it has been seen.

The central rationale of Linguistic Phonics is that children understand the relationship between their spoken language and the written word. The initial emphasis is on developing listening skills and speech. This is followed by a focus on phonological awareness so that children learn how to identify syllables, rhyme and eventually, individual phonemes (sounds) within words. Each phoneme is then matched with its corresponding grapheme. (letter or letter-combination) All learning takes place within a meaningful context: sounds within words; words within texts

mrz · 24/02/2011 20:01

Oh Dear!

that is not what the list is Mathanxiety

mathanxiety · 24/02/2011 20:05

I made my description brief in order to avoid patronising you, Mrz, but I don't see how I am unfortunately not quite correct apart from the 42/44. Look at what I posted and check off your steps.

mrz · 24/02/2011 20:08

SP is an accelerated form of phonics that does not involve establishing a sight vocabulary but instead proceeds with letter-sound correspondence and blending until whole words can be sounded out. It involves learning the 42 letter-sound correspondences in English, blending for reading and segmenting for spelling. Children start at letter level, progress to digraphs, then word level, then text. The transparent alphabet sounds are taught before the opaque -- what works in a straightforward way is tackled first. SP works only partially for the irregular or 'tricky' words and these are introduced later, once the previous steps are accomplished. This is a very basic description of SP.

mrz · 24/02/2011 20:11

the parts in bold are incorrect

mrz · 24/02/2011 20:12

I'll give you 42 sounds because it varies with accent

mrz · 24/02/2011 20:16

digraphs aren't introduced after single letter representations - the first digraph is introduced in week 2 of most programmes

words are introduced almost from the beginning (for example once the first 6 sounds are taught children are introduced to dozens of words) at, it, in, an, as, sit, sat, tip, tap, sip, pin, pan .... ditto sentences and "tricky" words.

mathanxiety · 24/02/2011 20:57

According to Clackmannanshire, I am right about the accelerated nature of SP. In fact, the term 'very accelerated' is used.

I stand over my "Children start at letter level.." statement. This is where they start, then they progress to digraphs, etc., along the various routes the starting letters take them. Not all letters first and then all digraphs, and so on, but I didn't say that. You are splitting hairs now.

SP description here.

And from Jolly Phonics wrt 'tricky' words for Feenie (and Mrz) -- 'Some words in English have an irregular spelling and cannot be read by blending, such as 'said', 'was' and 'one'. Unfortunately, many of these are common words. The irregular parts have to be remembered.' That is, not sounded out but committed to memory.

Feenie · 24/02/2011 21:10

I am Confused as to why you posted mrz's list to me in answer to my question, which was "Which sounds do you suppose are specific to certain words?"

The first word is 'abought' - the sound 'ought' is not specific to one words, it's found in sought, thought, bought, over-wrought, etc, etc.

You have obviously read a lot of educational theory, mathanxiety. But I am still baffled as to why you are using it to lecture practitioners here. It's akin to someone reading lots of medical text books and saying to a surgeon 'But what you describe can't be a classic appendectomy because you did this, this and this' without ever actually walking into an operating theatre and sweeping away the enormous success of his/her patients. Bizarre.

mrz · 24/02/2011 21:16

Mathanxiety the order phonemes are taught are s,a,t,i,p,n,c,k,ck&, e,h,r,m,d,g,o,u,l,ll,f,ff,b,ai, j, oa, ie, ee, or z,w,ng, v,oo* oo, y,x,ch, sh,th, th, qu ou oi ue er ar are ure

a mixture of digraphs and single letters
From the government's programme Letters & Sounds

What counts as ?decodable? depends on the grapheme?phoneme correspondences that have been taught up to any given point.

About half of the 100 words are decodable by the end of Phase Four and the majority by the end of Phase Five.
Even the core of high frequency words which are not transparently decodable using known grapheme?phoneme correspondences usually contain at least one GPC that
is familiar. Rather than approach these words as though they were unique entities, it is advisable to start from what is known and register the ?tricky bit? in the word. Even the word yacht, often considered one of the most irregular of English words, has two of the
three phonemes represented with regular graphemes.

maizieD · 24/02/2011 21:23

'it is of the letter/sound correspondences and the words they are specific to.' Please pay attention to your own words here.

