Sight words?

[ChristusG]

I'm on a mommy board that I've been on since I was pregnant with my oldest. All of our babies are kindergarteners now. They are all talking about how their kids are starting to read sight words (public school).

 

Well.....I'm not teaching sight words. I feel they are useless. We started going through the Get Ready, Get Set, Go for the Code books with my 5 year old DD. We began them last year for preschool and we're continuing through them (we are at the end of book 2) this year for K. We're learning a letter a week. We're learning how to recognize that letter, writing that letter (both capital and lowercase), as well as learning the sound that the letter makes. When we have learned all the letter sounds, we will move on to putting the sounds together.

 

Am I doing this right? I mean, in my mind sight words are useless.....why even teach them?

[zaichiki]

Phonics rocks!

Don't worry about the others.

[OrganicAnn]

I think in TWTM it recommends that you teach about 10 or so common words that some would call sight words. Just because you teach some common words that help kids start to read books, like 'the' and 'and' doesn't mean you can't sound them out. These are words that probably you wouldn't get to early in the process just based on phonetic progression, but are just useful.

[Ellie]

Yeah, public schools are such good role models for how to teach children to be literate.:tongue_smilie:

 

You keep up the good work of teaching phonics. And if your friends say anything, recommend that they read "Why Johnny Still Can't Read."

[ChristusG]

Thanks for the reassurance everyone!! This is my first go-round in the homeschool world since my oldst just started K, so I wanted to make sure I'm on the right track. :D

[NorthwestMom]

I do believe that sight words have a place. Many very common words do not sound like they look to a very early reader, but are critical for understanding - words like "the", "you", "was" etc, really can't be sounded out. I believe in memorizing these type of words. That way, the child can focus on sounding out the words with easily applicable phonic rules. It makes the early phase of acquisition of reading skills a lot easier, in my experience. I am a true believer in a thorough knowledge of phonics, btw.

[Imprimis]

I do teach some sight words in addition to our phonics instruction. My youngest is doing Horizons Math 1 and has had to learn number words that are not phonetic (one, two, etc.), plus the words "the, was, is, they," and other common sight words that I feel are necessary for a child to read.

 

Basically, we focus on phonics, but I do think there are a handful of sight words that are important to learn.

[KarenNC]

I agree with the earlier posters---there are commonly used words that beginning readers are going to need well before most programs teach them phonetically if they are going to read almost any story. These words are simply needed in order to give even a basic flow to a story. I don't see that teaching recognition of words like "I", "you", "the", "mother", "said", "he", "she", "play", etc are any more detrimental to a child's development or "anti-phonics" than teaching them to recognize their own names, names of siblings, pets, etc (many of which include sound combinations not taught at the beginning levels of phonics programs). This is not "whole language instruction" in the sense that it is used in some schools.

 

We loved and used ETC, along with basic sight words and even...shhhhhh!......Dick and Jane;):leaving:

[Lovedtodeath]

Information on teaching sight words as wholes.

You can also teach the sight words phonetically.

[ElizabethB]

They're worse than useless--they make it harder to learn phonics.

 

All my remedial students were taught with the Dolch sight words (a few early students were taught with 100% whole word methods, the Dolch words and then every word after that), it's much harder to remediate than to teach it right the first time, you have to work hard and do a lot of nonsense words to break the guessing habits.

 

I've given out hundreds of reading grade level tests, I have yet to find a poor student who was taught with a good phonics program and few sight words. Schools that teach with 100% whole word methods, about 60% of the students had problems, school that teach with the Dolch sight words and phonics mixed together generally have 30 to 40% of students with reading problems.

 

Most homeschoolers pick good programs with few sight words, but a few have taught with more sight words and have had to use my lessons and remediation recommendations.

