WHY don't some teachers teach pure phonics? And what impact does it have on how teachers are viewed?

[TeenPlusTwenties]

As seen on this board by a current thread (which I decided not to hijack) and another one this week on AIBU, there still seems to be a chunk of current teachers not attempting to teach decoding via phonics but preferring mixed methods (phonics, plus whole words, plus guessing).

Do you think the fact so many teachers are failing to teach phonics properly impacts on how the profession as a whole is viewed?

If the main thing that parents of young children understand is important (reading) is not being taught in the way deemed most effective from research, that is also mandated in the NC, doesn't that undermine trust and respect massively?

I'm trying to think of a good analogy, but in medicine there is NICE which looks at data on effectiveness of medicines and then says what can / can't be used.

Is this because teachers are so overworked they don't read the research? Or are primary teachers not maths-literate enough to understand data, and so prefer their own sample-of-one instead?

Do parents end up 'not trusting' teachers because they can see such a blatant example of not following good practice /not knowing what they are doing

I think it’s training. I trained 10yrs ago and it was woefully inadequate.
My child’s primary school also doesn’t have a systematic plan. They use a variety of resources which very clearly means children progress at a much slower pace.
RWI is brilliant when the whole school is trained and has all the correct resources. I’m a massive convert having been dubious before.

Nadals, phan I think I'd do as a morpheme (as in phantasm), phin I would have to break down.

are there studies about bilingual children and phonics?

That app with 'non-decodable' words! Ugh.

Also books like this don't help - level 1 ORT that schools like ours buy in for guided reading. Kipper's Diary. Really? Imagine learning individual sounds then trying to work out diary!

I had a yr 1 lower ability group last week reading ORT level 4 (red band) and I gave up trying to explain the alternative spellings. Not one child could read a sentence apart from picking out words like 'had' and 'the'. While books like this are published as early readers it's no wonder some teachers feel mixed methods are the only way to access their school's reading material.

Please can someone tell me these English words that aren't decodable.

one
two
Mr, Mrs (yes, abbreviations, but used as words in many books for children)
the (should be th-eh, not thuh)
said (should be s-ai-d)
two (should be t-w-o)
was (should be w-a-s, not woz)
have (should be h-ay-v, not hav)
There are loads of them.
There are also words that come from other countries, such as chandelier and croissant.

There are many words that phonics schemes refer to as 'red' or 'high-frequency' or 'tricky' words that you just have to learn through a different strategy as they don't decode. Pick up any phonics scheme and you'll see. Lots of English words are not decodable.

Some of it might be lack of support from above. Its quite an investment to train everyone and buy enough new books. If 80% learn either way and 5% struggle with phonics - you are investing a lot in 10% of children. Obviously i think thats important spend, but its amazing what goes on.

Edit- ignore the reference to non-English words, just noticed you specified that. However, my point still stands.

So, how did you read the phan or phin part? Una said she sight read the morphemes. Which is possible because they are all common morphemes. Switching the vowel to phan/phin/phun changes that.

What if you try reading ‘waib’ or ‘froip’ out loud. Are you able to do it or are you completely stuck?

Phan is in other words. Phin I probably without realising did ph in.

I'm not disputing that phonics works and is useful. It's just not the only way people read.

Your other 2 words I'd have a good go at but wouldn't be totally sure. Is waib like wave with a b. Froip to me is froyip.

There are many words that phonics schemes refer to as 'red' or 'high-frequency' or 'tricky' words that you just have to learn through a different strategy as they don't decode

This is a huge misconception - the term 'tricky words' was coined by Jolly Phonics and means words which contain graphemes that children haven't yet been taught. Not non-decodable, the total opposite. 'Said' is a perfect example - the sounds are s/e/d - you are supposed to be teaching incidental teaching to explain that in that word, is code for /e/. Letters and Sounds also used the term tricky words but the advice was still to read from left to right, decoding the sounds and drawing children's attention to the tricky 'boy's

Not just learn them as wholes.

Not tell children they are undecodable. Because that's bollocks.

And there are lots of phonics schemes that don't refer to tricky/red words at all - Floppy's Phonics, Dandelion readers.

RolytheRhino - With the exception of Mr and Mrs (which are, as you say, abbreviations) all the words you cite are decodable. You seem to be labouring under the illusion that each grapheme only represents a single phoneme. That is not true. Many graphemes (particularly those involving vowels) represent multiple phonemes and some phonemes can be represented by multiple graphemes.

have (should be h-ay-v, not hav)

Please tell me you aren't a teacher. The vast majority of Year 1 children know more about phonics than this.

I'm dyslexic and phonics never worked for me.
My ds failed his phonic assessment several years in a row while still learning to read pretty well.
Personally I'm delighted that some teachers are able to accept that a one approach fits all dogma may not always be the way to go.

What did work, pumkin? Dyslexic associations always recommend systematic synthetic phonics teaching.

Non-readers arriving at secondary school can be rescued by a good synthetic phonics teacher.

Adult non-reader success stories always include decent phonics teaching that they have never received before.

And children are only required to take the phonics check in Y1 and Y2 - not sure how that constitutes several years in a row.

Was.

Salt

Wrath ( depending on accent)

Watch

In all these words you see the “a” and say the sound

So in these words “a” is code for the sound

Children could be taught this.

FelingUseless100 look at antidisestablishmentarianism again, if deciding your son would mispronounce the end of the word. I agree with the rest of your post though.

Absolutely - an always makes an /o/ sound after a /w/ sound.

squat

squash

swap

It's pretty consistent and very young children in schools where phonics is taught well will tell you about it confidently.

I think the fact that you could read it and used phonics without realising is the point. This is what experienced, skilled adult readers do when they come across new words. Often without actually thinking about it because their blending skills are so automatic.

Adults do tend to blend in chunks based on their previous experiences in reading. Beginning readers don’t have that experience. Pretty much every word they come across is a word they haven’t read before and their blending isn’t yet automatic.

Phonics is not a method of teaching reading. It’s a set or core skill that children need to be able to read and write words they haven’t seen before. Bypassing those skills to do something that looks like what skilled adult readers are doing but isn’t is not a good idea. We don’t leave out huge bits of the maths curriculum because children weren’t getting it in reception.

And children are only required to take the phonics check in Y1 and Y2 - not sure how that constitutes several years in a row.

I think there was a year 3 pilot in some areas.

And children are only required to take the phonics check in Y1 and Y2 - not sure how that constitutes several years in a row.

This constitutes several years in a row in the following way.
My ds because he failed his phonic tests repeated them the next year, he continued to have phonics work. I think they hoped he would pass the next year. He completed an extra year of phonics.
As his reading was by this point at the same level as his peers including his twin. The school gave up with trying to get him to pass the phonics stuff.

It hardly seems unreasonable that some dc will benefit from one teaching system more than others.
I can't hear sounds well enough to decode phonics. But I passed all my English exams and love reading. I got where I needed to be.

I don't want teachers who are too dogmatic and don't view this as a positive trait.
I want teachers who are informed about latest theories but are able to use them flexibly. I would also like them to be able to accept that these are just the current theories and in time new ones or new versions of old ones will replace them.

Phonics has been around for hundreds of years.

I want teachers who have the knowledge and skills to be able to teach every single child to read and not to make suit excuses like 'he's done well from his starting point' or 'well, phonics doesn't suit everyone' (ALWAYS from teachers who have never,ever taught phonics first and only).

Shit excuses.

Euro chick

I only looked at the first 4 or 5 of this words on that link. Most were decidable

For example, second word given : Says /s/ /ay/ /s/

Wa is a known and taught sound

/wa/ is code for wo