Am I not capable of writing correct English, either? What is the precise problem with the sentence?

ymeyer · 24/02/2011 21:25

My son was taught the Spalding Method of phonic decoding and he learnt the 75 Spalding 'phonograms' in 12 hours of instruction which included the 6 sounds of 'ough'.

o as in though
oo as in through
uf as in rough
of as in cough
aw as in thought
ow as in drought

Therefore, the list of words above would be fully decodable for him and any other child who had been taught to decode properly.

Mathsanxiety,

You keep claiming that children aged 4 are not ready to learn to read yet you provide no evidence for this assertion other than to keep repeating it.

You claim that a child aged 7 is more 'ready' to learn to read than a 4 year old yet you provide no evidence for this. What makes makes a 7 year any more 'ready' to learn to read than a 4 year old. Where is your evidence?

You claim that 'play-based' activities are required in order to lay important foundations for reading 'readiness', yet you provide no evidence that 'play-based' activities contribute anything towards reading 'readiness'.

You advise parents to read aloud to their children. While we all agree that parents should read aloud to their children because this is a pleasant activity for both parent and child, you do not provide any evidence that being read aloud to makes a child more 'ready' to learn to read.

You also do not warn parents that reading aloud to a child and having them follow the words in the book without the child having learnt sound/letter correspondences, encourages the child to sight-memorise whole words.

You fail to mention that sight memorising whole words and decoding are competing not complementary processes.

You fail to mention the body of research that informs as that they 'play-based' activities are, at best, neutral when it comes to learning to read and, at worst, waste time that these children will never be able to make up.

You fail to mention that the common practice of teachers reading aloud while children follow the words in the book, without knowing the sound/letter correspondences, entrenches the habit of memorising sight words and guessing meaning from context which has the potential to permanently limit their ability to read at the level necessary to fully participate in school and adult life.

stoatsrevenge · 24/02/2011 21:29

This is all far too clever for me, but do I understand it that ymeyer thinks that we should only read phonetically decodable books to children who can't read?

mrz · 24/02/2011 21:33

No

maizieD · 24/02/2011 21:37

Just as a matter of interest, here are the Synthetic Phonics teaching principles from the RRF website:rrf.org.uk/pdf/Final_03__The_Synthetic_Phonics_Teaching_Principles%2011-2-10.pdf

One of the authors of this overview is the developer and author of one of the foremost SP programmes in the UK. I suppose it is feasible that she might not know what Synthetic phonics 'is' Hmm

stoatsrevenge · 24/02/2011 22:29

Oh yes, I've read it better now. It's good to read books to children as long as they don't follow the text because 'it might encourage them to sight-memorise words'.

I haven't read all these 20 pages and forgive me for dropping by - but isn't that a little bit idealistic? They'll come across all kinds of text in their everyday lives that they will want to read, and much of that they'll learn by sight.

Tell me to bugger off if I'm getting the worng end of the stick! Grin

mathanxiety · 25/02/2011 03:48

Ymeyer, again with the straw men. You have a real talent for setting up false opposition.

Thousands of children learn to read every year without any formal phonics exposure. Most of my DCs did this, two at age 3.5 and the others from 4 to 4.5. None suffered any damage from this horribly dangerous practice. Some of their friends did the same thing. Again, no sign of damage to any of them. Their progress through school has been remarkably unimpeded by their bypassing of phonics.

Your suggestion that reading to young children might be dangerous to them is incredibly bizarre -- the idea that this practice should be warned against is just plain funny. Funny but sad too. Not funny though is your idea that a play-based curriculum for 4 year olds is a waste of time. Play time is time children will never be able to make up? pfft.

