We are starting the journey of learning to read... concerned with reading book instruction

[kiwidreamer]

DS is two weeks into his school career, barely 4yrs old but settling well so far knocks wood Friday saw his first reading book sent home, v exciting!! However I'm a bit concerned with the 6 key words we have been instructed to help him learn 'spot these words in the reading book and in the world around them. The foundation team will check child's progress and re-new the words ever few weeks' the words this week are - I - the - to - no - go - into -

This isn't how phonics works is it???? We have a parents meeting on Wed night to explain to us how the school teaches reading so I'm being impatient I guess, does a good phonics program exclude all forms of HFW / sight learning or can the two approaches compliment each other?

Guessing isn't reading. I would praise the child and look at the sounds together to see why they were right.

If a child asks, it's fine to tell them if they can't sound it out by themselves at that point.

Gosh Feenie,, I really didn't mean to say "I'm alright, sod the other 20%. "

I find that remark really uncalled for. You talked about how your Ds learnt to read, I was just doing the same.

There must be times though when they need to learn a word that is beyond their phonetical knowledge as the sentence or book just won't make sense without it.

Feenie, I didn't say that phonics shouldn't be taught, and I didn't say that children left our school unable to read, just that some will always struggle learning to to read. In our school we follow letters and sounds and use a phonics only method including the tricky words. but teaching the code doesn't mean that all children will remember the code and be able to use it to the same effect. I am currently working in Y1 and there are several children that despite a year of phonics in YR and repeated intevention and still working within phase 1 and 2 phonics while most of the class are working at phase 5. Phonics isn't a magic wand you can wave. If all your children in Reception class progress at the same rate in reading Feenie, simply by teaching phonics and you don't need any further intervention then I would like to know more.

Giving that reading also requires a great deal of support from the parents then it's also up to us to say something. We can't just blame teachers.

Feenie, I didn't say that phonics shouldn't be taught, and I didn't say that children left our school unable to read, just that some will always struggle learning to to read.

Not in my experience - and that's the bit that really annoys me. It's not true, and it's a very defeatist attitude.

You also suggested you teach tricky words 'alongside' and as non-decodable - that's against advice.

Our children come in below average and leave Y6 above average, sometimes significantly. We are in an area of socio-economic deprivation, and we struggle to get parent involvement.

We have one child in Y1 working at Phase 2 - he has severe SEN, but is progressing. Some children do need additonal intervention, but that doesn't mean they don't learn to read well by the end of Y1/Y2.

Quicklookbusy, I just find it amazing when parents say 'well, my dc learnt to read like this, so it must be fine for some' - after having the facts presented to them that 20% are confused by mixed methods and that it's impossible to predict which children will fall into the one in five category. It sounds a little smug, tbh - well, my child was fine. How nice for you!

With all due resort and no offence meant to anyone but isn't it also just as unfair to be saying that because some cant do it no one can. The words r sent home parents don't have to do them with the child and surely children should be allowed to do these words along side if the teacher and child feel that they are capable. ? :)

Respect not resort

As I said, you referred to your Ds, I was just doing the same.

And thinking parents who mention this to you are being smug? They are just referring to what they know, I'm sure no smugness is meant.

surely children should be allowed to do these words along side if the teacher and child feel that they are capable.

But there is no way of predicting who is going to be confused - until it's too late. And if you know it's likely to be around 20% of children that you are likely to confuse, why set out with that as a teaching method? Especially since it's so inefficient a method anyway.

I apologise if that wasn't how you meant it to come across, QuickLookBusy. It must be nice have a child who falls into that 80%, but I wouldn't imagine I would use that as a reason to continue using mixed methods.

I didn't suggest the tricky words were non-decodeable. I suggested the tricky words were taught alongside as sight recognition words, which allows children to read and use them before they are able to decode them. For instance the first sounds we teach in Rec. are s a t p i and n, it is quite a way down the line before they are taught th and that e can make a ugh sound. So it makes sense to teach the word 'the' as a tricky word and children can then read 'the cat' pretty quickly.

