Sounding out, whole word and phonics question

[Shattereddreams]

My dd is doing well with her reading. Y1.
At home we read more extensively than school books so I am aware there is an element of pushing her above her school ability so to speak. But her school books are not particularly challenging ORT Level 7.

When she approaches a long unknown word, she basically panics. Small words if unknown don't cause problems, just long ones.

If phonetic, I ask her to sound out. But she can't. I think she reads in a whole word way, and she tries to make a word that she does know without really looking at the word.
Eg
Tethered she wanted to read as teacher.

She has a lazy supply teacher this year so hasn't made much progress in school, plenty at home though.

Is this fear normal progression?

I wondered about the phonics test because if she can't sound out unknown words then this could be a problem.

And yes, you're also right that I'm not against phonics (or penicillin.) But I am against fanaticism (of any kind.)

But you're probably the most fanatical person on this thread, lands.

Other than the woman who taught her hound to bark at text, that is.

Phonics isn't fanaticism, any more than number lines are in maths. They're a means to and end that work for most children.

Manic as a teacher I'd say you aren't doing your daughter any favours by telling her words she doesn't know. You need to encourage her to sound out.

You won't always be by her side when she is reading and she will always come across words that are new.

Re. the different spellings you quoted: it's not that hard really. I would teach children that the long e sound is made in several ways- and we would learn one at a time. They would have ee words, ea words, etc. Words beginning with a silent letter would be another group- all silent k one week, silent b another, silent w another etc etc.

I think this argument is dea now TBH.
The advice to schools is to use synthetic phonics because it's been proved to work. End of.

No Yellow, phonics isn't fanaticism, but whenever people discuss phonics on MN there is much talk of 'functional illiteracy' and the problems caused by children not learning to read phonically. The fact that generations have learnt to read without being taught phonics and have gone on to become great scientists, artists etc is generally ignored. I agree that children should be taught to read phonically but I think that to imply that to learn in other ways is harmful (note - not the school teaching in other ways but the child LEARNING in other ways) is scaremongering.

OP I think the worrying thing about your post is the fact that your daughter is 'scared' about the reading. I would read up a bit on helping her with her phonics but concentrate on making the reading fun rather than pressurised.

The fanatics are the people who try their hardest to argue that something that is evidently true, such as sight reading is possible, isn't in fact true at all. Why would someone want to do that? That's where the fanaticism is here. And it's leading some people to suggest repeatedly giving phonics instruction to pupils who can't benefit from it. It's blind dogma and it's dangerous.

"generations"?

Phonics was the only method of teaching reading for centuries! There was only a brief fad in the late 20th century for other methods and mixed methods, and the results really weren't good.

No it wasn't.

Phonics was only invented by Pascal in 1654.

Miss Bopeep, as we both agree, I am not a teacher, so how am I expected to know whether or not she has learnt an alternative spelling for a sound? How am I supposed to know whether it is a tricky part of a word?

As for the need/knead thing - I am talking about spelling. I agree phonics is great for reading, I am far less convinced about spelling.

MissBopeep, am so glad you are not dd's teacher, I would be really hurt to be told by dd's teacher that I am 'doing my dd no favours' even though I am doing my best for her.

Manic The fact that generations have learnt to read without being taught phonics and have gone on to become great scientists, artists etc is generally ignored.

Pardon?

Sorry but how old are you?
I was taught to read using phonics in the early 60s. My parents- now in their mid 80s- were taught by phonics.

Until the 1980s when my children were subjected to the fashion of Look and Say then phonics has always been used.

The last sentence doesn't make sense.

Manic- that is a silly coment about being hurt. Surely as a parent you want to know how best to help your daughter? Being all precious and hurt when a professional tells you to do it differently is just plain daft.

Would you feel upset if a tennis or football coach suggested your child learnt those skills in a differnet way to the ones you were using at home?

I'd be thrilled if a professional offered advice on how I could help my child- and the parents with whom I work are eager to know what to do- I even give handouts to help them!

No, phonics has no one 'inventor', and if you look at mediaeval texts you will see phonics in action in pre-standardised spelling.