 

It's crazy that they're still being taught--most of them are phonetic and they were developed by the same people that developed whole word methods, they're the most frequent words in children's language, not the most irregular, they should not be taught by sight, it's much easier in the long run to teach them phonetically. However, young children memorize things easily and there is the appearance of faster reading progress initially because the Dolch sight words are 50% of the words in common text and 70 to 90% of the words in children's books, especially ones specially crafted to use those words often. By year's end, though, most children taught with phonics will be reading much better than those taught with a mix of the two.

 

I do teach some sight words in addition to our phonics instruction. My youngest is doing Horizons Math 1 and has had to learn number words that are not phonetic (one, two, etc.), plus the words "the, was, is, they," and other common sight words that I feel are necessary for a child to read.

 

Basically, we focus on phonics, but I do think there are a handful of sight words that are important to learn.

 

You can teach was, is, the, and they phonetically, and two if you really try hard, Lovedtodeath linked to it earlier, you can teach all but 5 of the most commonly taught 220 Dolch sight words phonetically with just a few rules (although at age 5, pattern is generally more useful than rule, teach a pattern of is, has, as.)

 

One is just crazy, but I teach the pattern of one, once.

Edited September 24, 2009 by ElizabethB

[Lovedtodeath]

 

They're worse than useless--they make it harder to learn phonics.

Hi Elizabeth. I hope you don't mind that I searched your posts for those links.;)

[ElizabethB]

Hi Elizabeth. I hope you don't mind that I searched your posts for those links.;)

 

I appreciate it the links!

 

It breaks my heart to see people having trouble reading from an easily preventable cause, and such a simple change to make, just teach a few more words phonetically, I'd love it if more people got the word out.

 

Anyone who doesn't believe it's true can hand out a bunch of reading grade level test themselves and see! (And, the group of people I give out tests to is almost entirely the children of military officers, so they are all within a very similar socio-economic range and have similar outlooks towards school and similar backgrounds and experiences. Also, all officers are required to have a degree, so that is a constant.) I did think I had one failure from a Catholic school that taught with a good program, but later found out that the child transferred in from a school that taught with sight words. I also had one child who attended a public school with a good program, but I was informed from the beginning that she had been a transfer student as well.

[thowell]

:iagree: I was just going to suggest that you talk to Elizabeth B. Her program has worked wonders foe us!

[thescrappyhomeschooler]

I do believe that sight words have a place. Many very common words do not sound like they look to a very early reader, but are critical for understanding - words like "the", "you", "was" etc, really can't be sounded out. I believe in memorizing these type of words. That way, the child can focus on sounding out the words with easily applicable phonic rules. It makes the early phase of acquisition of reading skills a lot easier, in my experience. I am a true believer in a thorough knowledge of phonics, btw.

 

:iagree: There are words that can't be sounded out with your normal phonics rules, so I consider those sight words and have the boys memorize them. Though, last year, ds6's kindergarten teacher gave me a list of "sight words" that they were supposed to know by the end of 1st grade. Ds already knew all the words, and he even asked me why they were sight words when you could sound them out. There were a few true sight words on it, but most of the 200-odd words could be read phonetically.

[DarlaS]

I believe you are talking about the Dolch word list? "Sight" words is a misnomer. They are high frequency words (220 most common words in the English language).

 

Use phonics to teach them rather than just memorizing, but being aware of those common words & putting just a little extra focus on them can't possibly hurt. Once they know those words, it helps with fluency.

 

FWIW, I can see why we have people rabidly in favor of phonics. I love phonics myself, but some kids (might be rarely but it does happen) learn better with phonics being emphasized a little less. Some kids just don't fit the phonics mold. None of mine have gotten through a complete phonics program for reading instruction. They all got ahead of me. Probably my habit of having books everywhere and reading to them several times a day...

 

I had one child teach himself to read before preschool just from being read to. He clearly did not learn with phonics (very very little at best). He almost from the beginning could read very well and is an excellent speller.

[hornblower]

I have two children who both, probably due to some organic reasons, were struggling and late readers.

I eventually used a combo of 'sight' & phonics. I'm putting sight in quotes because while some are not readily decodable, others are but they're necessary to learn fast simply because they're high frequency words.

