Confused at to why Reception DD is being taught letter names so soon after sounds?

[Owlelf]

DD is in reception. When she she knew a few letter sounds and could form a few letters. She seems to have progressed really well and knows all get letter sounds, is decoding words and writing captions. To be honest I am really impressed that she has come on so quickly and have to credit her teachers.

I am confused though, that her phonics group are now learning the names of the letters. This evening we read her school book and she seemed to be confusing the letter sounds and names. To my (completely untrained) mind it seems too soon to be confusing her with letter names when she has just learned (?learnt?) the sounds.

I realise I could broach this with her teacher, but would prefer not to as they must know what they are doing- not least given DDs progress so far under their wing.

She is working within stage 3 phonics BTW (her class is split into several groups for phonics, so not all children are learning letter names at the moment).

So I am really interested as to why, at this early stage the letter names are needed? Can anyone explain please?

'my'

ds currently gets taught phonetics at school and because he is advanced i get sent lists of 'hard words' for him to learn which have no phonetic component at all but are fairly basic and he needs to learn them to move on from endlessly being able to sound out and read words like, cat, dog, mum, dad etc.

i suspect part of what happens with phonetics teaching at school is the parents have to teach the rest of it realistically if they're children aren't to still be at 4yo level 3 years in.

SantaIsAnAnagramOfSatan all words have phonetic components and all words can be taught using phonics even "hard" ones

"my" two phonemes m and ie (represented by the letter y) completely phonetic and not at all difficult for a typical four year old.

If you lived up north, you wouldn't find 'put' to be a problem, but in the south can be the /u/ in 'sum' and it can be the sound /oo/ as in 'look' or 'book'. This sounds complicated but it really isn't. It's the same as saying that can be /ee/ in 'seat', /e/ in 'head', or /ae/ in 'break'. As long as you teach those alternatives first, the child can try each one and see which works. Actually, you probably read so fluently you're unaware of the existence of this aspect of the way the writing system works - until, of course, you go to places you've never visited before and then discover that how you think they're said isn't how local people say them.
And, just to convince you that even young children can understand the idea: present your child with a circle and ask them what it can be. If they say 'a circle', ask them what else it can be. They'll probably say 'a pizza' or soemthing. The point is that symbols, which are what spellings are, can represent more than one thing but not just anything.

My experience has been similar to Bonsoir's. I have confidence that my DS's teacher can treat him as an individual. I was surprised that she suggested starting letter names; she was right though. At only just 5 he knows that Capital DEE sounds like ddd (they don't use uh sounds).

not sure why your'e trying to ignore reality mrz - or roll your eyes at me. but go for your life.

eggrules - agreed - luckily me and ds's teacher are on the 'individuals' trip rather than religious adherence to a system regardless if it's the best fit or not.

I'm not ignoring reality SantaIsAnAnagramOfSatan simply pointing out your misconceptions

Where I live quite a few words have the same /u/ sound in them as 'put'. Shut, bun, fun, sun, butter....

And, if you were to try to tell the children that the 'a' in grass, pass, glass, castle etc. is an /ar/ sound they'd think you've gone mad...

That's what SW means about 'depending on accent'

there's that lovely face again. so glad you're not ds's teacher. would hate to see his education sacrificed on an obsession.

No far better to tell him words aren't made up of phonemes

i have no idea what i'm supposed to have said that is so offensive to you you insist on snidey comments and pulling faces.

way to educate.

ds currently gets taught phonetics at school and because he is advanced i get sent lists of 'hard words' for him to learn which have no phonetic component at all but are fairly basic and he needs to learn them

You are mistaken it isn't at all offensive to me however as I tried to point out all words have a phonetic component

For anyone who says that a word can be said phonically, try saying "ghoti".

Go on ...

It's pronounced the same way as "fish".

• gh as in rough
• o as in women
• ti as in station

Gah! ... can't be said ...

Been searching for this ...
spelling.wordpress.com/2007/09/05/english-pronunciation/

EcoLady - that is a poor joke which doesn't obey English rules of spelling

"gh" is only pronounced /f/ at the end of a syllable (laughter, rough), never at the beginning of a syllable

"ti" is never pronounced /sh/ at the end of a syllable

Rules of English spelling? I'll have to start my whole life over again. I've always believed there were no rules of English spelling.

Signed
Phyllis St John, of Wymondham in Wrexham near Wycombe

The trouble with English is not that there are no rules of spelling but that there are an awful lot of them!

There aren't rules as such but can you think of a single word where the initial sound f is represented by the letters "gh"? and can you find a single word where the final sh sound is written "ti"? and when we, as good readers,read we apply the laws of probability often without being aware we are doing it.

For words with those sounds children have to learn, word by word, how to spell them by the 'look, say, cover, write, check' method

rubbish!!

that's pretty much my view - that phonics is a good starting point for getting a foot in the door and getting up and reading words, sounding out, blending etc. it boosts confidence and gives a foundation.

but rapidly it becomes only one tool in the box if you are to master language.

don't know why this is so controversial.

Because I can't spell "thought" or "night" etc. out phonically without falling over in a tongue tied giggling heap!

th or t and n ie t ?

but rapidly it becomes only one tool in the box if you are to master language.

I don't think that any phonics advocate would disagree with that general principle, in that morphemic knowledge and sheer familiarity with the written form of words become part of one's spelling 'armoury' at some stage.

I think that where the contention starts (particularly with masha) is at just what stage is phonic knowledge not quite enough? You say 'rapidly', many teachers of phonics would disagree with you if you are implying within a few months of learning to read and spell.

I would say that good, well paced, systematic phonics teaching teaches children attention to the detail 'within' words, flexiblity and automaticity (really important) in applying knowledge of 'alternatives' and, because they mostly learn to read quite early, and very accurately, they develop that visual familiarity with words which enables you to look at something you've just written and think 'That 'looks' wrong. This will take children a long way towards good spelling.

I suggest that you have a look at the Sounds~Write (no commercial interest here whatsoever I don't even use the programme) Spelling data which shows what can be achieved, over time, with a systematic, structured phonics programme:

www.sounds-write.co.uk/docs/sounds_write_research_report_2009.pdf