Can someone PLEASE tell me how many high frequency words there are??????

[propercheesed]

DS is currently KS1 at school, I have requested a copy of any high frequency words he should be learning(along side his reading) but surprise surprise access denied!!. Anyone would think I wanted to help my son .

I have googled and googled and I keep getting different answers, please could any teachers or up to speed parents tell me where to find the answer?

and that is the whole problem ... no wonder the guidelines have been mothballed.

And I could introduce you to pupils who have spent 6 years 'learning to read and spell the 45 YR/1 HFWs' . They've learned to read them (but not always to spell them) but they haven't learned to read much else. What a waste of time.

Perhaps it would be useful to point out that there are two 'understandings' of the term 'sight words'

Firstly, that these are words which have to be learned as 'wholes'; in the mistaken belief that they 'cannot be decoded'. This is the meaning which has prevailed for many years, since the practically wholesale adoption of 'look & say' methods of teaching reading.

Secondly, that these are words which have been decoded and blended a few times and have become so familiar that they no longer need to be consciously decoded.

The essential difference between the two 'understandings' of the words is the method by which the words get into long term memory.

Although those of you with children who have a facility for remembering entire words might think that the first way of learning 'sight words' is perfectly reasonable the method fails when children reach the limit of memory for 'whole' words and as words become longer and more complex. They may also confuse very similar looking words as they are not used to looking at the detail within the words

The second method is much more reliable. I know it is more reliable because I have taught both ways, but here is an article on the topic www.theage.com.au/news/education-news/practice-makes-permanent/2006/07/15/1152637878567.html

Those of you who don't understand the problem with sight words, let me give you an example.

Kid learns 'and' and 'said' as sight words. They have lots of practice at recognising those words with flash cards and bingo and whatever.

The next day they see, in a book, 'ant' and 'sand'. They will straight away think they say 'and' and 'said', because they haven't memorised every letter in those sight words. They don't need to. They have only learnt one starts with an 'a' and one with a 's'

When they see 'and' or 'ant' how are they meant to know if it's a word they're meant to blend, or a word they're meant to retrieve from their memory?

So, if you did really want to teach words as wholes, you should teach 'and' and 'ant' at the same time - but that's not how high frequency words teaching does it......(nor does it solve all the other problems with sight words - ie the slow pace of learning and the limits of memory)

But maizieD the method doesn't fail for 80% of the children who manage to combine both approaches. Yes, it is dangerous and does require an attention to detail and yes it does fail some children, but not all, including a lot of us who were taught that way.

I think this is what causes confusion. So, I can certainly see that taking a pure phonics approach is the best method as mrz says so that 100% of children are more likely to get off to a good start. BUT, I would like people to acknowledge that children will often memorise whole words and/or use their own patterns (a sort of pseudo phonics), rather than phonics that has been explicitly taught to learn to read. And that this is a successful way of learning to read that works for many children.

Actually Tgger it's difficult to say whether it fails the 80% of children who manage to reach national standards in Y6 because in KS3 many of these children begin to experience difficulties in literacy (possibly when they reach the limit of their whole word knowledge and their phonic skills are weak as a result of mixed methods.)

Do you think this was always the case mrz, in the olden days before the NC etc? Just interested. I just don't remember it being such an issue when I was at school (yonks ago.....). Was it always an issue just not drawn attention to do you think? And I wonder how the children who cope/ coped just fine without the strategic (if I can call it that) phonics teaching that is around today managed to avoid this? Did they naturally switch onto the phonics within the words and work them out (consciously or subconsciously) themselves? Or do/did they just have bigger memories? Sorry, I know a lot of questions. Don't expect you to answer them all .

I think it is more obvious now because of national data is published for all to read.
Don't forget phonics was the main method of reading instruction for centuries until Whole language was imported from the USA with disastrous results

I think some children will succeed no matter how they are taught and will work out the code for themselves, others (most) will need explicit teaching to help break the code and a very small number will struggle no matter how they are taught. Even if your child is one of those who will eventually work it out themselves imagine if they are given the code without needing to work it out themselves how much more effort they can put into understanding and enjoying what they read rather than into code breaking.