 

I use the Key Words series from Ladybird for the 'sight' words.

http://www.ladybird.co.uk/adviceandresources/learningtoread/keywords.html

 

My exp was that in combination with phonics (Phonics Pathways would be my first choice) teaching the key words worked very well.

[cougarmom4]

I don't view 'sight' words as bad things...I think it's kind of silly how freaked out people get by hearing of a program who uses 'sight' words. Having said that, I'd say it probably depends on the child using the program though--some may have a more difficult time with them than others. But I think a combined approach is beneficial...in my experience it has been extremely helpful to focus a bit on the high freqency words.

[shinyhappypeople]

I don't view 'sight' words as bad things...I think it's kind of silly how freaked out people get by hearing of a program who uses 'sight' words. Having said that, I'd say it probably depends on the child using the program though--some may have a more difficult time with them than others. But I think a combined approach is beneficial...in my experience it has been extremely helpful to focus a bit on the high freqency words.

 

:iagree: Learning a few key sight words means that DD can read real books earlier (currently, this means the Fancy Nancy early readers :D ) which motivates her to want to read. A strictly phonics approach would be a disaster.

 

I wonder if this is just a difference between "parts" people and "big picture" people. DD1 and I are "big picture" people. Show us the whole thing and then break it down. If I'm presented with the parts FIRST without the big picture it drives me NUTS. However, I can see how some kids might be "parts" people and find "big picture" (not pure phonics) teaching confusing. To each her own...

[Lovedtodeath]

Traditional phonics programs are slow to get DC started reading real books. On the other hand, vertical phonics gets all of the phonograms and rules covered so that when it clicks they are reading nearly everything, not just basic CVC words. That is how to avoid teaching words by sight. Instead of holding your child back to CVC words until blending clicks, get it all in there. Teach how to sound out the sight words phonetically.

 

The problem is not with a phonetical approach. The prblem is with how slow moving most programs and teachers are when teaching phonics.

[Ellie]

I do believe that sight words have a place. Many very common words do not sound like they look to a very early reader, but are critical for understanding - words like "the", "you", "was" etc, really can't be sounded out. I believe in memorizing these type of words. That way, the child can focus on sounding out the words with easily applicable phonic rules. It makes the early phase of acquisition of reading skills a lot easier, in my experience. I am a true believer in a thorough knowledge of phonics, btw.

Yes, as a matter of fact, "the," "you," and "was" *can* be sounded out. Spalding, SWR, and other similar programs teach these words early on, not as sight words but as words that be decoded, without merely memorizing them. Children being taught by these methods are not the least confused to learn, for example, that "ou" has four sounds, one of which is used in "you;" that "th" has two sounds, the second of which is used in "the," and that the "a" in "was" has a proper pronunciation but that many of us slur it into a different sound (they also learn that "s" has two sounds, /s/ and /z/).

[ElizabethB]

Yes, as a matter of fact, "the," "you," and "was" *can* be sounded out. Spalding, SWR, and other similar programs teach these words early on, not as sight words but as words that be decoded, without merely memorizing them. Children being taught by these methods are not the least confused to learn, for example, that "ou" has four sounds, one of which is used in "you;" that "th" has two sounds, the second of which is used in "the," and that the "a" in "was" has a proper pronunciation but that many of us slur it into a different sound (they also learn that "s" has two sounds, /s/ and /z/).

 

:iagree:

 

I don't teach them by sight, either.

 

The is pronounced long like be and me before words ending starting with a vowel "the end." Before words starting with a consonant, it is mushed (my word for schwa, my students understand it and like it) to an uh sound as in "the bears."

[Lovedtodeath]

 

Yes, as a matter of fact, "the," "you," and "was" *can* be sounded out. Spalding, SWR, and other similar programs teach these words early on, not as sight words but as words that be decoded, without merely memorizing them. Children being taught by these methods are not the least confused to learn, for example, that "ou" has four sounds, one of which is used in "you;" that "th" has two sounds, the second of which is used in "the," and that the "a" in "was" has a proper pronunciation but that many of us slur it into a different sound (they also learn that "s" has two sounds, /s/ and /z/).

