How bad would it be if I taught my daughter to read...

[JeanBodel]

---using whole word recognition rather than phonics?

She's 3, she loves books, she wants to read them herself. She's an autumn birth so she won't go to school for another two years. I don't think either of us can wait that long for her to start reading independently.

I've got a whole set of Peter and Jane's (yes, the very set I learnt with 30 years ago). I really don't want to spend lots of money on Jolly Phonics when I know I can teach her with the books I already own.

I just dread getting into trouble with the reception teacher. I don't mean to criticise teachers or phonics in any way. I can see how annoying it would be to have a kid in your class who's shouting out the word without segmenting it.

All advice gratefully received.

I haven't read the whole thread but in case no one has pointed it out www.oxfordowl.co.uk/FindBook has lots of free books to read on line

My son could read fluently before nursery (he was reading the FT index and the NATO deployment handbook) and has never grasped phonics with many terrible consequences

Ledditsno - Y2 is far too early to tell if your child has learnt to read and spell properly.

There's a thread at the moment where a mum is complaining that her child, who went to school able to read and write, is in Y6 now and is only a L3 because her spelling is so bad. :(

I don't know - it seems to me that to teach everybody reading from such a defensive starting point has to be the wrong approach. Even if restricting the techniques used to phonics alone works best for specific sorts of pupils who have some degree of difficulty in acquiring reading skills (which I'm not really convinced of), you're effectively condemning all the others who don't have any such difficulty to a pretty joyless and fragmented early literacy experience which carries with it its own risks in relation to long term attitudes to reading and the enjoyment of literacy.

I'm not convinced by the statistics, either - are you seriously suggesting that literacy rates in the seventies and eighties were lower than in the 1910s or 1930s? And is it really possible to measure literacy levels over the last century purely with reference to this one specific aspect of teaching methods, without taking into account economic, social, gender issues, and the wider school and cultural environment as well? Were the kinds of questions being asked in relation to literacy acquisition in the 1900s, 1930s, comparable to those we ask now? They certainly can't have been asked at comparable points, when school leaving ages were so different.

I worry that so much of the analysis that's driving this policy is based on measuring a number of things that can be measured in a specific way, but leaving out consideration of a whole raft of associated issues that should carry equal or even greater weight, but don't make such easy sound bites.

Um, no its not@Indigo. He is bright. He can read and spell. And he is building on why he already knows in school. I do know my own child . Oh, and I'm an ex-teacher .

The idea that Phonics is the ONLY way to teach reading is absolute crap. If it worked, we wouldnt have such piss por literacy rates in this country.

I find the attitude 'Dont teach your child to read before school' to be so, so stupid and just counter-intuitive. If you want to, do it.

on what he already knows

Oh, and I should say, I strongly believe - from all the experience I have had with children learning to read - that there is 'window' when children re most receptive to learning to read. It is different for everyone. And every child has a different learning style. Teaching phonics at the age of 5 does not work for every child. I think that's proven.

Not as offensive stupid as your comment that your child is bright and that has some bearing on his ability to read and write.

I'm glad you're an ex-teacher.

Nobody is saying don't teach your child to read before school. Some people are saying don't teach your child using whole word.

Phonics is a brilliant way to teach reading. If you do it your way, you'll just confuse your daughter, which is clearly not what you want.

Just teach her reading through phonics! Easy!

In my 2nd year of secondary teaching back in 1995 I got a new year 7 tutor group and they felt it was important that 1 pupil got lots of support as his reading age was < 7. Schools have been teaching reading using phonics since at least 2002 (when DS1 started school, so don't know prior to that) and yet the last 3 years' new intake have had 2 nurture groups (15 pupils each) containing many pupils with reading ages of 8 and less. Obviously this is only anecdotal, so not 'data' but my experience has shown that reading is not improving with the introduction of phonics. And far too few pupils read for pleasure.

