'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.

Cant, amen to that ;)

I would add that when it comes to writing you have to remember the words in any case, so you need to remember how to spell archive/arrive, which is why the point by some that phonics helps you remember words is moot. Perhaps it helps you read in a standardised way, but only if you do know the word to start with. If you don't all you can do is to make an educated guess, and you don't really need biblical names for that (or Greek mythology ;) ).
So in order to read a word, you have to have heard it before. In order to spell a word you have to have been shown how to spell it.
No amount of phonics knowledge can help you in either case.

"severely compromised' how is a purely phonological approach going to help the children who prefer a visual approach" I'm afraid to ask but are you referring to learning styles?

"so you need to remember how to spell archive" actually you have to know that the sound /k/ is spelt otherwise it's pretty straightforward using phonics ... if you haven't seen the word before you might try arkive first but anyone who has seen the word would try the alternative spelling for /k/ and quickly reach the correct spelling.

"No amount of phonics knowledge can help you in either case."

Rubbish. Phonics gets you to an almost complete spelling (ar_ive) and down to two possible spellings for the missing part, even if you have never seen it in your life before - which is a whole lot better than any non-phonic approach would achieve.

If you have ever seen the word before - which is my point about familiar and unfamilar vocabulary - then the ONLY thing you have to do is test the two possible alternatives archive and arkive, and choose the first.

Someone who doesn't use phonics wouldn't get anywhere near that.

I should make it clear that I am absolutely a 100% phonics supporter, alongside a very rich diet of BEING READ TO AND WITH to expand vocabulary. Phonics + a good heard vocabulary = great reading. Phonics + a good seen-while-being-heard vocabulary (following along while someone reads to you) = good spelling. Nothing else - not pictures, not sight words, not initial sounds, not guessing from context, not lists of words to learn - are necessary.

Well, no, mrz. For a start, if that's all you need to spell correctly, then you would see a lot fewer spelling mistakes around.
In addition, and I speak from experience, my daughter more often than not canNOT spell relatively easy words and when asked: have you EVER seen that word spelled like that before, you are greeted with a stony silence. I even tried to give some sort of multiple choice test: I write the word she cannot spell in 3-4 different ways, but it is pretty much luck of the draw if she picks the right one.
Yesterday I was at her school for some parent-teacher meeting and she misspelt "eye" (not the best example, I know, but hardly an uncommon word and one she has done/read/seen many times in the past). I was SO cross... And this happens over and over AND OVER again.
So... in short, knowing a word does NOT mean that you will remember how to spell it, not in my household anyway.

cant, I agree with you. I am just saying that phonics help you, but you still need to remember...
Also, I can't think of one now, but I am sure you can spell "ive" in more than one way :D

BTW, when about 2,5 years ago I learned about the magic "e", that was another BIG a-ha moment for me. Why I was never taught it in the past is a mystery destined to remain unsolved... It would have been SO useful. Anyway, I know it now ;)

" For a start, if that's all you need to spell correctly, then you would see a lot fewer spelling mistakes around"
Perhaps we need to start teaching children how to actually spell rather than sending lists home to memorise as it clearly doesn't work or there'd be a lot fewer spelling mistakes.

Bombshell sorry to disillusion you but ... e isn't magic

Indeed. Suggestions are welcome.

During the meeting we had to do this IDIOTIC game: the sunflower (the more child friendly version of the hangman), only we had to choose between this week's words, i.e. a grand total of 7 or 8 (should, would, routine, coupon, sing, and a couple more I cannot remember. Note, "could" was not listed). Obviously you know what word it is by simply looking at its length and by "guessing" one letter max. Still, my DD tells me that you have to pretend you don't know... I mean...

Ahahaha, what do you mean? At school they call it the "magic e". Isn't that the kosher way of calling it?

Magic e

It is simply a split digraph.

Well, I think "magic e" will do just fine :)

Children can understand a split digraph even if you can't!

Well, my DD taught me the expression "magic e" and this is what they use at school, so I feel perfectly entitle to use it.
Although I would understand the expression "split digraph", I doubt she would. I don't think they have ever gone past the word "phoneme".

Doesn't sound like your D.C. is receiving high quality phonics instruction, TBH.

Terms like digraph are not complicated. Children lap them up when they are explained clearly. It's parents who struggle with them!

Makes no difference if you call it magic e, it just sounds more impressive if you teach your 4 yr old to call it a split digraph
Alphablocks call it magic e and seems solidly phonics-based to me.

When I was training to be a teacher we were told to do the whole, get then to guess and look at the pictures etc I always thought it was a bit odd.

If I say 'magic e' my y1 child will correct me to say split diagraph
Arkadia - I don't understand how you can possibly argue that phonics doesn't work, when your child is being taught mixed methods?

It's rather depressing, as a parent, to see primary school teachers who aren't prepared to accept extensive, peer-reviewed research, and who don't seem to understand that the plural of anecdote is not data.

My older 2 DC had mixed methods and were fine - reasonably bright kids without any SEN. I sent DD2 to a different school, because I suspected dyslexia (and was right) and wanted her to have purely phonics, based on the extensive evidence. My school runs are a PITA, but it has very much been worth it - not only did she learn to read well, but her spelling is good, thanks to the phonics. Much better than my older DC were at that age, actually.

Going back to phonics for spelling, I think in some way the importance is as philosophical as it is practical.

Phonics teaches that what you need to do to decode a word is to sound it out, piece by piece, all thee way through to the end, and then blend it - then evaluate the blended word to see if it matches a 'real word which makes sense in this context, then try alternatives for any alternative correspondences.

Spelling is a simple inverse of this process - you encode the word, step by step, then evaluate the result against your experience of that word from reading, then try alternatives for any alternative correspondences.

Whereas if you teach that reading can be guessing from pictures, guessing from the first letter, looking at the shape of the word, matching to a list of random 'tricky words' that mysteriously can only be treated as 'wholes' .. then what is the inverse that is spelling? No wonder children get confused.

Arkadia, are all the alternatives that your DD writes for a given word phonically reasonable (ie use correct grapheme / phoneme correspondences but not the right ones for that word)? If any are not, she should be able to check and identify those as 'wrong' straight away. Moving from 'phonically reasonable' to 'correct' needs her to really, really look at words as she reads and then apply that as she writes - if she is using mixed methods for reading, she will not have been well-trained to look hard, so it will be something you need to work with her on.

"Phonics teaches that what you need to do to decode a word is to sound it out," that is only part of phonic teaching. It also teaches what you need to encode a word by segmenting it sound by sound.

"it just sounds more impressive if you teach your 4 yr old to call it a split digraph" I don't teach that either

"Well, I think "magic e" will do just fine :)" what's magic about it?

Mrz, I was splitting the two parts of phonics - reading and spelling - to be clear to others on this thread. I agree that phonics teaching teaches both encoding and decoding.

Perhaps it would be clearer if i said:

'For decoding, phonics teaches that what you need to do is sound it out.... blah'

'For spelling (encoding), phonics teaches the inverse of this process'

However, I stand by my main point - that phonics teaches reading and spelling as inverses of each other, whereas for mixed methods of teaching reading, the inverse relationship with spelling is less clear.