Synthetic Phonics

Yes - I think it is pretty daft. Under this system the word "are" is listed as a rogue word because it is not the usual sound that an "a" makes.

Interestingly, good readers tend to "fail" phonics tests, because they are streets ahead and using both phonics and simple word recognition.

It is definitely a bit barmy - but I am told that it helps slow readers.

I think it's barmy - any new word is a challenge to a child learning to read.
The English language has so many vagaries and different pronunciations of words that appear to look the same that any word in a test like that could be a real word, and words which are 'real' could look like nonsense.

Have you looked to see if Mumsnet has a thread on this Mi60Mi

Perhaps a parents' rebellion is due?

The problem with synthetic phonics is that human beings learn by trying to make sense of the world around them. And if something doesn't make sense, they try to adjust it so that it does. So if children see a set of letters that make up a non-word, they may become confused and replace it with a real word.

I'm not quite sure what the procedure is in schools but if these non-words are presented to children on the basis that they are non-words and they are only expected to pronounce them, I wonder if it would create as much confusion? If they are mixed in with "real" words, I can see that it would be confusing.

I can't really recall exactly how I learned to read but I think it was a mixture of "sounding out" (phonics), whole word recognition and picking up certain context cues. I would imagine most good teachers would encourage children to use a combination of techniques to help them read more fluently and with more understanding.

The school I go to has some books which highlight words that cannot be phonically de-coded so that children are not frustrated by trying to sound them out. This is a relatively low income area but most of the children seem to be doing quite well and seem to be very happy in class.

I taught remedial reading for a few years, and at one school had to use the Janet and John phonic scheme, with its lists of phonically spelt words at the back, some of which were meaningless. The poor kids weren't allowed to move onto the next book until they could read these (not my idea, the HT's.)
Enough to put them off reading altogether.
On the other hand, the ITA method was popular at one time, and quite successful, and that's purely phonic. The problem is the transfer to OT eventually.
As said above, a combination of phonic and look and say is probably best. Children need some some phonic knowledge to tackle new words.
I remember getting stuck reading "are" , as a child.

I find it upsetting that my GD, who has been 'reading' books using the pictures for at least 2 years and who is ready to read words is being held up by having to learn 'Synthetic Phonics'. This involves learning to blend together 44 different sounds to create words and non words followed by spelling tests. It excludes word recognition, learning key words, use of pictures and reading for meaning.......in fact it isn't reading at all, strictly speaking. It may help children who have specific difficulties but I think it is unecessary for children of normal intelligence who already enjoy books and stories. It could be enough to put them off reading as it is just a mechanical process. Glad to see several of you agree with me. Yes I'll have a look on Mumsnet.

Good grief, are we going round that circuit again? I thought it was buried years ago.

It's part of the 'National Curriculum' rolled out across the country in September 2014.

Well if that's the case Mi60Mi then it's working well in practice. I had two GC start school, at different schools, in September 2014 and both were reading fluently by the end of reception. And I mean fluently.

That's especially interesting as one, the boy, is a July birthday so was only 5 in the week they broke up for summer.

They didn't just learn through phonics though, each had a reading wall of words, to learn each week, by what I used to call the 'look and say' method, which presumably are these 'rogue' words someone mentioned??

And it must have rolled forward into writing as they can both write good stories, with well formed letters and pretty good stabs at spelling some difficult words.

DS3 did fail that phonics test at the end of year 1, although he was a good reader. I'm sure he just didn't see the point of all the 'nonsense' words as he is something of an independent thinker!

Children learn to read in different ways. They have different learning styles. Drilling them en mass will only work for some whilst switch off. I taught reading for 28 years, we used letter names and sounds, combinations of letters and word patterns and pictures. Letter Land was popular with the under 5s, but my new Head banned it! I never knew how they learned and apparently neither do experts. One parent said to me, he is doing well with his reading, you are teaching him well. I replied well I thought it was all coming from you at home.- he was a natural, but you don't get many like that. As in all professions you see new magical fads come and go. You try to tell the experts that this has been tried before, but they always know better. They are always re-inventing the wheel.

missed out 'others' between 'whilst and switch' and I whish there was a spell check on here.

I think it was made compulsory across England and Wales in 2007, so it has been going for 8 years.

www.getreadingright.co.uk/synthetic-phonics-research

Below is a link to a seven year study in Scotland on the effects of synthetic phonics:
www.gov.scot/Publications/2005/02/20682/52383

Well that looks like a resounding thumbs up for the method rose. It also somewhat backs up my own mini experience inasmuch as I'd expected my GD to do well, being one of the oldest in her year, a girl and an attentive student. Whereas my GS, was one of the youngest, a boy and still at bit of a fidgety and restless type and I was surprised at his progress.

The report seems to suggest that this programme works especially well for boys.

I get the impression that some people are confusing this with ITA, a phonics scheme tried in the 1960s which fell into disrepute for good reason.

I must admit I was concerned about it, particularly as DGD is the youngest in her year; she did get a bit frustrated at first with reading but was flying away after a slightly worrying start.

I remember a different phonics scheme from years ago, friend's daughter was taught that way whereas my DD was taught by a traditional method at a school in the same village!
That would have been in the late 1970s

synthetic phomics only begins with one grapheme(spelling) for each of the 44 phonemes, then goes on to introduce the other ways of spelling each sound.

worked well for ds.

ITA was still going in 75 in some places. ex had to relearn to read using it. I do not think he was very impressed with it.

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Did you write that book? You are very keen to promote it! So are your friends Debbie and Lena.

This must be the new ‘working from home’ Elegran
?