Oxford Reading Tree words

[schmee]

My twins are supposedly learning to read with phonics and are just doing phonics at school (learning the letter sounds) but they are coming home with books with lots of sight words in them. I think they are say and see books?? Apologies this is all very new to me. One is using the Oxford reading tree (they are in different classes).

Should I be doing something to reinforce the words they don't know? At the moment it seems quite random. Also, I've lost track of the new sight words or tricky words (e.g. ones with sounds like "ay" and "ow" that they haven't learnt yet). Does anyone know if a list exists that gives the words in the order they appear in the ORT?

As they are using different books in the different classes, I find it really hard to remember whether each child has encountered the word before!

[squeewee]

It's perfectly possible to use phonics and sight vocab - and remember that children are different. Some learn one way and some learn another way - however most use both methods. After all nobody who can really read sounds out the word 'cat' or 'dog' - they recognise them. Synthetic phonics gurus insist that young children learn all the phonic sounds like oi, oy, a-e, etc but refuse to encourage a children to learn to recognise the word 'wanted' or 'one' as a whole entity - surely the memory and hard work involved in the one is no more difficult than the other - certainly for most children. Do the phonics - but make sure that if your child has encountered the word cat or dog on page 1 and 2 that they are regognising it and not sounding it out on page 3. Do the old fashioned way and get a little box. write the most common Oxford Reading Tree words on slips of card(like mum, dad, dog, came, wanted, was, said, oh, no, put, in, He, he, She, she, The, the, and, They, they, The, the, cross, to, up, down, go, out, shouted. Those are most of the ones in the green books.) into a box 5 or 6 at a time. However don't just put one of each, put in 6 of each. That way you can re enforce each word. If your child doesn't recognise the word 'went' the 1st time, show the same word again, and again - make a joke of it, work on other words and come back to it. Above all - make your child laugh and ensure he/she feels successful. If there are only a few different words they can be recognised easily. Once group 1 are known add 2 or 3 more words and take out most (but not all ) the ones already learned(warning went, want and was are often confused - so don't learn them together). You can still use both phonics and picture clues combined with phonics (don't knock the pictures) to help decode words like dolphin, cornflakes etc.I promise you, the first 30 -50 sight vacab words are the hard ones. After that the brain gets used to recognising the word patterns. Where phonics really comes in handy is with writing - and yes, spelling is hard. But children who can write phonically early can communicate on paper. Every word might be spelt wrongly, but you can read it! But that's another story!

[Mashabell]

It's perfectly possible to use phonics and sight vocab
Yes. Most children learn in the way squeewee describes, not with just phonics or with whole words.

The ORT books were written mainly to teach children the 106 most used English words which contain some tricky letters.
They contain plenty of straightforward ones too, the ones that few children have trouble with, but their main aim was to teach the trickier ones.

Among the 100 most used English words the following are not entirely decodable:
He, of, the, to, was, all, be, are, have, one, said, we, you, by, my, call, before, come, could, do, down, into, look, me, more, now, only, other, right, she, some, their, there, two, when, want, were, what, where, which, who, your.

In the top 300 there are these as well:
after, another, any, asked, bear, book, can?t, coming, couldn?t, don?t, ever, every, everyone, eyes, fast, find, four, friends, gone, good, great, grow, he?s, head, I, I?ll, I?m, key, know, last, laughed, live, lived, looked, looking, looks, many, most, mother, Mr, Mrs, never, oh, once, people, plants, pulled, put, ready, river, small, snow, some, something, there?s, thought, through, took, town, very, wanted, water, work, would.

The following are easy to read (or have regular more complex spellings)
a, about, across, again, air, along, am, an, and, around, as, at, away, baby, back, bad, because, bed, been, before, began, best, better, big, birds, boat, box, boy, but, by, came, can, car, cat, children, cried, dad, dark, day, did, didn?t, different, dog, duck, eggs, end, even, feet, fell, first, fish, floppy, fly, for, found, fox, from, fun, garden, gave, get, girl, go, going, got, gran, grandad, green, had, hard, has, hat, help, her, here, him, his, home, horse, hot, house, I, I?ve, if, in, inside, is, it, it?s, its, jumped, just, keep, king, let, let?s, like, liked, little, long, lots, made, make, man, may, miss, more, morning, mouse, much, mum, must, my, need, new, next, night, no, not, of, off, on, or, our, out, over, park, place, play, queen, rabbit, ran, red, right, round, run, sat, say, sea, see, shouted, sleep, so, still, stop, stopped, suddenly, sun, take, tea, tell, than, that, that?s, their, them, then, these, they, thing, things, think, this, three, time, top, tree, trees, under, up, us, use, very*, way, well, went, when, which, while, why, will, wind, window, wish, with, yes,

*Should have rr (here ? very - merry).

