Yr1 child - top phonics group but slow reader - how can this be?

[sugarhoops]

Was told today by another mum that my year 1 DD is in the top group in the class for phonics, but is a little behind others for reading (this mum has a DD who, apparently, is 2nd highest reader in class, but is in a phonics group below my DD).

Putting aside for a moment how on earth this mother knows all this info - to be fair she helps out in class sometimes, I just wondered how this can be re: the top phonics group but lower reader level?

I had no idea where my daughter was at against others in the class - parents eve last week the teacher told me she's doing fine academically, which is good enough for me. But with this new info, I just wondered, purely out of interest, how she can be in top group for phonics, but apparently 'behind' for reading?

Even back in the mixed methods dark ages when I learned to read we decoded the bits of words we could decode. and what did you do with the bits you couldn't decode? ignored them?

"Maizie: Thought you wouldn't like that one, it was Jolly Phonics: "Many words, when blended, provide a close pronunciation. If these words are in the child’s vocabulary, it is relatively easy to deduce the word, especially if the context is taken into account."

Is this in the context of 'tricky words'? If it is I don't really quite understand what it is on about as I thought we were talking about the particular HFWs which have a practically unique letter/sound correspondence (LSC). Words like 'one', 'two',of, 'said' (though you could say that curtain, certain and mountain contain the same LSC as 'said'), and 'who'. You couldn't apply the JP statement to those words because you'd end up with nothing at all similar to the target word. It doesn't make any sense.
AND, on investigation of the 'old' 45 HFW list and the Letters & sounds '100 HFWs' list I find that only 'said' 'one' & 'of' are among the HFWs initially learned.

Furthermore (these is getting like a bldy Y6 exercise in 'connectives') this stuff about being 'not completely decodable is also mostly nonsense. Most of the words in the '45' list, and in the '100' list do not contain unique LSCs. They certainly contain 'advanced code' LSCs and some LSCs which are found in very few words, but that doesn't make them 'not completely decodable', it just makes them 'not yet easily decodable by you, young YR /Y1child, because you haven't yet learned that piece of 'code'

I shall now do a marsha and compile a list:

100 HFWs from Letters & Sounds

Simple code:
and, a (?), in, it, on, is, at, his, but, that, with, can, up, had, this, went, not, then, as, mum, them, dad, big, it's (eh?), from, him, get, just, got, put, if, help, an, children (34)

Advanced code - not unique LSCs:

He, she, we, be, me, (5)
see (1)
was, what, (2) + when,(1)
you (1)
they (1)
I, I'm (2)
for (1)
all, call(ed) (2)
my, by (2)
her, (1)
there (1)
out, about, (2) + house (2 advanced LSCs)
have (1)
like, time (2)
some, come (2)
so, go, no, don't, old (?) (5)
little (1)
do, to, into, (3)
down, now, (2)
looked, look (2)
very (1)
will (1)
back (1)
came, made, make (3)
their (1)
your (1)
could (1)
too (1)
day (1)
off (1)
asked (1)
saw (1)

Advanced code - unique or very unusual LSCs

are, of, said (?), one, people, here, were, the (?) oh (8)

Miscellaneous abbreviations:
Mr, Mrs (2)

So, 8 unique or very unusual LSCs and 2 abbreviations (which I had a BIG argument about a few months ago but I stand by my contention that they are not words and so contain nothing really in the way of correspondences!) Not much there that is 'not completely decodable' then?

As I went through the list I did feel sorry for children who are required to try to learn some advanced code before they have really secured the simple code. This will not be all the children, because some pick all this up very easily, but there will be some who have problems and I have frequently thought that this absolute obsession with teaching the HFWs is quite cruel to them. But that is, of course, because my job involved picking up the pieces in Y7. EY teachers who send home lists of HFWs to be learned as 'wholes' in YR don't really seem to care about what happens in Y7.

PS. The numbers were to help me count the words. Didn't take them out in case anyone else wanted to check I'd got 100. (Think it unlikely as you're more likely to have completely lost the will to live on the sight of a list )

It says the tricky part is identified. It doesn't say it is taught. I inferred that it wasn't taught at that point from the fact that it IS taught in a later phase of the programme.