Reading aloud to a child while the child sees the pages as they turn and looks at the pictures is a very enjoyable activity. It is also a very important pre-reading activity for many reasons. Through being read to a child picks up the rhythm of English reading. She hears new words that she might not be exposed to in the course of daily conversation. She sees the printed words frequently, (and may learn a whole book off by heart just by frequent exposure) and may be able to do what my DCs did and learn to read that way, just by suddenly associating the letters with the words they heard. As DD3 said to me when she started, "The letters disappeared!" There really are more ways of approaching reading than through phonics. Children's brains are not all wired the same and they can learn in a multitude of different ways, alone and simulatneously. And no children's brains will be hurt in the process. A child who has been exposed to a lot of conversation, songs, stories, rhymes and words in general (all that silly playing, etc.,) throughout her life will be able to learn to read using both methods, which are not mutually incompatible, but are in fact often complementary. DD1 went from The Runaway Bunny (her first book, which she read to me after hearing and seeing the story hundreds of times, pointing to each word with her finger, with nice inflection for speech, and pausing for punctuation) to Nancy Drew in two years.

Phonemic and phonological awareness and the realisation that the letters represent the sounds of language are essential precursors to reading. Paper on the importance of phonological awareness and its usefulness as a predictor of subsequent reading strength, confirming other studies on the same subject, by Stanovich, Cunningham, Cramer. (Some pre-reading activities that can enhance phonological awareness and /or awareness of the written word/sound link are identifying opposites, identifying matches/ similarities, rhymes and song, sequencing and pattern activities, and activities that model left to right progression. All can be accomplished in the course of play.)

Stoatsrevenge, I don't think you misread the post at all and sadly you are not getting the wrong end of the stick imo.

The 6 sounds of 'ough' (see the long list) are basically memorised, and read based on what letters surround them. True sounding out or phonic reading of ough is not possible. Reading this sound is based on seeing the context, that is, the whole word and maybe even the context of the sentence. Sounding out and building the words by blending is not possible using the sounds alone in isolation from the context. The other words, among them 'was', 'said', 'one' (there are many more) must also be simply learned.

All over the world, children are taught to read English from age 5-7, and by and large, it works. In the UK by contrast, children are now being taught at age 4. The move towards a play-based curriculum in Ireland has been noted earlier. In Scandinavia, play for the sake of play is valued for preschoolers (which means mostly children under 6) with no excuse required.

'Research studies that have examined the effects of differential instructional approaches on young children?s achievement and motivation indicate that if a programme is overly-focused on formal skills, it is more likely to provide opportunities for children to fail, generate higher anxiety levels and to develop a higher dependency on adults, promoting in children negative perceptions of their own competencies (Sylva and Nabuco, 1996; Stipek et. al 1995 cited in OECD, 2004). It has been suggested that such activities may have little meaning for young children aside from the fact that success at them pleases their parents (Bettelheim, 1987).' From Play as a Context for Early Learning and Development by Margaret Kernan, a paper that informed the Irish Department of Education's decision to move towards a play-based curriculum. The paper includes 7.25 pages of references to studies bolstering the author's argument, if you want evidence.

Malaleuca · 25/02/2011 05:02

What I don't get mathanxiety, is why you advocate that children in state schools have beginning reading instruction delayed until they are 5 or older, yet you were perfectly happy for your own children to begin to learn to read at 3?

Mashabell · 25/02/2011 07:36

The evangelists of SP have left parents, and many teachers too IMO, more confused about the teaching of reading than ever before, largely by using the words 'phonics' and 'synthetic' not as they are normally used.

To suggest that children can learn to 'decode' the 21 English words with 'ough' is simply ridiculous:
bough, bought, brought, cough, dough, drought, enough, fought, hiccough, nought, ought, plough, rough, slough, sought, thorough, though, thought, through, tough, trough.*
It is abusing the meaning of 'phonics' and 'decoding.

And the idea that u can use phonics to teach children to spell words like 'any, many, said, friend, believe, head' is even more ridiculous.
I am going to have to take a break from this for a bit. But in a few weeks I will try to provide a shorter explanation than I have done on my blogs of exactly what learning to read English involves.

I think it is only because so many people are not fully aware of this, that SP advocates don't get more challenged about the rubbish they spout. With English spelling being as irregular as it is, for the average child, phonics is a good way of starting to learn to read and write (for about a year). After that, the learning involves more and more word by word memorisation and less and less use of phonics, especially for spelling.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.