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.
Discussion in 'Primary' started by grape-juice, May 23, 2012.
Yes it is what the current post is about thumbie ... your lack of understanding of phonics
I don't think when posts seem personal that this is the intention - I think the people who post here are pretty passionate about their beliefs and why not? What the thread needs is more people to participate so that a variety of views are expressed. The chances are that no-one will ever change their views dramaticaly in an exchangle like this - what is more likely to happen is that the views of everyone that follows the thread change just a little bit.
I know from the many emails I get that there are a lot of lurkers on this forum generally but on this thread in particular.
What I would like to know Msz is what your objection is to teachers trying alternative strategies when coventional phonics are not producing the goods. I must say that this seem like common sense to me.
When have I said that Eddie?
My personal belief if that all children benefit from good phonics teaching but that is only part of the story. As I said earlier phonics isn't taught in a vacuum it needs to be taught in a context and that context is words, sentences and quality text. My issue is that regardless what some people say English is a phonetic language and although complex it is regular.
My issue is that regardless what some people say English is a phonetic language and although complex it is regular.
I seem to remember you saying that phonics is enough on its own but of course I may be wrong - it might have been Maize,
Of course English orthography is phonetic and I remember reading aomewhere that 80% of words are phonetically regular which means that 20% are not.
Anyway I'm off to the local theatre to see 42nd Street (again)
Keep up the good fight - I already have one poster who will be giving a blow by blow account of the introduction of a perceptual learning course.
With good phonics teaching a child should be equipped to decode anything Eddie but that's got to take place in context or they won't be readers.
It depends on your definition of regular but an accepted definition is that a word is irregular if the spelling of a phoneme is unique and oddly enough there are few words in English that fits that criteria one is "of" which I'm sure you will agree is such a commonly used word and gives no one trouble when reading another is the "ough" in through. and of course there are some words that have unusual spellings of phonemes that only apply to a small number of words but if they are found in a number of words are they really irregular. I'm sure thumbie will argue yes but perhaps others will think about it.
is a good example of a non word because it doesn't follow the rules of phonics
And sometimes, it says nothing at all. ;-)
not sometimes ...never because it ignores all the phonotactics of English
SHHHHHHHHHHHHH. I'm watching the ghity.
you mean CHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH or TIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII or SIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
LOL obviously, only if followed by 'ion' or 'ial.' Hee hee. Am logging off before I get sucked in.
oh i forgot CIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!
and you're safe I'm going out too
Now Msz! You kind of say that you do not object to other strategies which leaves me a little uncertain as to where you do stand.
I had the impression that you are committed unreservedly to the belief that a structured phonics programme will resolve virtually all children's readign difficulties and that if such a structured phonics programme was followed in the early years in all schools, the 20% of children who are consistently consigned to the dustbin of illiteracy by current (and all past) strategies would no longer do so - in fact the problem of illiteracy would be resolved, virtually completely.
You are also fairly scathing about perceptual learning.
If my impression is wrong, perhaps you would care to enlighten me.
Since it is instantly recognisable for what it is, it kicks the SP madness to death. As do lots of other words and txt which can be read by people who aren't crippled by linear reading.
Eddie I've never needed to use any other strategy to teach children to read
What I can say is I wouldn't teach them to "work it out" from the pictures or from initial letters. I do think context comes to play once children are reading the words to help decide on words that have the same spelling ...whether it's read or read and to aid comprehension. Children need to be able to decode the words before they can extract meaning and once they can do that they need lots of opportunities to read and be read to.
Eddie if you recall what I said was that I didn't believe a totally non reader could learn to read purely by "perceptual learning" and as you yourself have since said you believe children need phonics initially I don't think we are a million miles apart in our belief.
You kindly sent me a copy of your Y6 CD however I don't think any of our children were reading at a low enough level to benefit. They were frustrated by the cursor and the voice as their reading skills were more advanced. They engage in reading high quality whole class texts on a daily basis so your CD just didn't match our needs.
yes an old chestnut
You are up against some hard line political fundies Eddie. These people don't actually care about reading. They want control of education.
You won't get any sense out of them.