I fail to to see how you can describe a child that needs additional intervention to learn to read as not struggling, just seems that you are avoiding using that description. All children at my school also learn to read well using phonics by end of Y2 but some find it easier than others, and any child that has needed lots of extra help to get there is struggling in relative terms in my eyes.

But they only start off with two or three words not like they expect them to be fluent. Surely be clear after pretty soon to the parent that they didn't get it?

Some children will learn to read without any formal teaching either from parents or schools, this fortunate few will work out the relationship between those squiggles on the page and the words they hear. Most children will need some instruction and currently 20%ish of children struggle.
For many centuries phonics was the main method of reading instruction, but in the 1950/60s an idea from the USA arrived in the UK - whole language/look and say/sight words, in the 1990s we got mixed methods and finally we've returned to what worked for centuries PHONICS.

For the people who ask why not just teach that "I" is how we write the word "I" ... well we do but we also teach that can represent the sound /igh/ in other words not just that one. So instead of a child being able to read one word they can apply that knowledge to dozens of words. A more efficient way of learning.

I don't think anyone's questioning phonics being used just that there r words learnt along side. As posted above they go through all the letters sounds and actions before they do the sounds of st, igh, th etc. it would be weeks/months befor a child learnt purely phonetically enough to read a basic sentence like " the cat sat on the mat" learning the words along side just speeds it up a bit.

Wheresmycaffeinedrip we had mixed methods for over a decade with disastrous results.

As posted above they go through all the letters sounds and actions before they do the sounds of st, igh, th etc. it would be weeks/months befor a child learnt purely phonetically enough to read a basic sentence like " the cat sat on the mat" learning the words along side just speeds it up a bit.

Firstly they shouldn't be learning st it isn't a sound it is two separate sounds and if the school is teaching two consonants as a single sound they are prolonging the process and don't understand how to teach phonics.

To teach all the sounds a child would need to read the sentence "The cat sat on the mat." would take 6 weeks, less if the teacher incorporates incidental teaching /learning. If you simplify the sentence to "A cat sat on a mat" it would only take 2 weeks.

For the people who ask why not just teach that "I" is how we write the word "I" ... well we do but we also teach that can represent the sound /igh/ in other words not just that one. So instead of a child being able to read one word they can apply that knowledge to dozens of words. A more efficient way of learning.

What words would those be that might appear in a children's early reading book?

Actually 'th' is taught very quickly in Reception, within the first few weeks.

Wheresmycaffeine - no one is suggesting not teaching those words, quite the opposite, but to teach them as sight words is inefficient, unnecessary, and against DfE advice. But teacher training is so poor that many teachers and therefore TAs still don't know this.

st is 2 sounds.

Reading and spelling starts almost immediately (day 3-4) with synthetic programmes and children are only given words and then sentences that they can phonically decode successfully -that's why it's important to use matched 'decodable books' alongside all synthetic phonics programmes for initial reading practice.

It's really important not to expect children to memorise any 'sight words' because for some children (often those with good visual memories) it will quickly become their main strategy for reading -a habit that's hard to shift later. When their whole word memory banks are full and the books drop the picture clues they will struggle to read novel words if they haven't deduced or been taught the alphabet code in the meantime.

behind, idea, find......

mind, I'll, I'm, I'd....

Are we limiting children to the words they see in reading scheme books CecilyP or teaching them skills they can apply in any situation?

If it's reading scheme books they quickly encounter I'm and I'll followed by words like kind and find and wild and child ...

Surely, in I'm, I'll and I'd, the 'I' still represents the word 'I'.

Are we limiting children to the words they see in reading scheme books CecilyP or teaching them skills they can apply in any situation?

Not sure about that one; others seem to think that children need decodable books in the early stages. However, from the examples given, I am happy to concede that many everyday words do use a single letter 'i' to indicate the 'igh' sound.

Yes, it does - so learning 'I' as an 'igh' sound helps read I'm, I'd, etc.

Learning I as a whole without discussing the sound/letter correspondence helps read just 'I'.