Sythetic phonics hell: any KS1 teachers/parents with soothing words?

[Notnowcato]

So, DS2 is learning to read. He loves books. We read them together ever day. Lots of them. All sorts. Just as my DD and DS1 did.

He has 'learned' quite a few words because he recognises them. He makes others up, from context. The story moves along. He 'reads' aloud with expression and he laughs at the jokes. This is at home. At school, he crumples into tears in front of 'b-a-t' and says he can't do it and he's rubbish at reading. [I know because I help in the classroom.]

So I say to the teacher: "What are we doing here. We are destroying his love of stories. Why do we have to do synthetic phonics? You [teacher] and I didn't learn to read like this. My older daughter (now 12, level 6 reading and writing in Year 6 and is currently at the top of her 'Accelerated Reader scheme in Year 7) didn't learn to read like this. Leave him with me (he reads at home to me every day, I read to him every day). By the time he is in year 2 he will be reading fine." But no. She says he must sound out words so that he "understands" them. But he doesn't understand 'the cat sat on the mat' because he is crying. He does understand Alan Ahlberg's Crazy Fox stories because he tells me all about the silly fox and the lovely dog for hours afterwards.

Now were I being cynical (who me?), I might say that the teacher is more concerned with getting my son to 'pass' his phonics test at the end of the year, than she is in keeping the love of reading alive in him.

Thank you for the space to vent! [I hasten to add that I say nothing to undermine the teacher in front of my son, either at home or at school. We read his Read Write Inc. level 1 books very quickly and then go on to more interesting books.]

More practically, what can less angry parents/sympathetic teachers suggest about how I tackle this, given that my darling boy has another two terms of this teacher to endure. I really think that he is starting to hate reading at school. I really don't care if he fails his phonics test, I just want him to enjoy reading as much as his siblings do.

maizie, then you should know that what Mashabell said (maybe a bit clumsily) has been acknowledged for a long time, and is even being used by schools in predicting grades for children, through data supplied by the Family Fisher Trust.

Our school didn't predict grades on that information. It was a straight prediction based on KS2 levels.

I'm not questioning the low SES = low attainment correlation.

Maizie: I'm not questioning the low SES = low attainment correlation.

A few people had asked why that was, that's why i explained it.

Parents of higher SES (if u prefer) are generally more interested in and supportive of their children's education, or they pay someone else to be so. They pay much more heed to their children's language development. They also expose them to more sophisticated vocabulary in the home (in the conversations between parents, Radio 4 v radio 1, Panorama v Coronation Street, etc.).

It is this which makes a huge difference to their children's ability to cope with less familiar words with irregular pronunciations:
fruit, bruise - ruin, choke - echoing, later - lateral.

Knowing the words makes English more decodable, as i learned over and over again as a foreign learner 50 years ago.
I never encountered that problem in German or Spanish, and only very, very rarely in French.

A few people had asked why that was, that's why i explained it.

Really, marsha.

Did they PM you and ask for an explanation? Because I can't see where anyone has asked for an explanation. Both Bonsoir and I knew perfectly well what we were talking about, so it seems, did chandon. Can't see anyone else discussing it.

This is why I conclude that your comprehension skills aren't of the sharpest.

Maizie

Why not....

STOP trying to teach children to form letters and read "sounds" when they are only 4 and not ready for that sort of "instruction" nor are their parents interested in ramming it down their throats for "homework" when they are exhausted after a day in Reception

Why not...

let children listen to stories and teach them to think imaginatively
develop their fine motor skills and concentration through playbased activities rather than explicit instruction in synthetic phonics and letter formation (when some children are not ready to hold a pen - my sons weren't) And make them excited and enthralled by books and what might be in them?

Why not...

introduce reading and writing in Year 1 or 2 in a formalised manner when children are ready for it?

Would it really make any difference to the outcomes?

I cannot disagree with you at all, swanhilda...

Some children are fine with learning to read early; it's not an intrinsically harmful practice, but they would do just as well if they didn't start until later.

I can assure you that it is not SP proponents who have connived at reading instruction starting earlier and earlier*. I've always suspected that it was a desperation measure initiated by mixed methods proponents who, when children were failing, thought that an earlier start pushing even more of the same instruction, would give them more time in which to learn to read.

*Though I think that many taught their children to read before going to school in order to school proof them against bad reading instruction

Mind you, I took a quick peek at the thread about preparing children for private school entrance this morning; I've never bothered before. It was a bit shocking but that's parents choosing to push their children, not having pushing imposed on them.

Interesting catkind the dictionary defines many as a large but indefinite amount rather than more than one hmm
Here you go:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-to-many_%28data_model%29
This link is about database design, but I've heard it used similarly in maths.
I guess many is used because it's shorter than saying "possibly more than 1 : possibly more than 1". I'm probably being geeky and it wasn't as obvious as I thought. So much for my attempting to clarify things!

They know the sounds because they know how to read. What sound does the b in bat make? Anyone who knows how to read can tell you that. Anyone who knows how to speak fan tell you. You don't need to be taught phonics to read but it just makes you more efficient.

Yes that is exactly what I am saying. How do you pronounce Wille? Fale, Jette?

