Synthetic Phonics

[Patrica1929]

I am very concerned about the teaching of reading using Synthetic Phonics in primary schools. (This is now part of the National Curriculum.) Yes, teachers may be becoming more successful at drilling children to pass the spelling tests of words and non words learnt by the blending together of 44 sounds, but at what expense. This method excludes and positively prohibits the use of word recognition, reading for meaning, the use of pictures for clues and the learning of key words. It is a mechanical process which can hold up children who are ready to learn to read for meaning and enjoyment and which could actually put them off reading. See the report by the 'United Kingdom Literary Association' entitled 'Children need more than Synthetic Phonics' and if you are concerned complain to schools and to the government.

I would have preferred 40 pseudo words and a separate test for accurate text reading but that would take more time and more moans.

"In 1955 Flesch concluded that English is 98% phonetic."

I'm 100% sure that is not what any linguist would say nowadays, unless the remaining 2% is mime/semaphore.

Language is 100% phonetic. All languages that can be spoken. Because phonetics refers the actual sounds produced when you speak.

What is used in phonics, and what I think is meant here, is phonemes ie the bits of sound which carry meaning, but can be quite different phonetically (ie between accents).

And the %age is an attempt to see how much of the language has regular ways of writing its phonemes. Which of course depends on what size vocabulary you use as the language, and what phoneme/grapheme correspondences you count as regular.

He said if he conceded every single point to those who claimed otherwise English would still be 98% phonetic. Yes linguists would say 100% phonetic.

canadafreepress.com/article/42480

That's a very poorly constructed article, which misuses terms throughout.

And does nothing to really buttress the central points I think the author intends, which are

a) and language that can be read out loud is 100% phonetic
b) nearly everything in the English language can be read accurately using the typical rules of phoneme/grapheme correspondences (which are not one to one)
c) only a very few words need special consideration, and these are generally either imported words from different languages or fossilised spellings. But they often have their own rules, from their source language or the archaic version of own language. Even then it is typically only one sound (usually the vowel) that does not map into the main rules, as consonant 'scaffolding' is remarkably constant.

I don't think the author is making those points ...certainly not my reading

The phonics screening check is perfectly logical

Then why is a plausible pronunciation of a 'real' word not acceptable? If a child has not come across the word, how would they know which of the options it would be?

If he can decode the word accurately (say the whole word) and doesn't understand the word it seems to indicate a gap in his understanding which would be there even if he read the word as a whole. If you can read a word and its in your vocabulary why wouldn't you know it's meaning? If the word isn't in a child's vocabulary then someone needs to explain the meaning regardless of how the word is arrived at.

Totally not tbh! He has excellent understanding, and I don't need to explain the word, just say it so he can hear the context. It's not true that saying the word correctly means you can then make the link to understanding it - in the same way that you can play a tune perfectly correctly on the piano, but not recognise it, it's only when someone else plays it that you can 'hear' it.

With ds3 it's something to do with going from saying the word to hearing the word, and phonics really doesn't help him do that.

Possibly either a decoding issue or a processing one. There does seem to be a bit of a mismatch between you describing him as a good decoder and the way you've described him sounding out the word 'wheel'. So I wouldn't rule out a decoding issue.

How does he read words that he's never seen before? At some point he's going to need to be able to do that, so it might be worth trying to get to the bottom of what is going on with him.

Rafa, we are working really hard with him - he is very good about trying to sound out new words, and usually does get them after a few goes, it's the next step from decoding the sound to understanding the word, and I think he just can't get the word from that point. (hard to explain really!). He is an extremely visual child though, he has a ridiculously good visual memory (literally he can go somewhere once and will know the route), and for him, I think the 'old style' look and say would have got him reading quicker, and onto more interesting books more quickly.

Unfortunately, he is now of the opinion that he is 'not clever' and 'no good' at reading, because he has found the phonics approach so unhelpful (and we haven't diverted from the phonics at all at home), so reading inevitably then becomes a 'difficult thing'.

Once he's seen a word, and realised what it is, he knows it forever because he is so visual.

I think you are right about the 'look and say' getting him reading faster. But it would only really have masked the underlying issue. It would still leave him with problems tackling unknown words. It's these children that the screening check is most useful for identifying.

Most children with good visual memories still learn to read very quickly with phonics as they are exposed to reading new words every day. They can still build up a large bank of sight words very quickly just through exposure. So I wonder whether you were right earlier, and it is implementation that is causing him to think he is 'not clever' and 'no good' at reading.

Just imagine the outcry from the UKLA and a certain author if children were allowed to decode real words incorrectly LB! ?? I can just imagine the DM headlines and the MN threads now!

