"So" is a sight word and can't be sounded out...

[Stampstamp]

Said the reception class teacher today. Aaargh! Thank heavens DD can already mostly read (she's nearly 5). Why do some teachers and schools have such a limited understanding of phonics, it seems so fundamental to me?

That's not how this thread reads. Synthetic phonics are now The Only Way to teach reading because of research that supports its use with children who already have basic oral competence.

I am not comfortable with the idea that to teach reading
effectively all five year olds have to be comfortable with understanding multiple levels of trickiness and labelling the mechanics of reading using technical terms from the early stages of instruction. Many are not linguistically or cognitively able for that and a more behavioural approach based on massed practice vs learning rules per se is more expedient.

yes they have tricky words but they don't have sight words

No working9while5 the thread is about a teacher telling parents that the word so cannot be sounded out nothing to do with understanding

Technical terms like word & letters and sounds

jollylearning.co.uk/2010/11/01/tricky-words/

slightly contradictory message on this video from the Jolly Learning website.

If you look options are for spelling not reading

Mixed methods were introduced as a response to the failure of whole language methods

And whole language methods were a response to (at the time) a perception that the phonics of the 1950s weren't working as well as they could. There are no baddies in this: no-one was acting in bad faith.

And whole language methods were a response to (at the time) a perception that the phonics of the 1950s weren't working as well as they could.

untrue I'm afraid friday

If you look options are for spelling not readiing

I am aware of that, but I wasn't referring to the options but to the video.

I apologise I will watch the video when I get the chance won't play on this laptop

Pozzled - my eldest (9) is one who tends to skip over words. It's gotten better since he began a phonics review but it's still a habit he's gotten into that is of great frustration to us both. Even when reading aloud, he seems to do it automatically and that results in his getting lost in what's going on so easily. He's done it from the start, but became better at hiding it until fairly recently.

I wonder if there is anything I can do to help him with this?

untrue I'm afraid friday

So you believe that teachers knowingly discarded a working method in exchange for one they knew to be inferior? Why would they do that?

If you are talking about whole word methods you are in the wrong century, if you are talking about whole language you are in the wrong decade ... but lets suppose you are talking about whole language.
It was introduced as an untried theory (not method) that assumed children learnt to read as they learnt to speak based on constructivist philosophy as it became apparent that the theory was unsound it was disguised as "balanced literacy" or "mixed methods".

Why would they do that? your guess is as good as mine ...but remember politicians aren't educationalists

In the UK we had the NLS (1998) which was essentially Whole Language (with a bit of phonics thrown in) and was relatively short lived in the grand scheme of things but still causing damage.

In the UK the real books movement (a whole-language offshoot ) reached its height of popularity in the 1980s, reading scores plummeted alarmingly. Martin Turner, an educational psychologist, published confidential reading test results from eight LEAs which demonstrated the seriousness of the situation – average attainment of seven year-olds dropped by seven months between 1985 and 1990.

Growlith I didn't "relish the opportunity to show off my knowledge" during this talk. I was really disappointed she said that, not pleased. I didn't say anything, and am not planning to say anything, because I don't see how I could draw it to their attention in a constructive way that wouldn't just piss them off.

Why would they do that? your guess is as good as mine ...but remember politicians aren't educationalists

Politicians had no power over, or interest in, classroom methods until Baker introduced the national curriculum with the 1988 Education Act. You can't blame politicians for poor teaching methods prior to then. Most of the controversial changes to teaching methods mostly came from university education departments and other theoreticians, a few from well-meaning amateurs (ITA was done by the son of the Pitman of shorthand fame, wasn't it?). Politicians had no power to compel anything (other than teacher RE to the locally agreed scheme) until the late 1980s.

"Politicians had no power over, or interest in, classroom methods"

sorry I just fell off my chair laughing

Whole Language was the 1990s long after Baker

Whole Language was the 1990s long after Baker

But

In the UK the real books movement (a whole-language offshoot ) reached its height of popularity in the 1980s

Could you make your mind up about who your opponents are?

WL became part of the National Literacy strategy in the 1990s

I don't have any opponents friday ...

Everything I've read about the problems with reading in schools says that the problem was ITT: for a variety of reasons phonics fell from favour, was replaced by a bunch of other methods (most of which didn't work) and teachers emerged from teacher training without the skills or knowledge to teach reading by effective methods. Blaming this on politicians is just nonsense. The reason politicians got involved later was because the teaching of reading had gone horribly wrong. But the people that were wrong were not evil, nor doing it in bad faith, and there was no golden age in which everyone learnt to read. Sure, synthetic phonics looks like the winning strategy, although arguing as though anyone who dares to deviate is a heretic isn't terribly appetising.

And if synthetic phonics is the stuff of choice, teachers also need to explain why Gove is the anti-Christ (when he's a passive proponent of synthetic phonics) while Labour education policy is the lost golden age (er, not so hot on phonics).

Many universities still support Kenneth Goodman's ideas and The Institute of Education is the base for Reading Recovery in the UK so you are right there are flaws in ITT ... regardless of method prospective teachers get as little as one session on how to actually teach reading hardly equipping students for the classroom.

Labour initiated the Rose Review and published Progression in Phonics and Letters & Sounds while at the same time spending millions on ECAR (spin off of Reading Recovery & Gordon Brown's pet project) current government promoting phonics apparently.

Politicians come in all shapes and sizes and not all sit in Parliament ...LEAs also dictated school policies

Sure, synthetic phonics looks like the winning strategy, although arguing as though anyone who dares to deviate is a heretic isn't terribly appetising.

This is it for me.

Read Friday's post again mrz. The point was that politicians weren't overly involved in pedagogy pre-Baker, not that Baker introduced Whole Language methods. You can pick yourself up from your derisive laughing fit I think .

This thread is no longer about the specifics of the OP, MN threads rarely are by page 11. A discussion about the teaching of reading that divorces decoding and understanding is a bit of a nonsense. Many children across the UK do not benefit from metaknowledge of phinic rules in the early stages of learning to read. They need massed practice with decoding and a good proportion will need additional and simultaneous checks they have sufficient language ability to understand what they are reading.

Also, competent readers who use decoding of new words to extend their vocabulary are usually lingustically and cognitively average or advanced for their age group and even still this is a skill that emerges really in KS2, developing well into adulthood. For younger learners, vocabulary arises from concrete experience mediated by adult scaffolding. Decoding of words is a skill that draws on a stable base of language understanding. All the decoding ability in the world isn't going to help a child who can't understand basic common vocabulary in the language they are learning to read in become a proficient independent reader without equal emphasis on development of the prerequisite language skills.