Writing and phonics

[Notcontent]

Background is that I am a bit annoyed at dd's teacher who seemed to suggest that dd's spelling is not great because she needs to improve her knowledge of phonics.

Dd is 7 and her reading is great, as acknowledged by her teacher, but her writing is not as good as her reading. Before Christmas at meeting teacher said that her spelling is letting her down and gave me a sheet with the phonics sounds to practice with dd. But the fact is that there are so many exceptions to English spelling that a lot of it is just memory work. I think that needs to be acknowledged. We have been doing lots of writing at home and I think her spelling is pretty good actually.

I do agree that phonics helps with reading, and helps a bit with spelling, but that's not the whole story, is it?

Really?

Maybe that is what boredom does to one.

The premises in that case did not fit the argument being proposed.

What I'm finding very amusing is cg's belief that she is proposing any sort of cogent argument.

I think she just enjoys trolling.

I concluded much the same a long time ago.

I'm assuming there's a hypothesis in here somewhere.

Previous comments do appear to verge on the level of a personal attack. But, assuming that that's not the case, and they're simply badly phrased, let's rephrase them in the form of a structured argument, shall we, girls.

That's what you always say. But the facts are that you appear to seek out any phonics thread specifically to derail it with obscure or inane comments simply because you wish to annoy the people you have termed 'Phonicsy'. You do it seemingly to annoy - many posters over the years have tried to engage you in serious debate and put points across, and it's become clear to most that you aren't interested in debate, you just wish to be obtuse for the sake of it.

Still can't believe you spout all this anti-phonics stuff habitually and yet on other threads have recommended a structured purely phonics based programme. That just shows you are just out to make mischief on the phonics threads, acaics.

If you wish to view the examination of untenable premises as anti-phonics (or anything else) then please be my guest. Rationally there is no such justification.

A debating forum is for the purpose of debate. Those who do not wish to debate are perfectly at liberty to withdraw.

Off you go then

I have no irrational view of untenable premises. Quite the contrary, in fact.

Perhaps you could explain why, as you pointed out on this thread (and many others) that when it comes to spelling "Phonics has sod all to do with it.", you are personally recommending a pure synthetic phonics programme for spelling on two recent threads?

I'm not sure that the phrase is mine. But my position is that phonics can spell better than a monkey with a typewriter.

The phase is mine. I've found it. And my position still is that phonics can spell better than a monkey with a typewriter.

I know your position you have made it very clear which doesn't explain why you are personally recommending a pure synthetic phonics programme to help children with spelling difficulties does it!

An intensive programme which pays close regard to how words are actually spelled will help children who cannot spell. It's not rocket science.

An intensive PURE SYNTHETIC PHONICS programme which closely follows the principles of synthetic phonics and works in just the way spelling is taught using Synthetic phonics which you so often dismiss as having "sod all" to do with it. Does phonics help with spelling or are you recommending a programme that it had "sod all" to do with it and only works slightly better than "a monkey with a typewriter"?

The valuable bit is: pays close regard to how words are actually spelled

That's what anyone needs to do if they want to be able to spell.

I can repeat the instruction as many times as is necessary for people who find it hard to understand.

"The valuable bit is: pays close regard to how words are actually spelled"

Yes columngollum that is a core synthetic phonics principle - you know synthetic phonics that has "sod all" to do with it!

That, mrz, is indeed the debate. The simplest description of spelling is simply remembering the order of letters in a word.

Any other method is adding to what is required.

Then why recommend a programme that teaches spelling by other methods - Apples and Pears does NOT teach spelling simply by remembering the order of letters in a word.

The valuable bit is: pays close regard to how words are actually spelled

That's what anyone needs to do if they want to be able to spell.

I can repeat the instruction as many times as is necessary for people who find it hard to understand.

Repeat as necessary...

For those who find it desperately difficult to understand that it's by paying close attention to how words are spelled that one learns to spell, perhaps this little analogy will help.

If one finds a gold coin with some poo on it, one does not simply throw the gold coin away. The best course of action is to wash off the poo and spend the coin. The moral of the story is that some useful things may have stinky bits added on.

pays close regard to how words are actually spelled

errr...so how else would anyone learn to spell? By disregarding how words are spelled?

You talk about engaging in debate CG but throughout this thread you have neatly sidestepped any references to your supporting phonics on other threads.

I think you are bored and at the same time consider yourself as some kind of educational expert though you have no training in it and no actual experience. In your shoes I'd listen more and talk less.

That is a totally vacuous analogy.

CG don't you have some children to entertain or some housework to do?

Might be a better way of spending your time, love.

The simplest description of spelling is simply remembering the order of letters in a word.

This relies purely on using a visual memory.

It is not possible to remember millions of words solely by the look of them.
This is why we have phonics as a method.

It is also why children with SpLD ( dyslexia mainly) are taught using multi sensory methods using hearing, seeing, touching.

SP is simply a universal method of teaching spelling which has been used for about 20 years or longer with children who cannot learn to spell purely through the visual channel.

CG I'm sorry but you really do lack the training and knowledge to make an informed argument or debate on this so it's a waste of my time engaging further.

It still does explain why you are recommending a programme that teachers children to spell using phonics columngollum - or didn't you realise that is what you were doing