'Using picture clues and context are great for developing comprehension'

[Sleeperandthespindle]

This is the response I got to asking for decodable books from school for 4 year old in reception who is guessing from pictures when presented with Biff and Chip.

I don't agree. I can ignore the books sent home and give him others, I know, but he is clearly being taught to 'guess' in school.

The school are unlikely to change their mind, I realise, but older DC (in the same school) is struggling very greatly with literacy and the general approach seems unhelpful.

What about school?

Oh, yes. School was there as well ;) However perhaps it would be more helpful to explain where the word comes from to explain the difference from ordinary pronunciation, a bit like Greek names (Euridice comes to mind and that people keep spelling phonetically on the radio :( ).

Indeed, "school" is a fine example of a word you have to know and cannot decode.

Of course you can decode it! s-ch-oo-l, it's hardly difficult!

There's no reason you can't explain etymology while teaching phonics. In fact I would think it is good practice to do so.

No, because you need to know that "Ch" is a "k" sound, not a "tch" one, and that defeats the purpose. If you didn't know the word you would read it ... "shool" or something like it ;)

I was thinking same as spaniel.
I think all your examples are decodable, Arkadia?

Well yes, you have to teach that some graphemes have more than one sound, and some sounds have more than one grapheme. But that's still easier than learning millions of words individually

I agree that all words are decodable - once you know the code. DS doesn't know the full code yet.

School are implying that I'm holding him back by not giving him books with 'high frequency words'. Since when is 'gymnastics' (clearly to be guessed from the picture) a high frequency word?

We have to agree on the meaning of the word "decode". To me it means that you can read a word without any prior knowledge of its pronunciation.
"School" to me doesn't fit this category.
Obviously all words are made of sounds, so you can write them using the phonetic alphabet (I would give a Nobel prize to whoever came up with it), but the question is whether there is a 1-1 correspondence between sound and phoneme. Obviously this is NOT the case (see "school" which you can read is several ways, or countless other words), so I wonder whether there is any point in introducing very rare and/or duplicate phonemes or you would be better off remembering the words (and you have to do that anyway) or use etymology to explain the exceptions (as in "Christmas")

Spaniel, it what way does it help to know that a grapheme can be read in more than one way and a phoneme can be written in more than one way? You have to remember the word anyway, otherwise you will never be able to know how to spell "scream" and "screen". In short, you still have to remember a million words ;)

English doesn't have a simple 1;1 correspondence between the way we say a sound and the way we write it, so we have to teach the alternatives. Children can then use the most common option first and then less common ones until they identify the correct one.

No, you don't. You just have to remember that ee can be written ea or ee!

Arkadia, my ds learned to read without phonics.(Either memorised the word or figured out code for decoding himself, I don't know now.)

He learned phonics at school. He uses phonics to read or spell unknown words now. He can read any word. His spelling is fantastic.

Spaniel, but if there is no 1-1 correspondence, the argument falls apart... If you need to know the word anyway, you are not much further forward. ;)
You do need to know the most common occurrence, but the rest?
Do you really to know chord and choral? Do you need to shove "should and could" into a pattern?
And if you do remember that "i:" can be spelled "ea" or "ee" or "ie" or "ei" or in some other more obscure ways, in what way does it help your spelling?
The same other "oo"...

On reflection, to know that multiple phonemes can be read in the same way helps you with reading, NOT spelling. The problem is when the same grapheme can be read in more than one way...

A sore need for phonics training demonstrated on this thread.

The problem is when the same grapheme can be read in more than one way.

But Y1 children taught exclusive phonics find this concept v easy and readily accept it.

When did schools last get any phonics training though, Feenie? I haven't been in mainstream for a long time, but don't suppose there are funds to spare for such things, despite being so essential to the core purpose of school!

A significant number of words in the English language aren't decodable, therefore we wouldn't be teaching them to read if we only taught them to decode

A very small percentage of words are genuinely not decodable.

We all teach common exception words and they aren't taught by decoding.

Very common misconception - and total rubbish. Even Letters and Sounds, which us now 12 years old, did not advise teaching 'tricky' words like this - and the inventors of the term (Jolly Phonics writers) are said to be tearing their hair out at so many teachers' complete misunderstanding of the term - and, more worryingly, how they think they must be taught.

Depends on the school's priorities, Sleeper. A worrying number of schools didn't think that research and training into how they could get very single child reading was a priority, even when there was money.

You can't rely on one method to teach reading, phonics is just one method

How do you know? You've clearly never tried, or read any of the extensive research showing that it does!

I'm in despair with the school really. Ofsted outstanding (although many years since inspection). I am banging my head against the wall with regards to DD's dyslexia and now facing this with DS. He is not dyslexic. But I still want him to learn appropriately with well taught phonics!

Well, every week we get a phoneme and some "common" words to learn.

I do not know a single school that only has fully decodable books for their children to read. It would be incredibly sad if they did - imagine how much they would miss out on in terms of enjoyment and enrichment through language.

The national curriculum does state that children should be reading texts that don't rely on other methods but it also states that:

All pupils must be encouraged to read widely across both fiction and non-fiction to develop their knowledge of themselves and the world in which they live, to establish an appreciation and love of reading, and to gain knowledge across the curriculum. Reading widely and often increases pupils’ vocabulary because they encounter words they would rarely hear or use in everyday speech. Reading also feeds pupils’ imagination and opens up a treasure-house of wonder and joy for curious young minds.

They are unable to achieve this if they read only decodable words - particularly in Year R and 1 when they haven't completed all the phases of Letters and Sounds.

There is also the issue of teaching children who are dyslexic. These children find segmenting and blending incredibly hard and learn so much better through recognition and teaching programmes which place emphasis on learning the whole word.

I don't think anything that I have said is shocking. Yes, you could say that every word is decodable if you learn the code (although there still will be some exceptions). However, if you wait to learn the code before you read any words containing that code you will be waiting a long time before you can read anything of any interest and your love of reading will be completely destroyed!

Dyslexic charities actively promote systematic phonics instruction, as do adult literacy programmes.

Boys - my DS has access to many, many books with a wide variety of vocabulary. This is right, of course. However, the books that are sent home for him to PRACTISE reading with the skills he should have been taught at school, ought to have words in them that he can read.