When I was "taught" to read, by the time we were in year 4 equivalant, all my year except about 5 were put into "remedial reading". At other schools there wasn't such large scale intervention which meant there was a very busy SEN department at secondary. And in those days children with most SN were kit in "special schools".

www.readnowbc.ca/assets/pdfs/k12/reading_breaking_through_the_barriers.pdf

www.ldonline.org/article/9941?theme=print

www.aft.org/pdfs/teachers/earlyreadinginstrinterv0708.pdf

www.aft.org/pubs-reports/downloads/teachers/rocketsci.pdf

www.edexcellence.net/commentary/education-gadfly-weekly/2007/february-1/reading-wars-redux-1.html

www.decd.sa.gov.au/northernadelaide/files/links/whole_language_high_jinks.pdf

Fluent decoding is not the entirety of reading instruction. But, without it, all else falters; and the knowledge exists to teach it well. If we put that knowledge into practice in our early-grade classrooms, our current discussions about whether or not to retain third-graders who still aren't reading would be less constant, less necessary, and less freighted. We have the tools to teach reading right the first time, so let's do it.
aft

Thanks for the articles mrz. Very interesting indeed. Am working my way through them , light entertainment for a Saturday evening....I particularly like these points made in the science article- apologies for just taking these, please read the whole article all those interested!

1. Beware of false dichotomies. Some examples of false dichotomies in reading education include phonics vs. literature-based approaches to teaching reading, homogeneous vs. heterogeneous grouping, and isolated vs. contextualized skill instruction. In each of these instances, rather than choosing one approach or type of instruction over another, teachers can (and frequently do) combine choices. The scientific question in these situations usually involves finding the right balance (e.g., exactly how much phonics instruction is beneficial, and how does the amount needed vary depending on the characteristics of the children?) ? not making a forced choice between two extremes.

1. Be suspicious of simplistic claims. A headline like Many Factors Involved in Reading Achievement might not sell a lot of newspapers, but it is closer to the truth than All Children Learn to Read Easily with Phonics or New Program the Solution to Reading Failure. As we have indicated, there are clear conclusions about reading that can be drawn from scientific research. However, like problems in many other human domains, problems in reading tend to be complex, involve multiple causes, and require more than one solution.

I think it is often falsely assumed that good phonics teaching means children are excluded from exposure to other literature which is far from the truth.

ebookbrowse.com/10-years-of-brain-imaging-research-shows-the-brain-reads-sound-by-sound-pdf-d204848149

www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/smallbook.cfm

www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/PRF-teachers-k-3.cfm

www.righttrackreading.com/keyresearchfindings.html#Neuroscience

I just had to sound out the word "dichotomies"

So what would you recommend for a child (reception age) who has already learned the frequent words list by sight and is currently reading well?

Should I be focusing on getting her to practicing sounding words out. Maybe not in a reading book and out of context so she doesn't guess so much? I do find when she reads a book most of the time she will only need to sound out the first bit of a new word. There are clues in the pictures and in what she has already read. (I guess this shows good comprehension of what she is reading)

I would check every so often that she is decoding by saying something like 'How do you know what that word says?' If she says 'I know it says 'cat' because it says /c/ /a/ /t/, silly' then she is on the right lines. If she is making a guess from pictures cover up the pictures until she has read the page. Pictures should enhance a text, not be a substitute for reading it!

It won't take long to establish what her strategy is for new words. If it is 'silent' decoding (as opposed to doing it out loud) then she is absolutely fine and a clever girl, reading just like a grownup!

If it isn't decoding then, yes, get her to sound out unfamiliar words and don't let her use any other strategies. It's not kind to give a child the impression that reading words from picture cues is a valid strategy. After a while texts become more complex and pictures less frequent, then the child has to both learn to decode automatically and break a faulty habit. Much harder work than acquiring good decoding skills right from the start.