Yes, that is what I was trying to explain!

[ElizabethB]

To the posters that wondered why not teach sight words and why it's such a big deal, here's my history and how some of my students have fared with sight words:

 

(Also, I challenge you to give reading grade level tests to 100 children, 50 who are taught with the Dolch sight words and phonics, and 50 who are taught with a good program like PP with few sight words and then see if you think sight words are a good idea. Some children do fine when taught them, but 30 to 40% have trouble, and it impacts their whole educational experience and their self-confidence.)

 

History:

 

1. In 1994 I started tutoring students taught with whole word methods, used whole word methods myself at the advice of the literacy organization I was working with. I switched to phonics after 1 month and made more progress in the first lesson than in the previous month of whole word methods!

 

2. Got many more students, didn't think a few sight words were bad but never taught them myself, it was easier to teach them phonetically. Started giving out reading grade level tests to every student I met.

 

3. Started to notice a correlation between those taught with sight words and reading problems.

 

4. After 15 years of tutoring, I've not yet found a problem with any student taught with phonics and few sight words (I believe that there are a few truly dyslexic students out there, but I have not yet personally encountered any.)

 

5. All of my remedial students have had very low self confidence, thought they were stupid, and their poor reading skills have impacted the rest of their education. None of them has ever read a book on their own prior to my tutoring.

 

It is very painful to remediate. It takes way more work than teaching right from the start. Some of my students have taken a year of solid work to get up to grade level, and only a few of them have been able to read above grade level after tutoring. (All of them have been my students since I've found Webster's Speller and started using that!) Many students taught to read with phonics and few sight words are reading above grade level.

[hornblower]

I don't argue for teaching reading purely by sight. I just think it's more efficient to teach the high frequency words rather than to teach them as 'exceptions' or as 'well, this digraph has 4 possible sounds'..... I come back to all that later so that they can sound out pretty much anything later on, but at the beginning I think it's faster to just memorize the high frequency words which are often (but not always) weird exceptions to the general phonic rules.

 

I don't see anyone advocating a purely sight approach. I do think mixing the two methods is ideal. For us, doing both at the same time worked best.

[ElizabethB]

I agree with Elle and Lovedtodeath, Reading Reform Foundation of England has a term for it, "Phonics First and Phonics Fast."

 

I like Spalding and SWR if done well, but if done poorly, since the words chosen are frequent words, it can lead to reading words by sight. Don Potter has found many of his remedial students from poorly taught Spalding children. I've never found a child taught with Spalding.

 

I personally like to work quickly through all the phonics needed to read anything, teaching all the sounds and not working on sentences or stories, then going back to review anything that didn't catch the first time. I've also found that learning spelling along with the phonics really cements the phonics in the brain and leads to a higher level of learning.

[shinyhappypeople]

(Also, I challenge you to give reading grade level tests to 100 children, 50 who are taught with the Dolch sight words and phonics, and 50 who are taught with a good program like PP with few sight words and then see if you think sight words are a good idea. Some children do fine when taught them, but 30 to 40% have trouble, and it impacts their whole educational experience and their self-confidence.)

 

 

But, happily, I'm not charged with the task of teaching 100 children. With only 2 kids, I can customize. DD1 does best with a combination. DD2... well, we'll see. :001_smile:

 

I find myself repelled by arguments saying that one method is THE best method for ALL kids. I don't need the best method for ALL kids. Just the best method for mine. That's one reason I love homeschooling :001_smile:

[johnandtinagilbert]

I am currently working with a student who was taught via Dolch and while he can recognize words well, he couldn't sound out a thing, nor could he spell anything besides what was on his memorized list. He had no idea why he was writing what he wrote, only that he knew what the letters were. While he was proud of himself about being able to read, it didn't translate to Real success, as he was stifled if he picked up a book that was increasing in difficultly.