If he has excellent understanding and can accurately decode words why can't he understand?

Rafa - I think it is implementation, and also the whole 'reading groups' thing, he's a summer boy and it all adds up to feeling 'not clever' (he is actually v bright, just a bit non-conventional!).

mrz - yy there would be an outcry, but they should either;
i) have all made up words
ii) allow all plausible pronunciations
iii) change the name to 'phonics screening and reading test'

As to why he finds it difficult - I think it's because although he can make his mouth say the right pronunciation using his phonics knowledge, it then doesn't always correlate to a word in his mind. It's almost like he's thinking so hard about the sounds that he can't get to the word, even though he is saying it correctly, and is a word within everyday vocabulary for him.

As I put below, the best comparison I can come up with is a child concentrating so hard on playing a tune on their instrument that although they play it perfectly, they can't recognise the tune, and it's only when the teacher plays it that they say 'OH YES it's Twinkle Twinkle'.

I agree they should have used only pseudo words for the phonics screening (and I'd have liked a short piece of text as a separate part to check real words) but I think they were trying to appease the anti faction by including real words but that was never going to work!

not only did it not work, but it's given them a valid argument about the check.

I'm imagine what they would have said if they had only used pseudo words in the check!
We've all read the "good readers are disadvantaged by nonsense words" claims.

But only the good readers in some schools

I notice that the key stage 1 results by phonics attainment table for the 2015 results looks very similar to last years. The % of children failing to meet the standard by the end of yr2 and attaining level 3 is still 0%

Phonics teaching works well from my experience. It's a good foundation to reading, but children also access books and will hopefully read with grown ups in addition to phonics teaching. They will then use picture clues, inference and all manner of other ways to read the story. Some will use word recognition if they want as well, particularly with trickier words. Schools don't just use phonics. The screening test, imo, always picks up the children who struggle with reading, and this allows extra interventions the following year to help them.

Surely they shouldn't be giving credit for feasible pronunciations of real words in the phonics test. Would anyone say a child has mastered phonics if they're not making the step of checking against real vocabulary and adjusting correspondences if required? That's part of phonics learning too.

LilyBolero, that's a really interesting disconnect. So if he says the words to himself several times after he's decoded it, does he then link to the sense of the word? I guess once you are coming across alternative pronunciations it needs to be quicker than that or it won't work.

It reminded me of reading models like this:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-route_hypothesis_to_reading_aloud

• so it's as if your son is using the phonological route but not going on to make the semantic link.

DD is the other way round, she barely seems to hear the difference between blended and unblended words. So when she started reading she'd say some words blended and some unblended but still have a perfectly good understanding of the sentence. When someone asked her what c-a-t said, her answer was "meow"!

In 1955 Flesch concluded that English is 98% phonetic.

In that case anything else he says is of dubious validity.

I analysed the 7,000 most used English words, i.e. the words that an average 16-yr-old can be expected to have come across and would be able to use a fair proportion of.

Just over 2,000 of them pose some decoding problems, because some of their graphemes have more than one pronunciation (e.g. here, there, were; only, once, other; breathe, break, breakfast). The irregular sounds of some letters and letter strings are the main reason why becoming a fluent reader of English takes a relatively long time.

For spelling over 4,000 words are tricky like (tea, tree, he...go, slow, toe...) and ensures that learning to write English with moderate confidence takes around 10 years.
Many irregular spellings pose no decoding problems: lane - main, fly - high, stole - coal.

To most people this means that English spelling is highly irregular and that phonics can provide a good start with learning to read and write, but that the acquisition of both skills requires much word by word learning as well.

But to most phonics evangelists 'phonics' seems to mean all learning of reading and writing - not just the regular or dominant letter-to-sound correspondences. So in a lot of the discussions people are talking past each other, because they mean different things by the words they use. There is also a lot of ludicrous exaggeration when phonics evangelists decry mixed methods, as if children automatically pay no heed at all to any letters when learn to recognise common words by sight.

I have tried to bring some sanity and realism to the reading wars, but with little success.

????????????????????????????

I have tried to bring some sanity and realism to the reading wars, but with little success.

Hahahahahahaha! That is the funniest thing you've ever said, Masha!

Also, I've noticed that the only poster on MN who refers to the topic as 'reading wars' is you, Masha.

The phonics check is not perfect, but it has dramatically improved the standards of reading and writing in England. I wish the test was less like a public exam and could be taken when the child was ready. A child with Downs may well be capable of learning phonics even if they are not ready to take the test infants. A very able reception child might be able to get the test out of the way and move on to other work.

I feel that a lots of people who criticise synthetic phonics have never seen good literacy teaching in action. My daughter loves reading and writing.