Is this a poor approach to reading from school and am I making it worse?

[lecce]

Ds is in reception and I am a little concerned about how the school seems to be approaching reading.

Things I am happy with:

• He only knew a few letters by sight when he started and now knows all - upper and lower case.

-He knew all sounds of basic letters before starting but now knows all letter 'names' and sounds.

• He is clearly learning to read - had done nothing in this area before school.

Things that worry me:
-There is only one comment in his reading book from school - written by the TA about 5 weeks ago. How does the teacher know anything about his progress?

-They send home words for him to learn. These are not decodable (at his level) and they are only supposed to be sent a new set when the previous one has been mastered. The first 3 sets ds loved but now we have 7 sets and he just finds them confusing. I have several times commented in his book that he finds them confusing and prefers decoding but the school continue to send more. He has not mastered the last 3 sets yet subsequent ones (and certificates congratulating him on learning words he hasn't learnt )have been sent.

-Books sent home seem to be completely random. I wouldn't have a clue what level he is on and most are not decodable (last one had guinea pig - what a waste of time). This has led to a lot of frustration on his part as he tends to try and use the pictures and I try and stop him and conflict ensues. He only gets one a week and I have commented that he is frustrated because he clearly enjoys the phonics sessions they do in class abd wants to be able to use them, but no one ever responds to my comments and similar books come home the next week.

I now more or less ignore what comes home from school and use other stuff. He abolutlely loves Starfall (though we've nearly exhausted it now) and I've got some Usbourne phonics books which he also likes because they have a bit of a plot. However, neither of these are completely the right level and I have been saying stuff like, "The 'a' and the 'r' make 'ar' in this word," and if I do that he will blend it fine. I have also told him about 'magic' and 'silent' 'Es' and, if I tell him which it is he can decode the word from there. However, I am a little worried that what I am doing is 'wrong' and will be counter-productive for him later. I am also a bit worried about basically ignoring the stuff school send home as I don't want to appear arrogant or unsuportive.

Thanks for reading.

reading with pictures makes him feel like he is really reading.

That is very interesting. Why does he think that?

lecce - I know you said you didn't want to complain, but I don't think that asking his teacher what's going on here and voicing your confusion/frustration would be in any way out of order.

If you've exhausted Starfall, then www.phonicsplay.co.uk is good (or better, IMO). The games with the dragons/pirates/aliens are the best for practising blending - no pictures of the actual words at all! (I wouldn't recommend the racing cars, for all that they look exciting).

Hi mrz, There aren't any words that don't work phonetically because all words are comprised of sounds and all sounds can be spelt. On the list of the first 100 high-frequency words, thirty-two are very easily decodable because they are made up of one letter-one sound, or two-letters-one sound. Examples are: mum, went, back. Simple stuff!
I want to ask why we keep using terms like digraph and trigraph too? I'm not saying that children can't learn this terminology but it really puts off parents. Why not make things very simple and call them sounds and spellings? More complex spellings can be called two-, three- and four-letter spellings. Then, most parents would get what teachers are talking about, instead of their eyes glazing over and them thinking that there's an attempt to keep them out of the loop.

My dniece is called 'Phoebe'. She'll be learning early!

What about 'silent' sounds like in 'Leicester' SoundsWrite? It's not a sound so you can't spell it. You have to know what it looks like.

MM, there's this excellent recent blog posting on 'silent letters'

literacyblog.blogspot.com/2011/11/silent-letters.html

Thanks maverick. This stuff is so interesting... I'm learning with ds1!

SoundsWrite have I ever said that words don't work phonetically? and I don't use the 100 HFW list are you confusing me with someone else?

I understand about schwa now. At what point to they teach it? It's not on her Jolly Phonics poster :o

Oh Jolly Phonics is just the beginning think of it as an introduction to phonics as children progress the emphasis moves from phonics for reading (obviously both blending and segmenting are taught but the early focus is reading) to phonics for spelling

mrz, where do you teach? I wanna come to your school!

SoundsWrite have I ever said that words don't work phonetically?

I think that SW was and didn't realise that your post was quoting someone else, mrz

How's the cold? Any better?

I think I'm allergic to Y2 it improves when I'm not with them thank you for asking

maizieD - I don't know ...

I suppose because he reads more fluently with the pictures.

Sounding out takes forever and these reading books can't even be sounded out. The last one was called "Circus" - am I right in thinking that that word can not be sounded out? The other words were hard too ie clown, acrobat -

DS was just memorising the pictures and order of pages but now i make him point to the words so at least he acknowledges them.

The pages go -

1 "This is a circus"

2 "This is a clown"

3 "This is an acrobat"

4 "This is a dog" etc etc

Circus can be sounded out once the child has reached the stage where they know "c" followed by "i" "e" or "y" represents the sound but not when you are a beginner reader

Skew. Are you sure he's meant to read it? We had books like that in Reception (basically books from defunct reading schemes), and when I asked what I was to do with them (they were still learning 'm', 'a', 's' etc. so couldn't fathom how he was supposed to read it) they said we were just to read the books TO them, discuss the pics etc. Because a lot of kids don't have books at home, or don't have parents who read to them. But it wasn't clear until I asked.

skewiff, I feel so sorry for your poor son. He's in the first stages of learning that reading is a puzzling and difficult task And it's not because reading is puzzling and difficult, but because his school is making it difficult by giving him books containing words which are clearly in advance of his current phonic knowledge.

mrz is right, 'circus' is not difficult to sound out if you know that 'c' with an 'i' after it is said as /s/ and that 'ir' spells an /er/ sound. If you don't know that it is just scary...