Professionals often get things wrong. Why else would councils have procedures for striking members off? Being professional and being right aren't the same thing at all.

Miss Bopeep, as we both agree, I am not a teacher, so how am I expected to know whether or not she has learnt an alternative spelling for a sound?

Well- you could pop in and ask the teacher for a start if you are unsure of what they are doing.

How old is your daughter? Has the shcool not given parents advice on phonics? Many schools have parents' nights or meetings when they advise parents of how SP are taught. They send home handouts on which sounds are being taught and when. Children have word lists to take home, to learn spellings.

Does your daughter's school not do any of this?

The fanatics are the people who try their hardest to argue that something that is evidently true, such as sight reading is possible, isn't in fact true at all. Why would someone want to do that?

Simple - because we have seen it work with hundreds of children, and picked up the pieces where sight reading has failed. Hardly 'blind' dogma.

Out of interest, learnandsay, do you go on medical boards and chat with the medical profession about how wrong and dangerous their professional views can be? In the interests of fairness, like.

The medieval period (if we're talking about Old and Middle English) had successive waves of spellings pronunciations, language changes, invasions and heaven knows what else. I'm sorry. But you won't find a phonics standard there!

Just because some people are frightened of flying that doesn't mean that flight is impossible. If you're frightened of the consequences of sight reading then say so. That's fine. But to argue that it's impossible when it's clearly not is just silly.

I'm sorry, Missbobeep, I just find your responses rude and more suited to the AIBU board so I'm off.

Missbeepop, i do agree with everything you ay, except my DH was born in1961 and taught using Look and Say. His Hm told MIL when she was going into school for help with dh reading, that he would never learn to read with that method but her hands were tied.
When he was 10 they finally sent him to remedial class where he was taught phonics, but too late for his emotional health.

Manic as a teacher I'd say you aren't doing your daughter any favours by telling her words she doesn't know. You need to encourage her to sound out.

Why does she need to; I never did. If teachers continue to send reading books home, parents will use them as they see fit. Teachers probably appreciate the extra practice that children get, regardless - otherwise they wouldn't send them. Or do children whose parents don't listen to them read make better progress because they are not subject to anything other than the purist approach?

Stange is it may seem, I was talking to DS about people with reading and spelling difficulties and he said, 'hmff, why don't they just sound out the letters', which seemed odd from a boy who had never attempted to sound out any letters - well, not in my presence anyway.

It's not that odd if he doesn't have trouble reading his way. He's talking about people who do have trouble. Sounds pretty clever to me.

CecilyP- you ask various questions which are a bit odd
When you say "I never did" do you mean you yourself, or you as a parent?

Whichever, it only shows that some children learn more easily and work out the counding out for themselves and do it silently in their heads.

One example does not prove a point- any more than saying great aunt Ethel smoked 100 a day and she never got cancer, so we can deduce from that that smoking is harmless.

Of course, listening to your child read is valuable.
Most parents are advised how to help best- such as shared reading or paired reading. If you do not know what these are you can find out easily on the web.

The advice to a parent is to listen to a child read and give them time to try to read a word they stuggle with. If they cannot, then the parents ask if they can read the first two letters- sounding them out and blending together. You work through the word like that. ANY advice you see for parents will tell you not to jump in and say the whole word to a child too soon. If you do, the child is not learning how to decode for themselves.

There is no such thing as a "purist" approach. There are ways to help which parents can easily adopt.

The fact that generations have learnt to read without being taught phonics and have gone on to become great scientists, artists etc is generally ignored.

I'm not sure that they have, really. The fact that children were given sight words and simple repetitive reading books to get them started, did not preclude any teaching of phonics at some stage during primary school. Perhaps not in the constant and comprehensive manner that synthetic phonics covers everything, but I doubt if many schools ignored it completely.

Look and Say methods really started in the UK in the 1950s with the Janet and John books, and I certainly remember getting my reading book on my first day of school although I did not know any letters. I assume I was taught these later (because I am not so brainy that I could have worked it all out for myself) but I have very little recollection of this.

Phonics was only invented by Pascal in 1654.

That is a strange take. Surely phonics was 'invented' by the originators of alphabetic writing systems - as opposed to hyroglyphics.