TO not get Phonics

[BIgBagofJelly]

I'm mainly curious as opposed to concerned, my DD is summer born reception and brings home ORT level 2 books so I'm assuming she's within the normal range and I'm not really worried. What I don't get though is the school make a huge dealt of phonics (and I understand there's a lot of evidence to back this up) but the Oxford Reading Tree books she brings home seem to have so many words that she can't "decode" either because they're irregular or because she hasn't learned that particular rule yet. (E.g. the E on the end of a word in "Like" "Snake" etc). Am I meant to be explaining that to her or should she just read the entire word and learn it?

I can understand building up a catalogue of "High frequency words" but it doesn't even seem like the same word is consolidated so isn't she bound to forget them anyway?

AS I said I'm not really worried she seems neither particularly advanced nor particularly behind but I was curious about what I should be doing with these words and the reading books in general. Should I read each one once? Read it a few times?

Unfortunately many teachers seem to confuse red words, tricky words and high frequency words with words that need to be taught as wholes ...it isn't the case.

Balanced literacy has been as widely discredited as learning styles

3penguins A study which showed synthetic phonics + other stuff was better in a measure against just the same synthetic phonics? Where was the more synthetic, or indeed where's the discussion of what the time spent on the other stuff would've been spent on? (ie what was the extra other stuff at the expense of?)

The conclusion doesn't match the results at all, as they didn't test that hypothesis, they only tested that doing some additional language related work was of benefit.

http://www.ldonline.org/article/6394/

"Yet whole language persists, despite efforts by policymakers and reading experts to root it out. Today, though, it often disguises itself, not using the term "whole language" but, rather, wearing the fig leaf of "balanced" instruction. A lot of people who have a casual acquaintance with the research have persuaded themselves that balanced reading instruction means a little of this, a little of that. Take a cup of phonics from one cupboard, add a half-pint of whole language from the fridge, and the resulting blend will succeed with children while avoiding the battles and conflicts of the "reading wars." Everyone will be happy, and all will be well.
The problem is that it doesn't work that way. What's going on in many places in the name of "balance" or "consensus" is that the worst practices of whole language are persisting, continuing to inflict boundless harm on young children who need to learn to read. How and why that is happening—and how and why such practices are misguided and harmful—are what this report is about. In its pages, Louisa Cook Moats describes the whole-language approach; shows why it doesn't work and how it has been disproven by careful research; and explains why it nonetheless persists in practice and what should be done about that."

mrz my quote in a previous post was from a website giving information on Read Write Inc for parents. There is also this

www.ruthmiskin.com/en/resources/parent-tutorial-storybook-activities-green-and-red-words/

sirfred I think your comment must be for unique

I will also say again I am a firm believer in systematic synthetic phonics for beginner readers . I know it works. I also believe in the dual-route cascade model provides a good explanation for word reading (Scarborough's model cited by Mrz is for skilled reading so is not directly comparable) which is perfectly compatible with phonics teaching. The DRC model explains reading disorders such as acquired and developmental dyslexia

www.pitt.edu/~perfetti/PDF/Coltheart%2005.pdf

Scarborough's model is for all readers including beginners

This is all so interesting I'd never heard of the "cascade" style of learning to read. DD's teacher did mention that she though DD was going to be a "sight reader" as she was quick to read new words but I have literally no idea what that meant - surely everyone decodes words that are unfamiliar and sight reads familiar words (although it was interesting that skilled readers still see words letter by letter - I assumed we just saw a big chunk!)

Scarborough's model is for all readers including beginners

I am not familiar with this model, but this diagram says it is for skilled reading. The word recognition skills which as we both know are only one part of reading but is the part that is addressed by phonics, clearly mentions sight recognition of words as one strand so is not incompatible with the dual route cascade model or anything that I have said

www.ncsip.org/reading/Rope-Model-of-Skilled-Reading-Scarborough.pptx

I boggle at phonics. My DD 7 is 'taught' at school using phonics, but in a different language which is quite phonetic (Welsh). And yet, she reads in English perfectly despite never ever having been taught, just from asking how to spell the odd word, playing minecraft etcetc. There's a certain amount of phonics that may be transferable I suppose, but really I think it's all a bit over inflated. I was the same - my mum never read to me, my dad is pretty illiterate tbh having left school at 14, worked a trade and never read for pleasure, plus my education was entirely in Welsh until I was 16. I did and English lit degree . I'm may be way off the mark but it feels rather faddy to me!

