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?

[columngollum]

The point put simply is that phonics is not necessary in order to notice that the spelling of some words is very similar. Observation is all.

[maizieD]

Yes, cg, and phonics trains children to be better 'observers' than does any other 'method'

[columngollum]

Well, therein lies the argument. Because a great deal of shape-shifting also takes place in English spelling and pronunciation and phonics by no means has a handle on it all. My own belief is that the etymologists have a clear advantage over the children learning phonics, L&S or any other method.

English is an unruly beast and can't be simply explained by any method save but etymology; they really are the true observers. Best start when young, I say!

[Mashabell]

Nobody can spell new words completely accurately until they have found out just how they should be spelled.
Sums up the problem of English spelling perfectly.

With more systematic spelling systems children can, apart from a few exceptions, apply the phonics patterns they learn for some words to all words. E.g. learning 'good wood' enables them to apply the same pattern to 'cood, shood, wood'. In English, at least 4,219 words don't quite obey the main spelling patterns.

secondary teachers are likely to say that a far higher percentage of their pupils (60%+) are appalling spellers than are poor readers.

This is simply because the learning burden for learning to spell is much greater than for learning to read.

1. Only 2,039 words in the 7,000 which i analysed contain letters with variable sounds (treat, great, treat), while 4,219 have unpredictable letters. 'Main lane' present no reading difficulties, but they do for spelling.
   
   
2. In reading, other letters in a word, along with context, help with decoding words like 'many, once', or even 'wait a minute' and 'minute detail'. For spelling, u just have to remember the right look of the word. - There is much more to learn and needs lots of practice. That's why nobody becomes really proficient in less than 10 years, and roughly 1 in 2 people never do.

[blueberryupsidedown]

Not much advice here, except to be patient. DS1 was like your DD, at 7 he struggled with spelling but would spell words logically, following some of the rules of phonics. At about 8 years old, it started to click in his head and he started to have a better visual memory of words. Now his spelling is better. I think it clicked when he started to read books out of interest, not because he had to. The teacher may be right, but there is no easy answer.

[Fuzzymum1]

My youngest has learned to spell with phonics, my older boys didn't. His spelling now, aged 7, is way better than either of theirs was at his age.

I think phonics teaches the rules and patterns of spelling and the various sound blocks that build words. Exposure to lots of written text, ie reading lots, helps them to see which spelling looks right - when he is asking how to spell a word I think he has a good chance of knowing, I suggest he writes it how he thinks and has a look and see if it looks right, if not try an alternative and see if it looks better - he can usually find the right way. I am a big supporter of phonics when it's taught right and I know that his teacher is fantastic.

[mrz]

masha we have to work within the spelling system we have so your posts aren't helpful in the slightest.

If we had a 44 letter alphabet and 8if we had one spelling for each sound and if we had no homographs and if we had no heteronyms we would all be able to spell but* we haven't!

[confuseddaily]

My older children are fantastic spellers and learnt the old fashioned way, by youngest was subjected to RW inc and can not spell for toffee.

[confuseddaily]

Apologies, I meant my not by!

[mrz]

What is the old fashioned way?

[confuseddaily]

The old fashioned way is where you left it to the school and as an adult can not even remember how you learnt to spell (bar a few rules). My older children are amazing spellers and readers, i never remember having to plod through spelling lists or ever remember them having to spell non words. I really do not know what the correct jargon/terminology is; (could it be old fashioned learn the word and how to spell it compared to synthetic phonics?) I'm sure primary education was simpler and dare i suggest more effective 12 + years ago?

[Mashabell]

If we had a 44 letter alphabet and 8if* we had one spelling for each sound
U can have one spelling for 44 sounds with 26 letters.
What makes English spelling difficult is having different spellings for identical sounds (air, care, there, their, bear ...).

It is entirely because English spelling is the way it is that so many people never learn to spell well, not because of poor teaching.

I agree that teachers have to work with the system we've got, but there is no good reason for it to remain as it is.

[mrz]

You mean like many schools teach now using synthetic phonics then confuseddaily? - taught in school, no spelling lists sent home and no having to spell non words?

[mrz]

if your child's school is doing all those things confuseddaily it has nothing to do with phonics but lots to do with the school.

[mrz]

English spelling is the way it is because of our long history masha which we are quite fond of I'm afraid

[columngollum]

If the children appeared out of the school able to read, write, spell and do maths, I wouldn't give a monkeys if they were taught by phonics, chew-the-bath, or pogglewoogle methodology, frankly.

[mrz]

Perhaps that's why so many struggle after leaving school because they only appeared to be able

[columngollum]

Well, spelling and maths are binary: You can either spell circumlocution, elementary, cardiovascular and myopic or you can't. You can either calculate three quarters of 78 and five eights of 62 or you can't.

Reading, I agree, is in the eye of the beholder.

[mrz]

You have a very strange take on education

[Mashabell]

English spelling is the way it is because of our long history masha which we are quite fond of

Most people have no idea how English spelling ended up as it is. If they did, they might not be so fond of it.

Until 1430, when English became the official language of England again, English spelling was as consistent as other European writing systems, apart from the use of o for u next to m, n and v which had been adopted by monastic scribes as early as the 9th C, because they did not like having lots of short strokes next to each other (e.g. munth).

When after nearly centuries of Norman rule English became the official language of England again around 1430, the court scribes who had to switch from French and Latin to English very not very happy. They gave vent to their anger about having to change to this previously despised, lowly language by messing up English spelling.

They deliberately destroyed earlier phonetic distinctions, such as ‘mene – ment, rede - red’, by adopting ‘mean, meant’ and ‘read now / read yesterday’. They deliberately wrecked the earlier consistent spelling of the long ee sound (nere, here, speke, beleve, reson) and made short e less regular at the same time (bed head, fret threat, went meant...).

In the 16th century, English spelling was messed up still further by early printers.
Firstly, by the foreign printers who printed the first English bibles without speaking a word of English. - Tyndale's translation of the New Testament (the most popular book of the 16C) was first published in Belgium in 1526, because in England the printing of English bibles remained illegal until 1539.

Additionally, early English printers were paid by the line and were therefore fond of making words longer. They inserted extra letters simply to earn more money or to make margins neater: olde, worlde, shoppe, hadde, fissche ...

The pamphleteers of the English Civil War (1642-9) wanted to squeeze the maximum of information onto a single page and dropped most surplus letters again (old, had, shop), but many (-e especially) are still with us (are, have, imagine, promise, delicate) and undermine words in which -e has a useful role (care, save, define, surprise, inflate).

Sam Johnson then gave English spelling consistency a final hefty blow with his dictionary of 1755. He more or less destroyed the English short and long vowel spelling system, as in 'bit – bite – bitten'.

Because he had far more respect for Latin than English, he removed doubled letters from many words of Latin origin which earlier had been spelt with them (e.g. Lattine, pittie, cittie, verray...) – to show their short vowels - and inserted them where they serve no phonic purpose (arrive, account, afford...)

Masha Bell

[Mashabell]

^the court scribes who had to switch from French and Latin to English
very not very happy^
...were not very happy

[mrz]

1430 is recent history masha you will need to do better

[columngollum]

Sorry, mrz, please can you expand your point. Masha will need to do better about what in particular? For a few general reasons why English is a pig's ear, I think her post is fine.

[mrz]

I recommend The Story of English in 100 Words to you both

[columngollum]

If you have a point to make just make it.