I'm not against phonics BUT...

Moderators: Debbie Hepplewhite, maizie, Lesley Drake, Susan Godsland

User avatar
Susan Godsland
Administrator
Posts: 4973
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:10 pm
Location: Exeter UK
Contact:

I'm not against phonics BUT...

Post by Susan Godsland » Sun Dec 30, 2012 2:55 pm

I'm not against phonics BUT.... or INAPB

The idea is to collect examples of where people have said INAPB followed by their reasons.

http://michaelrosenblog.blogspot.co.uk/ ... chael.html
For my own views: I'm not against the teaching of phonics.
I'm against :1. Trying to kid teachers and children that the phonics packages are only teaching phonics. They're not, they're also teaching 'look and say' ie through 'tricky words' 'red words' or 'high frequency words'.
2. Schools which neglect the reading of whole books, telling stories, hearing and reading poems, doing plays in the years they're doing phonics.
http://www.nurseryworld.co.uk/news/1054 ... est-plans/
Professor Moyles criticised the consultation because, by asking what form the test should take, the questions assume that respondents want the test, rather than asking if such a test should be introduced. She said it was unclear how the Government intended the reading test to be carried out, and there had been some suggestion that nonsense words would be used to test phonics. She warned that 'a meaningless phonics test' would also turn children off reading.

'Children love stories. We're not against phonics per se, but phonics is not the only way children learn to read. A phonics test is likely to mean that children don't have meaning in their literacy activities.'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/200 ... chools.uk1
However, Sally Barnes, a member of the Early Years Curriculum Group, said teaching phonics to children under six years old was "unrealistic and boring".

Ms Barnes said: "We have never been against phonics, not at all, but what we have said is that learning to read is immensely complex and teaching it to children five and under, or I would say six and under, is a big mistake. You can do it formally when they are older but we know what turns young children off and that's being bored."

User avatar
Susan Godsland
Administrator
Posts: 4973
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:10 pm
Location: Exeter UK
Contact:

Re: I'm not against phonics BUT...

Post by Susan Godsland » Sun Dec 30, 2012 3:23 pm

Pearl Barnes, President of Nasen (formerly the National Association for Special Educational Needs).
They have nothing against the teaching of good-quality synthetic phonics, but to impose it is potentially damaging to children. Phonics is one strategy to help children along the reading journey - it does not teach reading for meaning and understanding or engender a culture of a love of reading. It will merely create a generation of children who are able to decode a written text, but who have appalling spelling and are unable to read more deeply for meaning.

User avatar
maizie
Administrator
Posts: 3121
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 10:38 pm
Location: N.E England

Re: I'm not against phonics BUT...

Post by maizie » Sun Dec 30, 2012 3:35 pm

I give you this one. A blog flagged up on twitter:

"Sid naps in a pit: making a din about phonics"

http://lucymarcovitch.wordpress.com/201 ... /#comments

You need to read it!


The blogger's response to my less than approving comment:
I haven't advocated any other methods Maggie, just written about my personal thoughts and observations. I'm not anti-phonics!

lucym808@gmail.com
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2012 2:56 pm

Re: I'm not against phonics BUT...

Post by lucym808@gmail.com » Sun Dec 30, 2012 5:52 pm

I thought that I'd made quite a reasonable comment, given that I hadn't advocated any other methods. I also thought that I'd had a reasonable discussion with other members of this forum about my blog. I think it's a shame that you're coming across as if no-one is allowed to make a comment that is less than effusive about the synthetic phonics method of teaching. If you actually read the blog you'll see that I am simply raising questions. But thanks for driving more traffic to my blog at a quiet time anyway.

User avatar
Susan Godsland
Administrator
Posts: 4973
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:10 pm
Location: Exeter UK
Contact:

Re: I'm not against phonics BUT...

Post by Susan Godsland » Sun Dec 30, 2012 6:19 pm

'maizie' may have missed the RRF discussion on your blog posting, Lucy. It had drifted a long way down the board.

Here it is http://www.rrf.org.uk/messageforum/view ... f=1&t=5536

User avatar
maizie
Administrator
Posts: 3121
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 10:38 pm
Location: N.E England

Re: I'm not against phonics BUT...

Post by maizie » Sun Dec 30, 2012 7:04 pm

lucym808@gmail.com wrote:If you actually read the blog you'll see that I am simply raising questions. But thanks for driving more traffic to my blog at a quiet time anyway.
I did read your blog, Lucy. Which is why I couldn't agree with the chorus of approval on twitter.