I think you should have a good look at the Phonics International site ( www.phonicsinternational.com ) where you will find lots of information and help on phonics teaching and how you can support your child. And find some decodable readers which cover the 'sounds' he knows and which will give him confidence in sounding out and blending. The pictures are there for enjoying, not for aiding guessing at words...

they said we were just to read the books TO them, discuss the pics etc.

That's what we do with some of the books DD chooses, if she's chosen something ridiculously advanced. Sort of treat it like a bedtime story but with a fun quiz :o

Some books the child can read the "This is a..." bit, then if you point to the picture , see if they can say what they see, so...circus,clown etc. It is to help them use pictures as clues when reading. The books may look ridiculous to us, but a child will "get" it. It helps them understand what they are reading about as opposed to just wildly sounding out everything. It is just another strategy in the wider universe of "learning to read".

Given appropriate decodable books alongside excellent teaching, beginning readers don't have to 'wildly sound out'. They know that they have to carefully sound out all-through-the-word using the code they have been taught if they don't immediately recognise a word.

It's wildly guessing that I worry about and that's exactly what happens when children are expected to get through books using multi-cueing strategies like using the first letter, pictures and context....

maverick. Do you think using context is wrong? There's lots of words I don't know the meaning of, but in context I can work pretty much work it out, or it triggers a memory. Isn't using context (even pictures/ first letters) like this? It's not saying have a wild guess, but use more parts of your brain.

So, a child is a reading a book about bathtime and they get stuck on the word 'bubbles'. They get the 'bub' bit but not used to the 'le' sound. So using some context, "He was popping the bub...bubbles". Next time they come across an 'le' word, I think the recognition will still be there somewhere.

I dunno. I would like to know why mrz (and any others) think RWI is 'too restrictive'...isn't it about as 'pure' as it gets?

'they get stuck on the word 'bubbles'. They get the 'bub' bit but not used to the 'le' sound'

If they haven't been taught the spellings for /ul/ (il, al, el, le), then you simply point to the 'le' spelling and say, 'This is /ul/'. Context is used by the brain to check for meaning after consciously or sub-consciously phonically decoded all through the word.

RWI is very closely scripted programme which is great for new teachers using synthetic phonics as it means they don't go 'off piste' into old habits of multi-cueing, but for experienced teachers it can feel very restricting to have to keep absolutely to the script and materials.

'It's wildly guessing that I worry about and that's exactly what happens when children are expected to get through books using multi-cueing strategies like using the first letter, pictures and context....'

But if the multi-cueing strategies have been properly taught, alongside phonics, isn't that what turns a child into a reader rather than a decoder. They will then use these skills to progess their reading further than if they have to have direct teaching. Using the bubble example, the child could use context and phonic knowledge to come to the conclusion that is says bubbles, and using existing phonic knowledge - they can hear the l and s at the end when they say bubbles then in all likelihood it probably is bubbles. They can then make connections, generally not explicit and vocalised but they may have read a sign say 'pull the handle', making a connection between the le ending. So self-extending their phonic knowledge, and progressing their reading ability without having to wait unitl week what ever along with the rest of the phonic group to have the 'le' ending expicitly taught.

Equally a child with good 'multi-cueing' strategies who cannot quickly recall the 'oa' digraph covered two weeks ago when reading 'the cars went up and down the road' will use context and perhaps picture clue if it was there and relevant to come up with road rather than sounding out and trying to blend r-o-a-d - but even if they did blend and came up with ro-ad, they would tweak it to road rather than misreading it. A child well taught in using a range of strategies to read would also realise that illustrations don't always help as they can't tell the whole story - that's what the text is for.

But if the multi-cueing strategies have been properly taught, alongside phonics, isn't that what turns a child into a reader rather than a decoder.

I am sorry, but I completely fail to grasp the significance of this. Are you saying that a child who can work out what a word 'says' by decoding is incapable of understanding what it is reading?

I'm afraid you do seem a bit muddled about the interplay between learning letter/sound correspondences and texts used to practice what has been learned.

Equally a child with good 'multi-cueing' strategies who cannot quickly recall the 'oa' digraph covered two weeks ago when reading 'the cars went up and down the road'

A child being taught good systematic phonics would:
a) not be taught a digraph ('oa') in the context of a word in a reading book
b) not be given a two week gap between being taught the digraph and then using it in reading.

without having to wait unitl week what ever along with the rest of the phonic group to have the 'le' ending expicitly taught.

Similarly the child would not be expected to read a word with 'le' in it until they had been taught that 'le' represents the /ul/ sound.

Good phonics teaching does away with the need to use 'other strategies' when reading. If your posts reflect the way your child is being taught, then they are being taught badly...