Sight words/Red words/Pure phonics/Mixed methods

[Kaida]

I'm a bit confused and hoping the experts can advise. I have read a few phonics threads on here before (enough to hope MashaBell doesn't take over the thread with lists...) but am just a layperson, so am getting confused.

I understood that phonics has been shown to have more success in teaching reading (and spelling) than mixed methods or whole word teaching. My DS is picking up basic phonics from Alphablocks and likes pointing out letters/sounds in books (he started that, btw, we're not pushy parents!). I wasn't expecting to ever do sight words with him (I remember a tin of flashcards with words on sent home when I was at school...) but my foster-brothers and foster-cousins have all been sent home with sight words to learn. I have been told that even good phonics systems like Read Write Inc have sight words to learn (Red Words?). These are good schools they're at, as being LAC they get into the best locally, so I assume know what they're doing.

But some of the Red Words seem to have a pattern to them, so I'm wondering why they're sight words and not taught as a new sound, IYSWIM. E.g. "be, he, we" - surely they are just another sound for "e" with the normal "b", "h" and "w" put on the front?

And at what point does "Phonics system with red words/sight words/tricky words" become "mixed methods"?

Thanks in advance.

If the definition contains a contradiction then it can't be accepted unless the person accepting it doesn't mind nonsensical definitions.

Kaida
Coming back to your original question, E.g. "be, he, we" - surely they are just another sound for "e" with the normal "b", "h" and "w" put on the front?

Yes. At sound level, English is 80% regular, because even the 4,000 tricky words have mostly just one or two tricky letters, but they are enough to make children stumble over the words which contain them - in reading and even more in spelling.

Most consonants (b, c, d....) are used quite regularly. Even -tion does not have many exceptions, but the /ee/ sound is spelt very messily. It's the second biggest English spelling problem, after consonant doubling (very merry, copy poppy, shoddy body...).

For spelling, children have to learn all the 456 words with it one by one.
In endings alone we have these spellings:
be/bee, he, me, she, we, pea/pee, plea, sea/see, tea/tee, key/quay, ski, fee, flee, free, knee, lee, three, tree.

The worst part of the unpredictable spellings for /ee/ (speak, speech, believe, even) is that, apart from ee, they are all used for other sounds as well:
treat, great, field, friend, here, there.

It goes without saying that if the /ee/ sound was always spelt ee, learning and teaching to read and write words with it would be vastly easier than it is.

Masha Bell

Someone on the Today programme was criticising these words that look identical but have different meanings and pronunciation according to the context. Funnily enough, he used the 'wind/wind' example too. I can only think of one other (read/read present and past).

It hardly seems fair to discredit an entire learning system on the basis of two words! I know there are a few more, usually noun/verb combos.

Especially as three quarters of the word 'wind' sounds the same both times.
and 2/3 of the word read.

No problem, if you/anyone want(s) to cut finding contextual meaning out of your/their definition of mixing methods, then heterophones can be left out of the argument. I'm sure some other dissimilar argument will crop up somewhere along the line about contextualisation. But, of the top of my head, I can't predict where that will be.

A bass was painted on the head of the bass drum.
Do you know what a buck does to does?
They were too close to the door to close it.
The buck does funny things when does are present.
Don't desert me here in the desert!
When shot at, the dove dove into the bushes.
The insurance was invalid for the invalid.
How can I intimate this to my most intimate friend?
With every number I read, my mind gets number and number.
He could lead if he would get the lead out.
After a number of injections my jaw got number.
I did not object to the object.
We must polish the Polish furniture.
Since there is no time like the present, he thought it was time to present the present.
The farm was used to produce produce.
The dump was so full that it had to refuse more refuse.
There was a row among the oarsmen about how to row.
A seamstress and a sewer fell down into a sewer line.
To help with planting, the farmer taught his sow to sow.
I had to subject the subject to a series of tests.
Upon seeing the tear in the painting I shed a tear.
the weather was beginning to affect his affect
The wind was too strong to wind the sail.
The bandage was wound around the wound.

From en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heteronym_(linguistics)#Further_examples

The studies.... you see I have no idea wht a heterophome is. Assume dd's school uses solely phonics. That's all well and good but I do more reading with her than they do. I try but have had no training at all, as a result my knowledge is probably average. Yes we have words she just know and definitely she uses pictures at times .

so back to the studies do the parents get training, are they just taught at school or are we just talking about school?

heterophone . there is no hope for dd clearly

you see I have no idea wht a heterophome is.

It looks as thought the internet hasn't any idea, either

Don't worry about it, we are just talking about words which are spelled the same but have different sounds (or different stresses) and different meanings. There are probably about 200 out of the English lexicon of at least 250,000 words.

Yes we have words she just know
Absolutely fine

and definitely she uses pictures at times
Not a good strategy to encourage or approve of. Pictures just promote guessing and books won't have pictures in them for ever.

Which is fine, but the pictures are there. Parents aren't experts in any of the methods is all I am trying to say.....

Here we go again.....Yes. I have been rubbished by the Mumsnet phonic experts before because I declared myself to be "just a Mum" . Not absolutely true as I have many years' experience of working in education with a team of SN teachers and as a Governor. But, hey, I am not allowed to have an opinion. I feel I am not even free to make observations, gathered over very many years of working with reading experts in my team, without my views being rubbished. I did vow to never engage in a "phonics" discussion again, but ordinary Mums are now sidelined and made to feel unworthy of adding a comment because they are invariably not experts and are, of course, just plain wrong!

As a Mum I really thought Mumsnet was for people like me! In a phonics thread this is far from the truth and it is impossible to discuss anything without the self styled experts taking over. Such a shame. As you can see from the number of contributors here, debate is well and truly stifled. Such a shame for Mumsnet.

Millymolly
The Mumsnet phonic experts rubbish everyone who disagrees with them.

I used to be a teacher, teaching mainly secondary English and modern languages, but had to retire on health grounds at 50, in 1995. Before starting full-time, i had done some part-time and supply in primaries and special needs. I also taught my daughter to read before she started school and helped my son to overcome his dyslexia.

I had been bothered by the many vague and contradictory claims about English spelling in handbooks for teachers for over 20 years, but could not find the time to examine more carefully while working. Pensioned retirement gave me the chance to investigate English spelling and its history, and particularly to try and establish exactly how regular and irregular it was, and what spelling and reading difficulties it caused.

Yet the MN 'phonic experts' regularly accuse me of not understanding English spelling.

That's because you keep posting very strange lists masha

I have been rubbished by the Mumsnet phonic experts before because I declared myself to be "just a Mum"

There's nothing at all wrong with being 'just a mum'. The problem is with having uninformed 'opinions' about how reading should be taught, particularly when the strategies expressed in the opinion have been proven by research to be ineffective.

Nothing wrong with opinion, really, but resistance to evidence seems a bit unsound.

But then, the majority of teachers seem to prefer opinion to evidence...

In RWI words you can't sound out are called Red Words and are printed on red card. They mostly contain a 'grotty grapheme' eg the a in what which cannot be sounded out. Hoever, some words are asterisked eg be, we, he etc. The asterisk means they are only Red for a little while as later on in the scheme they will meet the ee sound represented by just an e. The Red Words are introduced a few at a time depending on the shared text being read. Words that can be decoded are called Green Words and unsurprisingly are printed on green card!!

hey mostly contain a 'grotty grapheme' eg the a in what which cannot be sounded out.

Just to correct a misunderstanding:

It's nothing to do with 'cannot be sounded out' There is nothing that 'cannot be sounded out'. The 'grotty grapheme' is just a rare, unknown or not yet taught letter/sound correspondence.