FWIW I taught all 3 of mine phonics, combined with Peter and Jane and they are all competent, fluent, enthusiastic readers. We never got beyond level 6 (if as far) with Peter and Jane as there were far more interesting books to be had. The boys both spell well, DD struggles a little at times, but then I do have high expectations!

DD's friend has been taught using phonics from day 1, has attended sessions at dyslexia organisation and still is not functionally literate in year 6 (can't read a simple menu in a cafe). I'm not suggesting that whole word would have worked better for her, but phonics hasn't helped her to read yet.

Someone asked, "Why use Peter and Jane?" Well one advantage is that there are only 24 books in the whole scheme (disregarding the C books which are for writing), unlike ORT which goes on for ever and is probably one of the main reasons that many children are put off reading.

To be fair, though, poor phonics sometimes shows up years later when you try to learn another language/alphabet. I started looking into this when I was learning, and apparently it is very common for children to be diagnosed with unspotted problems if they begin to learn a language with a different alphabet (or just a different language).

I don't think anyone's saying your child isn't bright or can't spell as I'm sure he is and can. It's more that if you took a thousand children who all appeared fine at his age and learned to read without phonics, you might find a few of them would turn out to be missing some skills later on.

But most likely your child just picked up phonics without even thinking about it - the whole principle of look and say is that children can do that (and some can).

Ledditsno do you actually know what the literacy level is in the UK?

Wow, you are really unpleasant and hostile, Indigo. I am leaving this thread. Good luck to you!

My child has Asperger's Syndrome, actually, and is highly intelligent. And my years of experience as a teacher (I now train teachers ) and experience with my son - mean that I understand full well that one method doesn't fit all. It is the subject o my PHD, actually

You argue away about it, though. Enjoy yourselves!

Well, my DD is 3 and I have started to teach her to read using full words (she wants to)

TBH I am trying not to do too much as she will learn with phonics in reception.

ATM she is learning "round the apple and down the leaf" etc for writing a "a"

Does anyone know what this is?

I couldn't learn via phonics. It got to the point where trying to learn phonics was damaging my literacy level. I was going backwards. I started teaching myself to read before I started school, I learnt through whole word recognition and then couldn't go back to phonics and my mum was exactly the same.
There are some of us who can't learn via phonics but no-one seems to take us into consideration.

Indigo, that was really rude.

Since ORT isn't a phonics reading scheme Tinuviel I'm not sure how it is relevant

Gawd, what a horrible ill-tempered and bad mannered thread this had turned out to be.

OP, and others wondering the same thing - as with everything about parenting, do what suits your child.

I'm aware that it's not phonics based, mrz. I just mentioned it to compare length of reading scheme with Peter and Jane because it is used in a lot of schools alongside or after phonics teaching round here. And a lot of children seem to find it tedious.

Anon - implying that a child can read and spell because he is bright is very, very offensive. And a teacher, and especially somebody who trains teachers should know that.

Because by that statement she is also implying that kids who can't read, aren't bright. And she should know better than that.

I think it's very disappointing not to be able to discuss this thoroughly, and robustly - it's very interesting, and very important.

I have to say, though, it's one of my worries about phonics-only that it does often seem to carry with it this insistence that everything else is wrong.

I don't think that is what she meant to imply, Indigo. And I certainly don't think it was anything like as rude as what you said back.

I have adult members of my family who can't read properly, and I certainly didn't read that post as her saying only people who aren't bright can't read.

(I'm Anon, btw.)

OP, I would go ahead. I did as much as my dd seemed to want me to. We did spelling out and a bit of whole word, and just generally enjoyed books. Now she is in reception and learning phonics - no problem.

ORT is tedious just as Peter & Jane can be tedious (albeit for a shorter time). They are both key word schemes published when whole word reading was seen as the way forward
Personally I wouldn't use either for initial reading instruction but perhaps the fact that ORT remained popular (and grew into the monster it now is) while Peter and Jane fell into disuse is significant