Scarborough's rope has many strands which when woven together produce a skilled reader. Dr Scarborough said he drew the model to explain to parents how reading threads combine.

Once the strands have been woven into a single rope you have your skilled reader

Bigbag. All children need to,learn phonics - if they don't they do not have the skills necessary to tackle unfamiliar words they have never encountered.

SUBDERMATOGLYPHIC - if you do not know this word, you will use phonic strategies to decode and read it.

However, skilled reading requires fluency and automaticity to free working memory resources to understand what you are reading. Automaticity comes from "sight" recognition of words or word patterns.

but sight recognition is there mrz or do you disagree with that particular strand

I am really not a fan of phonics. My eldest did okish but it took him years to really enjoy reading. His spellings in English are pretty poor although does really well in French and German.

My youngest summer born initially took to Phonics like a duck to water but as soon as he needed to read more complicated words that didn't follow the rules it was like he hit a brick wall. His teacher ended up trying to reteach him using a different method as Phonics obviously wasn't working for him.

Eventually aged 10 he was diagnosed with quite severe dyslexia. Now the thing I really don't understand is when he learns different languages he does really well. He's just started Latin, his teacher said he was head and shoulders above the rest and he got 85% in his end of term exam. Again he does well in French and German.

Can anyone explain this? It makes me think that the issue is how reading is taught in English and that it's really Phonics which are the problem.

Would be really interested to know other people's views?

BigBag I was told the same by my dd's YR teacher. It was her way of telling me that yes, dd knew all the phonics they had taught her, plus quite a lot more, and was reading very fluently BUT she needed to keep on doing phonics because as she read more complex texts she would keep on coming across words she didn't know, and that it would help her become a good and fluent speller, too.

Dd is now in Y4, and recently came downstairs to ask me what 'parochial' meant. I had to think for a bit (she'd pronounced the 'ch' as in 'church') but it struck me that that is what solid phonics instruction even after she could clearly 'read' is what allows her to read Dickens etc. She's got a super memory, but that sort of range of vocabulary is clearly impossible to just remember.

More generally, I went along to the school's workshop on phonics in YR, was taught what split digraphs etc where, and not to say 'cuh' as the sound at the start of 'cat'. Didn't your school do anything like that? I found that workshop, plus this chart:
phonicsinternational.com/unit1_pdfs/The%20English%20Alphabetic%20Code%20-%20complete%20picture%20chart.pdf
(recommended on here, by mrz I think) gave me what I needed to help her learn to read.

Sight recognition doesn't require teaching words as wholes

Aargh, multiple typos! Hopefully you can tell what I mean.

There aren't any rules to follow!

http://www.spelfabet.com.au/2012/07/teaching-sight-words/

http://literacyblog.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/should-key-words-be-taught-as-sight.html

capsicum. My DD is severely dyslexic but loved Latin and got an A* at GCSE. She said learning Latin was like unlocking a puzzle and it appealed to the way she thinks. Latin is more orthographically regular than English, as are languages such as Spanish, so the grapheme-phoneme correspondence rules for reading and spelling are easier to learn than those for English (Latin grammar is, I believe, another matter). She has exceptionally poor phonological processing and poor auditory memory. She is at uni now and often has idiosyncratic pronunciation of technical terms until she has heard them spoken. Her spelling is also appalling.

From the BDA website

"Latin may be a good choice for those dyslexic pupils who anticipate difficulty around learning tospeak a new language as the focus tends to be on reading. Latin pronunciation is consistent and the meaning of words can be deduced by breaking them into morphemes (smallest units of meaning) and analysing them. If they are encouraged to apply this skill to English, they may be able to improve their reading comprehension skills. Latin has a fairly small lexicon and many words may be familiar as a large proportion of technical, scientific and abstract words in English are derived from Latin"

http://www.spelfabet.com.au/2014/01/balanced-literacy/

Sight recognition doesn't require teaching words as wholes

I haven't said that it does.

Then I'm not sure what your question is