Back in the dark ages, "just learn it" wasn't frowned on. E.g. you'd learn "said" by thinking that looks familiar, starts with s, ends in d - ah, I remember, said. Even in actual proved to be inferior mixed methods we didn't "recognise words as visual wholes without attention to the grapheme-phoneme correspondences". That would be look and say or whole word methods or something, right? Difference being back then we were taught a lot fewer phonics leaving a lot more to be learned or otherwise inferred.

As shown in Appendix 1 of the Six-phase Teaching Programme, a quarter of the 100 words occurring most frequently in children’s books are decodable at Phase Two.

That is really weird, mrz. I am actually looking at Appendix 1 which is titled: "100 high frequency words in order " The words which are 'decodable at Phase 2' are scattered randomly through the list; at least 3 of them being in the last 20! Logic would say that they should be at the beginning so that they are taught in Phase 2!

LOL at the list maizie. I'll take your word for it there are 100. I think they were talking about "non-regular HFW" or some similar wording. What exactly they mean by that I don't know - maybe anything not using the simple code?

So you do find schools use HFW lists in your area then? Or they did 7 years ago? Perhaps in another 7 years you'll be out of a job!

I think that would be in order of frequency not in order of learning?

I think child development is massively complex and they appear to me to develop different things at different times.

This is early days.

I think the cleverest thing to do as a parent is to convey to your child that they are unconditionally loved and really clever at trying to do what they are asked to do.
Encouraging their trying and praising their trying is more productive than praising their success.
I think it is worth being honest with the teacher and say you feel anxious about it and the teacher than has a chance to address your feelings and then, with luck, separate your anxieties out to be looked at and not for the child to sense. (I was hugely guilty of this with ds I think in retrospect.... )

My daughter is sent home with a small brown envelope filled with what I presume are high frequency words, with no further instruction. She is in reception.

The 100 HFW list order is the order of frequency maizieD not the order they are taught in the programme which is why words that will be fully decode able in phase 2 appear later in the list.

Catkind
I think they were talking about "non-regular HFW" or some similar wording. What exactly they mean by that I don't know.
I think they must have be thinking of the irregularities which confuse children:
the (which is the most common English word) - he, she, we, be, me

here - there - were
our - your
home - come and so forth.

It's difficult to talk about the HF words without looking at them.
I would love to paste in the first 100 in order of frequency, but after what happened earlier, i had better not.

It's okay masha, maizie did it for you.
I mean the finer detail - do they consider "we" to be regular because is quite a common pronunciation of the letter e, or irregular because it doesn't say e as in hen.

Yes, 'we' is regular because 'e' is a common way of spelling the /ee/ sound; though you'll find it more in 2+ syllable words than single syllable, Peter, remind, Steven, meter, feline...

I did try to divide my list so as to try to indicate which of them would be considered 'regular' (though that is a word I don't like using) by SP practitioners (give or take one or two which they might mildly disagree over) and which are rare or unique. Both 'simple code' and 'advanced code' are 'regular'. That's where SP folks part company with the likes of marsha.

evil, medium, lethal, reflex, Egypt ....

I don't think the description regular is used that uniformly even within synthetic phonics people though. e.g. Letters and Sounds: "tricky"(not completely phonically regular words)
include things like the and to at Phase 2 and he/she/we at Phase 3.

Incidentally at phase 2 they haven't even learned "th" so "the" isn't even partially decodable to the children.

Because "the" is such a ommon word the teacher needs to teach it out of normal SSP sequence ...

Did mrz just admit that at least one HFW is useful?

All those "tricky words" are taught out of sequence in Letters and Sounds, otherwise they wouldn't be tricky. And the reason is because they are common otherwise they wouldn't be HFW.

Question is how are they taught given the children can't decode them and can not be being taught to decode them or the sequence would just be different.

Question is how are they taught given the children can't decode them and can not be being taught to decode them or the sequence would just be different.

I'm sorry, catkind, but you don't seem to be taking in what you are being told. Mrz has described how they are taught.

At least a quarter of the 100 HFWs listed in Letters & Sounds (which I am using purely as an example, but other SP programmes are similar) are easily decodable while children are learning the 'simple code'; i.e. one way of representing each of the 44 (ish) sounds. (Usually the simplest way, one letter representing on sound whereever possible, but digraphs used where it is not possible, ch, sh, th, er, or, ar, ai, ee, i-e, oa, ue etc). They are easily decodable because they contain only 'simple code'. So there is no need to teach them separately at all.

All but 12 of the rest have only one correspondence which might be unfamiliar to the children in that they haven't yet learned it, but even so, many of these can be fitted in to the the time when the children are learning the advanced code which they contain. Those which can't are taught as having most parts decodable (i.e the children already know the code they contain) with one correspondence being unfamiliar (not yet taught). Attention is drawn to this correspondence, children are told the sound it represents, children can now decode and blend all through the word.

Of the remaining 12, 2 contain 2 'advanced code' correspondences ('what' and 'house'), 2 are abbreviations and the remaining 8 have just about unique correspondences. However, these are still taught as the 'advanced code' ones are. Identify unfamiliar grapheme, tell children the sound it 'spells', children decode & blend all through the word.

I really do not understand why you are making such heavy weather of this. They are not terribly important words in the scheme of things, nor are they at all difficult to learn when introduced gradually or at the appropriate time. The real b*gger is when kids are sent home with random lists of them to learn because their teachers have an absurd belief that they are 'undecodable' (and infect parents with the same belief) and think that they need some sort of special treatment. They also have no idea how to fit them into their phonics teaching.

Look at the list again, for heavens sake. They are mostly not difficult or unusual words.

"How are they taught?" The teacher teaches the missing knowledge the child/ren need in order to decode the words

In the same way the teacher won't wait until Yèar2 to teach the knowledge the child needs to read and spell "gingerbread" I in reception or how the spelling at the beginning of Charlotte's, Charlie's and Christopher's names represent different sounds.

Maizie: Both 'simple code' and 'advanced code' are 'regular'. That's where SP folks part company with the likes of marsha.

Not just with me, but every one else who refuses to misuse the word code and regular in that way, along with the word synthetic. - Once u start using words in a way that they are not normally used, u can pretty much claim anything u like, but it does make it true.

English letters and letter strings (or graphemes) have a main sound, which u can call the 'simple code'. Most consonant graphemes and even some vowel ones (e.g. ee, oi, oy) have no or very few exceptions and are easily taught to read, although not always to spell (speak, speech, shriek, even, believe...).

Reading difficulties, and disputes about teaching methods, are entirely the result of the alternative sounds for some letters which make learning to read and write English exceptionally time-consuming and trickier to teach.

And the simple truth is that the SP folk don't really do anything very different from anyone else. They start with the simple code and then give kids lots and lots of practice with words in which that code is abused in some way. And to pretend that the likes of the - he, she, we, me, be obey some kind of code is ridiculous. They are just a little group of unusual words which happen to be very HF as well, and the sooner children learn to recognise them on sight, the more fluent their reading becomes.

Interested to know how we are misusing the word 'synthetic'. Especially as it has been used to describe a particular way of teching phonics for well over 100 years.

No I don't understand how they can teach "th" at phase 2 for use in "the" but still need to teach "th" again at phase 3. Either they've taught it at phase 2 or they've not. Which?

And to pretend that the likes of - he, she, we, me, be obey some kind of code is ridiculous. are you suggesting that the spelling in those words doesn't represent the same sound as the spelling in ego, evil, female, debunk and query masha?

I don't understand how they can teach "th" at phase 2 for use in "the" but still need to teach "th" again at phase 3

It's introduced in the context of the word in phase 2 and revisited and taught in greater depth in phase 3 and again in phase 4 when it will be revisited in the context of more complex words ... it's not either or ... the phases are artificial boundaries meant only for a general guideline. Many schools will not have separeate phases 4 & 6 and will teach these skills much earlier.