Peter and Jane - best way of using it

[EmGee]

Book 1a seems to have gone down well with DD1 (4.2) Have gone through the first half of the book and she likes the pictures and repeating the words.

My question is - just keep going through it and focusing on repeating the words until she can sight read them? Then on to the next book?

We live in France so she won't learn to read in French until she is in CP (aged 6) and I have heard that it can be easier for kids who have already learnt to read in their mother tongue.

I also got a Ruth Miskin set of books on The Book People but after a quick look, I feel a bit confused about phonics. Peter and Jane seemed much simpler to me!

Most of the words we use frequently fall into the 93% perfectly phonetic columngollum and few like one & eye fall into the unpredictable category.

Well, that depends on your definition of predictable. I can predict all of them.

Conventional lists include:

said the of was
you are use some
I as a the have
out there

and so on and so on...

"I can predict all of them." OK if you say so I'm happy to accept 100% phonetic

out of that list only of has a unique spelling to represent a sound

Uniqueness isn't the only requirement for utility.

uniqueness isn't a requirement far from it

(Phraseology apart,) uniqueness considerations are insufficient to determine utility.

uniqueness doesn't determine utility columngollum

Most of the words we use frequently fall into the 93% perfectly phonetic

Not true.
Among the 7,000 most HF words which i analysed, 75% are straightforwardly decodable, but only 3 out of 7 have entirely predictable spellings. The first few hundred HF words are much less regular than that:

said - paid - bed, head.
the - he - tree, tea, key...
was - wag,
you - young - use - blue, shoe, flew, through....
are - care - fair, there, their, bear....
I - eye, aye
have - gave

You missed the figues masha - only 3% are unpredictable

you seem to be confusing alternatives with unpredicatability

Spurious statistics, and undefined predictive qualities, aside, the issue of utility has still been left unsettled. It's no use some random person on mumsnet having all the predictive ability in the world if the child in question can't read the actual word.

but your absurd 50% claim is perfectly OK

The predictive figure hasn't been established by a random person on MN

heatherfblog.wordpress.com/2014/03/01/why-i-became-radicalised-or-the-problems-with-discovery-learning/