How about this ludicrous claim:
But there’s another issue that goes beyond basic development. My son’s recent reading books have only contained phonetically-spelt, two or three letter words. This means he is reading sentences like ‘Nan sat in a pit’ and ‘Sid nips in’. He could decode these words but then got very upset – “I don’t understand. What’s a pit? Why did Nan sit in it? What is nips?” At one point Sid’s sister Sal sits on a pin that Sid has strategically placed on the sofa and boy does she get ‘mad’. Apologies to anyone reading from north America, but we don’t use ‘mad’ in this country when we mean ‘cross’! This insistence on purely phonetic reading is leading kids to read stories that aren’t just dull, but use words that they rarely encounter. It limits rather than widens their vocabulary and exploration of language.
Are you seriously expecting that children should only read words that they already know the meaning of? And are you suggesting that the caring middleclass parent who is listening to the child read this deathless prose is incapable of telling the child what the unfamiliar words mean and that 'mad' for 'angry' is an American use of the word?
Susan Godsland wrote:'maizie' may have missed the RRF discussion on your blog posting, Lucy. It had drifted a long way down the board.
I didn't miss it Susan. I just assumed that everyone was being polite because they hadn't actually read the blog...

User avatar
Susan Godsland
Administrator
Posts: 4973
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:10 pm
Location: Exeter UK
Contact:

Re: I'm not against phonics BUT...

Post by Susan Godsland » Sun Dec 30, 2012 7:28 pm

So Lucy isn't against phonics BUT...' says that,
This insistence on purely phonetic reading is leading kids to read stories that aren’t just dull, but use words that they rarely encounter. It limits rather than widens their vocabulary and exploration of language

User avatar
Susan Godsland
Administrator
Posts: 4973
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:10 pm
Location: Exeter UK
Contact:

Re: I'm not against phonics BUT...

Post by Susan Godsland » Sun Dec 30, 2012 9:25 pm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/teacher-netwo ... us-phonics
I'm not anti-phonics teaching at all (she says, pre-empting of the anti-anti-phonics comments); phonics teaching is useful and, when done well (it isn't always) can be fun, engaging and can truly help children learn to read and spell. It can't teach though what I want most, for children to have a hunger for books, for books that bequeath knowledge and those which help the mind flourish. Learning to read is much more about learning to love literature than it is about homophones, diphthongs and split digraphs.

The thing I object to most is if books, precious books, are split up, divided, boiled down into phonemes – destroying the enjoyment that they otherwise innately transpire. I can't tell you my resolute depression when, on visiting a nursery, I saw the wonderful Michael Rosen's Little Rabbit Foo Foo become Little Rabbit F /oo/ F /oo/! Are books only valid if they fit our phoneme of the week? Pah!

User avatar
Susan Godsland
Administrator
Posts: 4973
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:10 pm
Location: Exeter UK
Contact:

Re: I'm not against phonics BUT...

Post by Susan Godsland » Sun Dec 30, 2012 9:28 pm

http://katyboo1.wordpress.com/2012/06/18/fck-fonix/
Finally, I would say that I am not anti phonics. Oscar is learning to read using phonics, and it is giving him a fantastic structure from which to begin to make sense of words, but it is only a beginning.

He is five years old and has been at school for less than a year, yet he is already coming across words that do not respond to his phonetic patterns. He gets frustrated when words like cough, and bough, and dough and slough come up, and they do, because he will give any book a go. And what about words like phlegm for example? Phonics have given him the courage to make a start, but now he needs other tools to deal with these trickier words, and who is going to provide them if the government mandate that schools must only teach phonics at the expense of everything else?

User avatar
Debbie Hepplewhite
Administrator
Posts: 3653
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 4:13 pm
Location: Berkshire
Contact:

Re: I'm not against phonics BUT...

Post by Debbie Hepplewhite » Mon Dec 31, 2012 1:58 am

Oscar's mum could do with this phonics technique when he encounters the words she 'suggests' that he is encountering in his reading (really?!!!!)...

http://www.phonicsinternational.com/FR_PI_straight.pdf

;-)

Penny
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 8:06 am

Re: I'm not against phonics BUT...

Post by Penny » Mon Dec 31, 2012 9:51 am

Hello

My name is Penny and I am the author of the first blog that is mentioned at the beginning of this thread.

I was alerted to it because I noticed a couple of viewers of the blog had come from a link from this this site, so naturally I checked it out.

I have this morning written a response on my blog http://pennysplacechildminding.com/2012 ... ion-forum/

but for those of you without the time or inclination to click on the link - I am objecting to way this thread was started - ie with the words - 'usually dadt reasons' and to quotes that are out of context.