If you mispronounce an alien word, or an unknown word the first time you see it then unless it is bizarre you don't have the phonetic tools necessary.

And once again please children not liking reading is because they are not interested. If they can read the lack of passion has nothing to do with how they were taught to read. I don't remember how I was taught to read - I was just desperate t read the stories. It couldn't happen soon enough for me. It is what all about the stories. Not the phonics. Most kids if they have no problem will forget they were ever taught them.

www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/many

Swanhildapirouetting: Why not ... introduce reading and writing in Year 1 or 2 in a formalised manner when children are ready for it?

This used to be more or less the case until the mid 1990s, until concerns about poor literacy standards were picked up by the media and the drive to improve them took off with a vegeance.

The Rose report of 2006 which provided the basis for phonics becoming mandatory in 2007 recommended that it was a good idea to start phonics as soon as possible after a child's 4th birthday to give our children more time to cover ground which their counterparts in other countries do not have to cover.

In other words:
learning to read and write English involves more learning than in other languages, that's why it needs to start earlier than elsewhere.
The Finns, for example, can afford to start at 7, because Finnish spelling is so simple that their children are able to learn to read in a tenth of the time it takes in English. Ditto Estonia and Lithuania, where i first went to school. In most of Europe they start at 6.

I think that 4 is much too early for some children. I live near a primary school and it breaks my heart to see how tired-looking some of the little ones come out at the end of the day. They look so sad and shell-shocked.

I am so glad that all 4 of my grandchildren were autumn born. My 2 were July and Aug, but mercifully did not need to start till the Easter of the year they turned 5.

Actually the Rose report says by fifth birthday

Do you think marsha deliberately mis-states things, mrz? Or is it her problem with English comprehension?

I am reliably informed that many Finnish children are able to read before they start formal schooling.

I'm sure there is an OECD report that states many read before beginning formal schooling (and by many I do mean "a large number" not "more than one" )

"The report includes an analysis of the relationship between age of starting school and reading performance. Against expectations , this showed that the top ten scoring countries had a later starting age (the mean school starting age of these countries was 6.3, compared with a mean of 5.9 in the ten
lowest scoring countries). But the top-achieving countries were also the most economically advantaged. When the researchers carried out a further analysis controlling for each country’s level of ‘development’, the trend for older starting ages to be associated with better results was reversed ."

many Finnish children are able to read before they start formal schooling.

Why wouldn't they?
Even quite a few English-speaking ones are, despite English spelling.
Since learning to read Finnish is 10 times easier than English, many children teach themselves to read before they start school.
Would u expect their parents actively prevent them from doing so?

The big difference is, that unlike in the UK or US, very few Finnish children cannot read fluently by Xmas of their first year at school.

mrz, if it helps I can apologise on behalf of the entire technical community for abuse of the english language. However the technical term for that kind of relationship is still what the technical term is. What do you want? Dictionaries at dawn behind the split digraph?

Are you in a position to speak for the many, many members of the technical community or only for yourself?

No I don't think the technical community give a damn that you think their notation is incorrect, I was being sarcastic. I've given you a link to show that the phrase means what I say it means. I've apologised for using a phrase you were unfamiliar with. I've admitted I was maybe optimistic to assume people would understand it. What else do you want?

That's a huge relief

Catkind: I've apologised for using a phrase you were unfamiliar with.

I don't know why u felt u had to. Mrz is capable of using a dictionary.

Phonics evangelists constantly use words like 'code', 'phonemic', 'regular' in ways that nobody else does or understands.

Yes Mrz is capable of using a dictionary and linking to the OED definition of "many" which isn't the same as catkinds, masha

As Catkind rightly wondered a few pages back

I wonder if a lot of the shouting on these threads is actually different uses of definitions.

I seem to recall you complaining about the use of technical language masha .. The lady makes so many "U" turns she must be dizzy!

Regarding codes etc, both codes and cyphers have a unique output. Codes tend to be a single string input giving a single string output. They are a one to one mapping. If you receive the code gy56osr you would need to know whether it meant "attack at dawn" or "hold your position". It could not mean both. It would usually be a one to one mapping, but could conceivably be a many to one mapping, with multiple codes for the same command.
A cypher, instead of exchanging strings, exchanges single letters or short blocks. Language is like a cypher, but it's not quite, because again, with a functioning key, only a single output is possible from any given input.
Written language is not something I would describe as either a code or a cypher, but a many to many mapping. It contains ambiguity in the same way as the square root of nine can be either positive or negative three.

Words can mean different things in different contexts. That's basic reading comprehension, even my 5 yr old gets that. If "code" is used in a different sense in the context of phonics, masha, we should try to understand what sense that is and accept it as its meaning in that context. Just like if "many" is used in a different sense in the context of the phrase "many to many code/mapping/relationship", mrz, there's really no need to get all indignant about it. I'll leave masha and mrz to fight it out about who's being hypocritical, try not to make yourselves look too silly in the process.

Micksy, interesting points. I wonder if you could argue that the Enigma code is many-to-many. I could kind of draw a parallel with alphabetic code in that each letter could mean many different things depending on context, but a whole message has a unique sensible meaning. Not sure how good a parallel that is, I haven't thought it through.