It doesn't take long to establish consistent decoding. My Y7s can do it in a matter of weeks, despite having spent 6 years guessing their way through text!

Thanks. I didn't realise it was such a mine field.

I don't actually think they have learned any more in school yet than the basic phonic sounds (some children in her class haven't started on books yet and a few are on a couple of levels higher than my daughter). but the books she brings home have far more in them so I have been kind of teaching her myself a bit, it does worry me that I am teaching her the wrong way and I will get her confused.

It must be difficult for a teacher when they have 25 children all at different stages, guess you can't cater for them all within the lessons but then there isn't much guidance for the parents on the best way to help them.
I have dyslexia myself so it is a bit like the blind leading the blind in my house! :)

It isn't a minefield really.

go to www.phonicsinternational and download one of the alphabetic code charts. It will have the 44'sounds' down the LH side, represented by the first spelling that they will probably be taught. The row beside each 'sound' has the alternative ways of spelling that sound. This gives you a handy crib sheet if you're not sure what part of the word represents what sound. If you're not sure of the 'sounds' there is a video on that website which demonstrates them and how they should be pronounced.

Have a little practice yourself at analysing some words in a piece of text into their individual sound spellings, e.g. 'individual' contains the sounds /i/ /n/ /d/ /ee/ /v/ /i/ /d/ /yoo/ /u/ /l/, spelled 'i' 'n' 'd' 'i' 'v' 'i' 'd' 'u' 'a' 'l' (which is a little more complex than the words your dd will be expected to read at present!), then you will feel more comfortable with helping her to work out unfamiliar words because you will know how words 'work'.

If she encounters a word which contains a sound spelling which she hasn't yet learned just tell her that these letters spell the x sound and she will probably learn them later. For the time being she now will know how the word should be decoded. And this sort of 'incidental teaching' may well be enough for her to remember the sound spelling next time she encounters it. If it isn't, don't worry, she will learn it soon enough as she encounters more words with it in or is explicitly taught it at school.

Once you feel comfortable with sounds and they way they are spelled it is a remarkably simple and easy process. You may even find it is beneficial for you if you think you are dyslexic yourself. Explicit learning of letter/sound correspondences is at the heart of most 'dyslexia' programmes

Thanks I will have a look at that and not just tell her the words.

"Explicit learning of letter/sound correspondences is at the heart of most 'dyslexia' programmes"

Times have changed, I used to get 20 mins every couple of weeks playing with fridge magnet letters. Until the special teacher went off sick and never came back.

I did say 'at the heart of'. Some dyslexia interventions do go an awfully roundabout way of teaching it, though
And 20 minutes a fortnight is useless... I hope the phonics helps you now

I would add checking that they know which bit of the tricky words is actually tricky so they don't think that it means the whole word and try to give examples of other words that contain the same letters to represent the same sound.

So was - when w is followed by a it often represents o and s can represent s or z examples want, wash, what, wasp and as, has, is

I got caught out with "screw" the other day. I covered up the s and DS knew "crew" so that was ok, we just added the "s", but then I tried to think of the phonics rule for the "ew" sound, bit of a funny one isn't it. How is that said, is it "yoow"?....have to go seek out relevant RWI phonics book...... well maybe later..

few, mew, crew, dew, stew etc

Also "steward" as in "air steward"- that's another funny one isn't it. You've got the first bit as above and then "ard" but when you put it together it the "ard" sounds "ood" as in "wood". This is when I sound out with DS but end up modelling the whole word and wondering what the rule is!!

I think the RWI rhyme for ew is - "ew - chew the stew"

Had a quick look and can't find it- think it's in one of the books we haven't got and that prob means DS hasn't done...explains it..... may be eating hat tho .

we've got pink, orange and yellow. 3,4 and 5.

blue, flue, cue, rue, true

shoe

dew, crew, stew, chew

I guess these are the alternatives for this sound? "ue", "oe", "e".

Goes off to find life beyond phonics.....