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

Please respond - who knows if their local authority is promoting interventions of the Reading Recovery and Catch Up type which are not in line with th

Discussion in 'Early Years' started by debbiehep, Oct 3, 2007.

  1. Well fair enough - a talented chap then. The fact that he finds it hard to pick up phonic strategies would be ringing alarm bells with me, though, rather than his unusual ability to read sight words.
     
  2. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    I should also point out the child isn't being "taught" these words and he has no picture clues.
    We are still working with him on his phonics while recognising his ability.
     
  3. re: aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy...etc
    This is urtune. If the wrods from dairbleete amangars or phoumpdoes the text is asmolt ibsosimple to dipcheer.

    A good analysis here: http://www.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/~mattd/Cmabrigde/ (sorry I'm a bit behind the times - but I can't spend all day idly blogging!)
     
  4. 000

    000

    With regard to ringing alarm bells, i would too be concerned if a child had a large sight vocab but struggled with phonics. And alarm bells would ring in the opposite scenario too.

    Msz - i had a girl last year with similar ability and problem as the boy you described. Can i ask, what strategies did you employ to support their writing?
     
  5. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    He has a large number of physical problems which delayed his actual "writing" By the end of reception he was representing some words with initial sounds (with adult help or using a keyboard or magnetic letters). We have played lots of auditory games to help him discriminate sounds and lots of repetition using Jolly Phonics. Learning Support Advisor suggested switching to Direct Phonics but I wasn't sure or any value in doing this.
     
  6. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    idle blogger help! I was fine with the deliberate anagrams but found "phoumpdoes" impossible to decipher (almost). What is a phoumpdoes?
     
  7. pseudomorphs
     
  8. Whoops! That should have had a double-s on the end. Sorry....
     
  9. Msz - just out of interest, what intervention do you use in your school for children who have dropped behind? (Apologies if you've already said and it's got lost somewhere in this long thread!)
     
  10. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    repetition repetition and more repetition of JP in short bursts. I am trying to persuade the Head to buy "The Five Minute Box" as I've heard good things about it.
    As I said earlier our LS Advisor recommended Direct Phonics which was trialled with Y1 last year with poor results.
     
  11. Just a thought(and probably a wrong one!) the boy who knows words by sight but struggles with phonics, Msz - does he have an ASD? It sounds a bit like that kind of ability
     
  12. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    We did actually consider ASD but he has been seen by both an ed psych and a paediatrician who say not.
     
  13. mot

    mot

    What is the five minute box like? I have looked at it online but there is not much information. Has anyone used it?
     
  14. Debbie - have emailed you.

    Sneddy :)
     
  15. Our school use Catch Up for key stage 2 children who are failing using sythetic phonics! That will really confuse them!
     
  16. "Our school use Catch Up for key stage 2 children who are failing using sythetic phonics! That will really confuse them!"

    Synthetic phonics doesn't fail children.

    Have you evaluated the Catch Up programme for its content and teaching methods?

    Have a look and see if you think there is anything of any substance to make children literate.

    You won't find it.

    http://www.rrf.org.uk/control/files/uploads/pdf/60.pdf

    There are a couple of articles in here relating to the Catch Up programme and one is a detailed review of training.
     
  17. It?s hard to have a reasonable discussion about how best to teach reading, because English spelling is so unreasonable. We would not be talking about it so endlessly if the English alphabetic code was more reliable, e.g. if ?o? always spelt just the sound of ?got, hot, not?; ?o-e? that of ?bone, stone, alone?; ?ea? that of ?meat, treat, neat? and so on. English literacy acquistion would be both easier and less controversial if it wasn't for phonic nonsense (like ear ? early, bear; on ? only, other, ere ? there, were.

    There are hundreds of English words that u cannot decode completely without looking at all their letters, e.g. ?woman, women, rough, through, trough?. With some, u even have to look at other words to pronounce them properly (read, row, use).

    The Sight Words page at www.englishspellingproblems.co.uk shows u all the words that can be tricky for readers.

    The final aim of all reading instruction is to be able to look at all commonly used words and to recognise them instantly, without decoding. When u start learning to read another language, u decode and read slowly. When u become fluent, u stop decoding. Ditto in English.

    And you can get there by different routes. Our daughter learnt to read mainly by recognising words as wholes. She had learned many stories by heart first, from me and my husband reading to her every day, then linked the words in her head to those on the page and really just taught herself. She learned phonics when she started learning to write.

    My son?s progress was much slower. In 1976-7 he used to bring home words that gave give trouble (mostly the not entirely decodable ones) in a little tin and we?d go over them one by one, helping him to decode them, pointing out the tricky bits, then testing him a few times and doing more work on those that continued to defeat him. He too only became a fluent reader when eventually u could hold up any word to him and he could read it instantly.

    Starting with phonics is a good approach for most kids, but even Rose states that phonics is ?a time-limited activity [for a year, at around age 5] that is eventually overtaken by word that develops comprehension?. It makes sense to pretend to little children that English is just like other alphabetic languages. That?s what makes English phonics ?synthetic? rather than real.

    There is far more to learning to read well than just phonics. As I said, some children can learn to read really well without phonics. And Rose is but the latest in a long series of gurus to influence reading policy. I am sure OOO is right and it won?t be long before someone else comes along and tries to recommend a ?better? way. It?s hard to believe it now, but in 1975 the Bullock report recommended that all schools should try ita (the initial teaching alphabet). The idea that phonics is the only method of teaching reading, to older children as well, is equally daft.

    Phonics is a good start, but both the Sight Words and Overview pages at www.englishspellingproblems.co.uk show u why phonics alone cannot turn anyone into a good adult reader and writer of English.

    I wish people would be more rational and take more notice of what English spelling is like and the learning problems it creates. We might then find more effective ways of helping the kids who struggle more than most. The majority always have and always will learn to read, irrespective of the method by which they were taught.
     
  18. Mashabell wrote:

    'There are hundreds of English words that u cannot decode completely without looking at all their letters'

    Sure when you decode a word the whole point is to look at all its letters?
     
  19. Sorry - typo! That should have been 'Surely....'
     
  20. Masha - I really do get the impression that you have not seen synthetic phonics teaching.

    The teaching needs far longer than a year and the teaching of the code goes much further than I think you think it goes.

    It is also not synthetic in the sense of 'artificial' - to synthesise is simply meaning 'to blend'.

    You are very well meaning but I worry that you speak with apparent authority whilst I suspect you are not an authority on synthetic phonics teaching in its modern format.
     

Share This Page