1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

how to find a school that does not teach jolly phonics

Discussion in 'Primary' started by sysky, Oct 9, 2011.

  1. For a 'relatively recent' term it has been around for a very long time! I have found phonics teaching called 'synthetic' in late nineteenth century 'How to Teach Reading' books.
    I don't think anyone has tried to prove that your results are wrong. Your results are fine and congratulations (though wasn't it meant to be every child a L5 reader?)
    What I, personally, am querying is your inaccurate and unsubstantiated statements about SP.
  2. To the Original Poster: I withdraw from this charade - i simply cannot descent to this level of stupidity. I have sent you a personal message.

  3. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    Did you look at the National Curriculum level descriptors?
  4. I was taught to read using synthetic phonics in the early 1960's so there is certainly nothing new about it.
  5. If you accept that written symbols are encoded sounds then "phonics" has been around since writing began.
  6. I felt compelled to write just to inform you that this thread was sent out as part of the TES subscription newsletter. Every teacher that subscribes will have just read your insulting (not to mention subjective and uneducated) comments. I must thank you for the enjoyable 'comedy' thread though!
  7. Yes, but the ultimate convincing
    argument that an easy spelling system does indeed matter is the
    comparison between Swedish-speaking Finns and Finnish-speaking Finns
    done by Taksin Nuoret,
    a university student. Both linguistic groups receive the same kind of
    education, yet the Finnish Finns do much better on PISA tests! Even Estonian kids do
    better than many! It is my view that Mr. Nuoret makes a
    bit of a mistake in his analysis, when he compares other countries that
    do have a fairly easy spelling system like Italy and Spain. Since the
    students of this country did not do as well as, say, English speaking
    students, then he generalizes and states that the "correlation between
    spelling and Pisa results is weak". But, Italian and Spanish
    educational systems are vastly different than Canadian or Australian
    systems. Are the budgets for Italian education the same as the one in
    Canada? How many hours are devoted in language or spelling studies in
    Canadian schools compare to Italian schools? There are, in other words,
    so many factors that could tip the scale and compensate for the
    shortcoming of a difficult spelling system. It is worth noting that the
    test takes place at age 15, at which time, English-speaking students
    (and others) have had plenty of time to learn how to read all of those
    crazy words. I think Mr. Nuoret is unaware of the amount of energy and
    money spent on ensuring that the stereotypical English-speaking student
    reads. Nevertheless, Mr. Nuoret makes another claim, namely that finnish
    morphology is also much simpler. The Finnish morphology argument is
    less compelling in my view because the author doesn't compare Swedish
    morphology with Finnish morphology, although he does it to
    languages that use Latin and Greek prefixes and suffixes. His argument
    about how in Finnish similar concept words are derived from a base or
    root word seems valid, however. The example in his blog is compelling. Still, it would seem that an easy spelling system would naturally make learning to read and spell be easier too! While -5 + 9 = 4, 2 +2 = 4 is easier! It is true that the former is more interesting, the latter is much easier to learn and teach, unless one teaches that in K classes now! :)


Share This Page