I've pasted them all in for the benefit of anyone interested in helping their children to learn to read them at home any way they see fit - on little cards, a few at a time on a sheet, grouped by vowel spellings, etc.

Phonics is good to start with and essential for learning to write, but being a fluent reader means being able to read roughly 6500 common English words by sight.

Masha Bell

[Wellthen]

In terms of what the OP should actually DO I would say a couple of things:

1. accept the situation. Their reading at school is largely phonetic, their home reading is a mixture of sounding out and recognition. Thats fine. Yes its frustrating that a school take on phonics and yet keep a sight reading scheme but this is the real world. A schools is unlikely to change the entire reading scheme when phonics teaching may die out in 5 years or the government changes and moves the goal posts. And no, when the goverment insists that schools start a new scheme, they don't always give you extra money...that would be sensible. Also ORT books are useful for older slower readers who have learnt many common words by sight but still need the bold writing and simple stories.
   

1. Remember that most children learn to read. Yes there will be hundreds on her with tales of how their children struggled but ultimately most do learn. The trouble is that because the government wants them reading by 5, parents of children for who it doesn't click till 7 start panicking. Some kids might not get it till 9 years old but they do get there and for a variety of reasons. Phonics is useful, it gets them reading many words quickly and builds confidence. It gives them a tool for new words. But, when you're 1 half term into reception and the only words you can read are it, pit, sit, nit or sat, pat, cat and mat, it kind of limits the stories you can enjoy! So some word recognition is useful.
   

1. Words that are not instantly decodeable are a challenge to children and it is only through challenge that we learn. If they can't get it, tell them the word, have them repeat it and when it comes up again in the same book (which knowing ORT it will, or if it doesn't read the book again) remind them 'you know this one' and see if they remember.
   

Also, just to add my tuppance - there is an official list of 'tricky words' in the Letters and Sounds book which is what most schools use to teach phonics. It only includes words like said, this, the which are not decodeable by the system our children are taught. A 'tricky' word is not just a long word or words with difficult graphemes like 'ight' or split digraphs like a_e (as in have)

[Mashabell]

I completely agree with Wellthen.

The tricky words which I pasted in are from Letters and Sounds.

I took their list of the 300 most used English words and divided them into tricky and the rest.

If it was easier to do formatting on here, I would pick out the tricky letters in bold.

[mrz]

squeewee if you teach a child oy then they will be able to read
boy coy,enjoy employ toy annoy royal destroy joy loyal oyster voyage ....... if you teach them to read wanted they can read ... wanted

[Feenie]

Also, just to add my tuppance - there is an official list of 'tricky words' in the Letters and Sounds book which is what most schools use to teach phonics. It only includes words like said, this, the which are not decodeable by the system our children are taught.

However, Letters and Sounds advocates teaching them as words which are partially decodeable with a 'tricky' bit. And this is perfectly decodeable.

Squeewee, this bit of your post Synthetic phonics gurus insist that young children learn all the phonic sounds like oi, oy, a-e, etc but refuse to encourage a children to learn to recognise the word 'wanted' or 'one' as a whole entity is a load of rubbish. Automatic reading is the ultimate goal.

And btw, picture clues are not reading. Try telling a struggling KS2 reader, already confused by mixed methods, that using picture clues is a 'strategy'. My Y1 ds used picture clues to guess curtains, furniture and naughty the other day. He did not read them.

[mrz]

It only includes words like said, this, the which are not decodeable by the system our children are taught.

said is decodable by the system our children are taught ...

From the Letters & Sounds document

Procedure
Explain that there are some words that have one, or sometimes two, tricky
letters.
Read the caption, pointing to each word, then point to the word to be learned
and read it again.
Write the word on the whiteboard.
Sound-talk the word and repeat putting sound lines and buttons (as illustrated
above) under each phoneme and blending them to read the word.
Discuss the tricky bit of the word where the letters do not correspond to the
sounds the children know (e.g. in go, the last letter does not represent the same
sound as the children know in dog).

Tricky words contain tricky graphemes the child doesn't know yet the words are no longer tricky once the child moves through the programme. Again directly from Letters & Sounds
Note that some of the words that were tricky in earlier phases become fully decodable in Phase Five

[maizieD]

I'm afraid that 'most' children do not learn to read. A good 20% or more do not learn to read; that is, one child in five, which represents a very large and significant number of children every year.

After all nobody who can really read sounds out the word 'cat' or 'dog' - they recognise them.

Of course skilled readers do not consciously sound out and blend every word they read. What is happening in the brain to achieve this is ultimately unknown at present but there is evidence that the process is being carried out rapidly (in milliseconds), automatically and unconsciously by skilled readers. That words get into 'sight memory' through the decoding and blending route.