I acknowledge that a link has been provided so that those that wish to can read the whole blog - but I consider it inappropriate to use the word daft and to quote out of context - even if 'for fun'

Personally I think if anyone wishes to disagree with an expressed opinion - they should state their own opinion and the reasons why they disagree with other opinions.

I am not against difference of opinion or debate - but I consider to have a thread such as this to be unprofessional, labeling others views as 'daft' and quoting out of context without the benefit of debate or expressing own opinion.

User avatar
Susan Godsland
Administrator
Posts: 4973
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:10 pm
Location: Exeter UK
Contact:

Re: I'm not against phonics BUT...

Post by Susan Godsland » Mon Dec 31, 2012 9:58 am

Penny -see OP -has done a blog on this thread.
However what I object to is the statement about why they are doing their blog because it ends with the words – ‘ usually daft excuses’ and quote just a short sentence from my blog – which is out of context.

To be fair they have included a link to my blog – so people can read the whole blog if they want to, but by using the word ‘daft’ they are suggesting that the authors of the sites they have quoted from (and I am not the only one), do not have a valid viewpoint, – when in fact all viewpoints are valid, and everyone can disagree with views expressed – there is no obligation to agree with everyone!

I am not against debate or against difference of opinion – but I consider ‘daft’ to be an inappropriate way of describing other people’s views. I put in in the same bracket as ‘stupid’ and as such find it offensive.
http://pennysplacechildminding.com/2012 ... ion-forum/

I'm sorry if I upset you Penny. I thought 'daft' was actually a gentle term. I have changed the wording and removed your quote. Now you are a member I hope you will continue to follow us -and contribute to various threads in the future. We welcome all points of view.

Oh just seen that we've cross posted.

geraldinecarter
Posts: 990
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 6:40 pm

Re: I'm not against phonics BUT...

Post by geraldinecarter » Mon Dec 31, 2012 10:09 am

I agree with much of what Phoebe Nichols(?) says - we shouldn't distroy good children's literature in the same way we shouldn't be forcing young children into genre territory. Phonics is a wonderful lower-order skills' tool that is absoluteley essential for the struggling 20$ and a good tool to help children to spell. But there are many children from poorer backgrounds who do not have the experience of book-filled homes and desperately need the experience of books being read to them without being used as functional tools.Who would blame her for being shocked that a beautiful book by Michael Rosen could be destroyed in this way? Poorer children will have 30,000 to 50,000 less words that they understand than their more privileged peers. Unless we help to bridge the divide by being more aware of the power of children's literature we'll condemn many children to a very limited diet . At the other end, there are voracious readers age 5 who feel desperate when they are force-fed a diet of two-dimensioual readers - a little termly check on their phonics skills would quickly reveal whether they can decode efficiently.
The author of the Phonics Blog also has a very good response to the article.

Penny
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 8:06 am

Re: I'm not against phonics BUT...

Post by Penny » Mon Dec 31, 2012 10:27 am

Susan Godsland wrote:Penny -see OP -has done a blog on this thread.
However what I object to is the statement about why they are doing their blog because it ends with the words – ‘ usually daft excuses’ and quote just a short sentence from my blog – which is out of context.

To be fair they have included a link to my blog – so people can read the whole blog if they want to, but by using the word ‘daft’ they are suggesting that the authors of the sites they have quoted from (and I am not the only one), do not have a valid viewpoint, – when in fact all viewpoints are valid, and everyone can disagree with views expressed – there is no obligation to agree with everyone!

I am not against debate or against difference of opinion – but I consider ‘daft’ to be an inappropriate way of describing other people’s views. I put in in the same bracket as ‘stupid’ and as such find it offensive.
http://pennysplacechildminding.com/2012 ... ion-forum/

I'm sorry if I upset you Penny. I thought 'daft' was actually a gentle term. I have changed the wording and removed your quote. Now you are a member I hope you will continue to follow us -and contribute to various threads in the future. We welcome all points of view.

Oh just seen that we've cross posted.
Thank you for changing the wording and removing the word daft. I will (when time allows) visit the site again as I do value debate and think that through questioning and debate ones own opinion can sometimes be adapted in light of new ideas or information

I will of course now update my blog to acknowledge your response and removal of the word daft.

User avatar
Susan Godsland
Administrator
Posts: 4973
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:10 pm
Location: Exeter UK
Contact:

Re: I'm not against phonics BUT...

Post by Susan Godsland » Mon Dec 31, 2012 10:54 am

Re. Phoebe Doyle's piece quoted above, John Walker blogged on it at the time:

http://literacyblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012 ... chers.html

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests