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?

I can only assume that the 'teaching' of the 'th' in 'the' in Phase 2 is incidental teaching while when it is taught in phase 3 it is direct teaching and practised in lots of positions in lots of words. The children who cotton on fast will probably sail through the phase 3 'th' stuff after having 'got it' with learning 'the' in phase 1 (though don't forget, they need to work on it for spelling) but the slower to learn will benefit from the reinforcement.

I do agree that it looks very illogical and I have to say, catkind, that I loathe those HFWs and all the angst they produce. I don't find it at all easy to defend their inclusion in systematic phonics programmes. It is actually possible to produce a phonics programme that doesn't use them, I know of a Canadian one, but it is at the expense of rather stilted decodable practice material in the early stages of the 'Can a rat tap a mat?' variety. This sort of text is mightily derided by the anti phonics brigade, (though why they should think that the highly repetitive stuff they use is any more inspiring is quite beyond me) and I think that developers of phonics programmes might slightly influenced by this scorn.
I am very much out on my own in having this opinion of HFWs, though

are you suggesting that the spelling in those words - (he, she, me, we, be) - doesn't represent the same sound as the spelling in ego, evil, female?

Of course not, but that is an usual role for -e at the end of words. There are a few others (e.g. simile, epitome), but it's main function as a final letter is to lengthen the preceding vowel (female, tale, sale, pile, mile....).

"He, she, me, we, be" need special attention, because they are unusual, just like "the". To claim that they obey a 'code' makes no sense, unless u abuse the normal meaning of code.

I have also checked out when 'synthetic phonics' first came into established usage. - In 2005, after the publication of the Clackmannanshire study which contrasted 'synthetic' phonics with 'analytic'.

In normal usage 'synthetic' means:
artificial, fake, man-made, pseudo, sham, etc.

All pretty good words for describing the claims which SP advocates make about English spelling, as u did only a few days ago:
English spelling is highly regular - any spelling is regular if it appears in more than just one word.

A clear case of using the word 'regular' in way that is very different from normal usage.

So they know it but they don't actually know it well enough to apply in other equally simple contexts? That makes about as much sense as being able to read "the" but only in the context of "the cat sat on the mat".

Sounds like a bit of a fudge to me. They want to have their sounds in a nice neat logical order, but also want to get the HFW in early even if not fully decodable, and don't want to admit to teaching sight words. Answer - be vague, and rely on parents teaching the words however works when they come up in reading at home, or children picking them up by repetition. (Or in at least some cases send home HFW lists without instructions and ditto.)

That reply was to mrz Wed 03-Dec-14 19:10:29

maizie, I see what you're saying. I think though however beautifully decodable your phonics material is, children are surrounded by text in the real world, and if they have a few common words in their reading vocabulary it's a lot more approachable. Which boosts confidence and interest in reading. Also, some children are going to pick them up by repetition anyway (or by old fashioned parents), better to have at least shown them how to decode them even if they can't do it themselves.

What is unusual about them masha? You agree they use the same symbol found in other words to represent the same sound as in those words ... so why are they different?

Funny the term synthetic phonics appears in print pre Clackmannanshire masha

"In 1655 Blaise Pascal invented synthetic phonics (Rodgers, 2001), basically it was a way to interpret phonemes (sounds) and associate them with a graphemes (letters) and when put together would create words (synthesized)."

No catkind that isn't what I said.

I think though however beautifully decodable your phonics material is, children are surrounded by text in the real world,

Well, that applies whatever method is being used to teach them to read and at the beginning of their learning, by whatever method, there will be masses of that real world text that they can't read. (I might also say that if the 'method' is Look & Say/mixed methods there may still be masses that they can't read even after several years of instruction) A delay of a few weeks in accessing some HFWs isn't really going to make a significant difference to their confidence or interest.

@marsha

I have also checked out when 'synthetic phonics' first came into established usage. - In 2005, after the publication of the Clackmannanshire study which contrasted 'synthetic' phonics with 'analytic'.

Check it out a bit further, marsha

Try this link: www.donpotter.net/education_pages/valuable_reading_programs_f.html

Look for Rebecca Pollard 1897

In normal usage 'synthetic' means:artificial, fake, man-made, pseudo, sham, etc.

Ever heard of the concept of a word having more than one meaning, marsha.* Or of the process by which a word's original meaning is corrupted to something different?

Synthesis: the combination of components or elements to form a connected whole.

*ha! I forsee a whole new campaign here.

Don't you all think it is terribly confusing that a word should have more than one meaning? It makes English much more difficult to learn than other languages where one word has only one meaning. I think we should take every opportunity to highlight the severe problems caused by multi-meaning words and campaign vigorously to bring some rationality into the English language by insisting that every word should have only one meaning...
I'm working on some lists at this very moment..

When do you teach the e->"uh" correspondence maizie? DS school didn't teach it till year 1. Bit long to wait for "the".

No that's not precisely what you said, I made a logical deduction from what you said mrz. You said they learn "th" in the context of the word "the" but implied they can't apply it in "then" or "this" until it's "taught in greater depth" at phase 3. If anything the context is simpler in "then" or "this" because it's decodable to children at that stage.

I looked through the Letters and Sounds material again because you make me doubt my memory.

www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/190599/Letters_and_Sounds_-_DFES-00281-2007.pdf
p65 for Phase Two.
It's really clear. Children should practice sounding and blending the decodable HFW and practice reading the five tricky ones "paying attention to any known letter-sound correspondences".

I'm afraid your logical deduction isn't logical

Well that's constructive. Would you like to try to wriggle out of the direct quote from Letters and Sounds too?

Your memory is incomplete trying looking at the procedure for teaching the tricky HFWs

You're also misquoting to incorporate your own misspellings.

Oops it actually says they should be given lots of practice, I was copying slightly too exactly. The bits in italics and inverted commas were intended to be direct quotes, unless I made any further typos. I did not change the sense of the phrase. Read it yourself if you don't trust my quote.

I don't find the two mutually contradictory mrz. They're shown how the word is sounded out but don't learn the correspondence so they can't sound it out on their own.

Maizie
I loathe those HFWs.
Two thirds of them are absolutely fine (am an and ...came gave made). It's only the ones with tricky letters in them that are problematic (like the o in two, only, ones).

their inclusion in systematic phonics programmes
enables children to move away beyond
rather stilted decodable practice material in the early stages of the 'Can a rat tap a mat?' variety.

Such material is fine, but until children can sight-read at least some of the most common tricky words, they get stumped by even quite simple stories, even though they have been learning to read for many months.

You seem to imagine that the teacher does it once and then never mentions it again catkind .. It will be repeated over days and weeks

Maizie: Ever heard of the concept of a word having more than one meaning/.

I have a list of ca. 2,500 such words (arm, arch, bard, band, bank...). Those homophones don't make English any more difficult than any other language. The 335 which are spelt differently for different meanings (heterographs like there/their) do.

But giving words totally new, abnormal meanings causes confusion, because its a trick regularly used for befuddling people.

Those pesky 19th century tricksters!

Perhaps you are also unaware that when th is taught in phase 3 it is taught as the spelling for 2sounds th as in that and th as in thing. The teacher will remind the class that they know th in the word the but that it is also the spelling for th in teeth and think and mouth and think.

Marsha,

You have writen 2 replies to me which demonstrate that you have absolutely no comprehension of the English language. They are completely irrelevant to what I was actually saying.

I can only repeat, the quote is very clear. The children are being asked to practice reading the words using correspondences they already know, not being asked to practice sounding and blending as they do with the words where they know all the code. "Th" was just a simple example of the discrepancies, most are alternative vowel sounds not taught till phase 5 in year 1, including the e correspondence in "the".

This stuff about knowing a correspondence but only in one word makes no sense. They don't know the correspondence if they can't apply it in different circumstances, they just know the word.
If you can honestly read the relevant para from Letters and Sounds and think it's teaching a child to fully decode the words I don't think there's any point discussing it further. You're too entrenched in thinking everyone is doing it the way you think it should be done.

My son was the same in year one-on stage 4/5 (I think-not sure nationally where this was but his friends were on stages 9/10 and some moving at very fast pace), reading always a struggle and sounded painful, yet was 39/40 in phonics.

I've worried about his reading throughout infants when I could've saved myself the stress by not comparing him. Now in year 3 he's still technically 'behind' some of his friends stage-wise but the important stuff like comprehension/understanding is there. And he can read-when they leave school at 16 they will all read to the same standard!

Once again you have chose to interpret things to suit your preconceived ideas catkind ...