Interesting article re. synthetic phonics

[Biscuitsneeded]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-25917646

I don't know about the smug bit. But I don't think there are many parents out there who crack open the Champagne on hearing the news that Little Jonny in Year 2 can't read his name yet.

I suspect that most people would know if Little Jonny didn't know how to spell his name by the time he was in Year 2.

I think the ones from niace families would, yes. Well, maybe. But some of them can't spell their own names, let alone worry about Little Jonny's, (even if they actually know where he is).

to Basketofchocolate At school certain words such as 'the' 'was' 'come' and' like' are called 'tricky' words because they cannot be sounded out unlike many longer words such as' astronaut' which a child can sound out when they have the phonetic knowledge that 'au' makes a certain sound as in 'Paul'. I hope this helps. There has however been the issue that children that are very able readers did not do so well in the phonics test because when asked to read a 'nonsense' word such as' flim' the child would assume it says 'film' so that is the answer they will give and would be marked incorrect. I just think that school reading books have a place but so do any other books you can read with your child from home, the library or on line.

DD3's school have incorporated 'alien' words right from the beginning of Year R to combat that, weeza. If they sound out an alien word, they all put their fingers above their heads and waggle them, saying 'bludebloopdeloop' or some other tongue wagging noise.

After all, if children are truly reading using phonics, it shouldn't matter what the meaning of the word is.

would a child look at spilt and say split would you consider that they are a good reader?

There has however been the issue that children that are very able readers did not do so well in the phonics test

I really don't think this is the case. DD is a very able reader and did very well indeed on her phonics test. I would suggest that someone who didn't do well on the phonics test is not a particularly able reader.

Bruffin

The trouble was too many didn't learn to read or were functionally illitrate.>> Still is.

The much greater use of phonics, because it became mandatory after the Rose report of 2006, has so far failed to make any significant difference.

DD2 wasn't a particularly good reader in year 1, but got 40/40 on the phonics test (because reading isn't just about decoding. She'd cracked the decoding bit, but was at that stage only just getting that we read for meaning).

The much greater use of phonics, because it became mandatory after the Rose report of 2006, has so far failed to make any significant difference

It was not made mandatory. It was 'guidance' and was ignored by most teachers.

It is supposedly mandatory from September 2014 with the new English curriculum.

Presumably there's a retraining cost associated with those teachers who don't understand phonics or are afraid of them.

'would a child look at spilt and say split would you consider that they are a good reader?'

similarly if a child read 'good reader' as good (to rhyme with food and not in their accent) reder would you consider that they are a good reader?

The difference there, zebedee, is that 'goood reder' is phonetically plausible (I.e. The 'oo'can be used as in 'zoo' and the 'ea' can be used as in 'dead'), whereas reading 'il' as 'li'can never be phonetically plausible.

phonetically plausible?

I'm not a pheasant plucker...

I split the milk in two places.

I spilt the milk in two places.

My point being that reading words in a phonetically plausible way does not equal good reading. Just as writing words in a phonetically plausible way does not equal good spelling.

No, but reading words in a phonetically plausible way is necessary for good reading (comprehension) to take place. Reading words in a way that isn't phonetically plausible is not going to help comprehension at all.

In your example, Zebedee, the child who uses mixed methods and 'reads' 'great writer' has not understood the text, will not necessarily know that they've made an error and so will find it hard to self-correct.

Mrs Windlace's object, clearly, was its foot.

What does that sentence mean? (And how is the woman's name pronounced?)

Collumngollum 'il' and 'li' are completely different. It would never be plausible to read 'spilt' as 'split' because they are two completely different words with two completely different meanings.

Reading the word 'Reading' as in the place, rather than 'Reading' as in the verb, is another matter. Both are plausible:

'Reading is so relaxing.' (The town called Reading is so relaxing to be in.)

'Reading is so relaxing.' (It is so relaxing to read.)

I would pronounce 'Windlace' as 'wind' as in the gust of air in an outdoor place, and 'lace' as of the fabric. I'd be content if I was corrected that in fact, the 'wind' was 'wind' as in winding a bobbin and 'lace' was actually 'lace' as in the end of 'solace'.

Either way, it wouldn't affect my understanding of the sentence, which would depend entirely on the context of the piece of writing. There's no indication, for instance, what 'it' is.

I have struggled with the film "Burn after Reading"

For some reason I thought it was something to do with the town. I think it's the capital letter that throws me. The title made no sense to me and it was only when I found out that it wasn't set in the UK and the subject of the film that I realised it was "reading" not "Reading"

I remember reading an article about a reading initiative in Reading which left my brain totally frazzled. The writer seemed to go out of his way to begin sentences with the the word 'Reading' which really did not help.

educationmediacentre.org/blog/government-imposition-of-synthetic-phonics-is-damaging-able-readers-really/