Do the phonics - but make sure that if your child has encountered the word cat or dog on page 1 and 2 that they are regognising it and not sounding it out on page 3.

WHY? Some children need lots of repetition of sounding out and blending before words get into their sight memory. There is absolutely no valid reason at all for limiting the number of repetitions. By all means let the child know that they don't have to sound out and blend a word if they can read it straight off, but positively preventing them if they still need the repetition is just defeating the object. What if they can't remember it?

[Wellthen]

"I'm afraid that 'most' children do not learn to read. A good 20% or more do not learn to read; that is, one child in five, which represents a very large and significant number of children every year. "

Erm, am I the only person who considers 'most' to mean the large majority? So therefore 80% of children learning to read is certainly 'most'. I didn't say all and I didn't say there aren't children who don't learn. I said most. The majority.

I'd also be interested to know where you got that statistic. Not because I don't believe it I just don't think you should spout random statistics. 86% of statistics are made up on the spot

[mrz]

the 20% is based on published government data (it is actually 25% boys and 15% girls)

[Wellthen]

Which study is this? I'd be interested to see what it says.

[mrz]

It isn't a study

It's the national statistics published annually

www.education.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s001018/index.shtml

[maizieD]

And the 20% is probably on the low side as govt data is based on SATs (National Curriculum Tests) 'levels' which really don't test basic reading skills at all; just whether a child can get the gist of some passages. I am not in the habit of pulling statistics out of thin air. I work with the 20% who don't seem to matter in some peoples' eyes*. I also work with some of the 80% and could probably find more poor readers among them if I had any time to spare for them.

20% is a very large 'minority'. When I say 'most' I mean all but a very few; 2 - 3% may be.

*There is nothing at all the matter with most of these children (i.e 95%), they are not 'dyslexic', just badly taught.

[Mashabell]

The most recent 'study' was the survey of adult literacy by Sir Claus Moser (1999). It found that 22% (7 million) British adults were 'functionally illiterate', i.e. they could not read well enough for simple needs like following instructions on a medicine bottle. Their reading was so poor that they nearly always had difficulty understanding what they read.

I think that with spellings like 'read, write' and 'phonics' it's easy to see why some children don't learn to read, but they are hardly ever the children of literate and supportive parents.

[mrz]

Actually as a teacher I find parents who have struggled themselves or who continue to have difficulties are determined that their own children should not have the same experience

[Mashabell]

So why is parental income and education, esp. education of mothers, such a highly reliable predictor of children's academic success?

[mrz]

Research has also repeatedly shown that the most accurate predictor of a pupil?s achievement is not parental income or social status but the extent to which parents are able to create a home environment that encourages learning, communicates high, yet reasonable, expectations for achievement and future careers, and where parents become involved in their children?s education at the school and in the community (Sanders and Epstein, 1998).

[mrz]

The earlier parents become involved in their children?s literacy practices, the more profound the results and the longer lasting the effects (Mullis, Mullis, Cornille et al., 2004).

[mrz]

In a recent study (Dearing, Kreider, Simpkins and Weiss, 2006) for the Harvard Family Research Project, it was found that family involvement in school matters most for children whose mothers have less education.

[pickledsiblings]

I think you'll find that the working memory capacity (WMC) of a child is a very good indicator of how well they do at school. There is a strong correlation between WMC and achievement.

WMC appears to be 'classless' however there is a genetic element to it.

[mrz]

There is also a strong correlation between dispositions and attitudes (which are also classless) displayed at a young age and future academic success

[pickledsiblings]

There is however, no correlation between WMC and self-esteem. It's all so complicated .

[maizieD]

One day someone might stop and consider that in the nineteenth century a far larger proportion of the population was illiterate. Added to that, most of them were grindingly poor and had no money for luxuries such as books. Yet, with the introduction of universal schooling their children learned to read despite the disadvantages of poverty and illiterate parents.

In fact, a few hundred years ago just about everyone was illiterate apart from ecclesiastics and those of 'upper classes' who were educated by them.

Go figure...

[CecilyP]

Yes, someone in everyone's family would have been the first to have learned to read and write. For some this would in back in the mists of history while for others it would have been less than a hundred years ago. While, on the whole, I think sending reading books home is a good thing as it gives children an awful lot more practice than they would otherwise get, it does seem to cause a lot of pressure and angst among mums.

[blackeyedsusan]

why not help the children sound out the tricky words? they read the sounds they know and you fill in the trickier bits, they them blend it together.
f-l-o-pp-y
if you tell them that the 2 pp together say p and the y says "ee" they should be able to make an attempt at blending then.