 

After 4 weeks of intense phonics (from the Phonics Road), he can sound out anything and understands the connection between reading, writing and spelling. Four weeks has made all the difference. Actually, it took until this week to see the light go on for the connection in reading, phonics rules, and spelling. He's now willing to pick up challenging books and step away from reading "easy" selections.

 

I totally agree it's about the appearance of reading for ps. By Christmas your child can read x number of words....woopidy doo...by the end of Phonics Road, my child can read any word you put in front of him, understands how syllables change sounds, knows the sounds letter teams make and can decode until the word makes sense via his oral vocabulary. Can you tell I've grown to be a staunch supporter of phonics instructions? :001_smile:

 

I didn't focus on my oldest three in this way...and we paid for it. One of the three is a natural reader and speller, while the other two, not so much. We actually went back to focus on phonics rules and found improvements in reading, spelling and writing, as they were more apt to use a variety of words and attempt to spell them using the rules, instead of sticking to the basic words they had memorized.

 

GO phonics!

[FO4UR]

I use SWR. I agree with the "Phonics First and Fast" sentiment.:iagree:

 

Teach the Dolche list if you want, but *teach* the words! (don't just memorize)

 

As far as handling comments from friends, bean dip is good stuff!;)

[Shay]

I work with many struggling kindergarteners and I'd have to say the best approach is to teach them to sound out the high-frequency words. The program I use introduces "th" "ee" "wh" quite early and this steps around the need to "memorize" many kindergarten sight words.

 

The real problem, as I see it, is that by teaching the kids early on that "you just look at the word and know it" establishes a bad habit. Most of my problems readers are "guessers." I have to establish a "read through the whole word" habit. Of course, many, many children just glide through with no problems, no bruises, and they are readers. But, the real strugglers have to be hand-held.

 

The problem with some sight words in kindergarten is that they are absolutely useless IMHO. What use is it that the kiddo recognizes the number words "two, eight, four?" Better to work on the concepts. What real use is it to recognize color words "brown, orange, pink?" Yet, these are the sight-words many kindergarteners are hit with first.

 

Most strugglers I've seen fall flat on their face if presented with the task of learning all 26 letters before they ever are asked to blend a word with them. Some kids, I've come to believe, have to have phonics introduced very slowly. For these, it is best to use a program that introduces a few high-utility letters, teaches blending and spelling with them, then adds another (and lots of practice). And so on you go.

 

When my students get to the word "what," they have already been taught /wh/. I have them sound it out and they say "wh -a (short a sound)- t. They look at me funny and say "what??" I just tell them when we talk, we say it fast and turn it to "whut." They *all* respond to this and usually self-correct after a few tries. For spelling, they just need to "think" wh-a-t.

 

I couldn't avoid a topic like this today, after I was asked to work with a new kindergartner on spelling his "number words." :001_unsure:

 

Enough rambling, LOL.

[vkay]

:iagree: I teach phonics, but always have used it along with sight words in the beginning. You *could* wait to learn them when they show up in your phonics lessons, but it usually takes a while to get there - meanwhile your dc are missing out on some fun readers that they can feel good about reading.

[KarenNC]

My perspective re: the "sight" or high frequency words is as follows. Here is the sequence for the Explode the Code books:

 

Grades K–4

Books 1 and 1 ½

Consonant review

Short vowel sounds

 

Books 2 and 2 ½

Initial and final consonant blends

 

Books 3 and 3 ½

Long vowels including silent -e

Digraphs (sh, th, wh, ch, ng, ck)

Trigraphs (-tch)

Vowel digraphs (ee-ea, ai-ay, oa-ow)

 

Books 4 and 4 ½

Compound words

Common endings (-ful, -ing, -est, -ed, -ness)

Syllable types (open, closed, ending in -y and -le, diphthong, and three-syllable words

 

Books 5 and 5 ½

Word families (all-alk, old-olt-oll, ild-ind, qu words)

3-letter blends (thr, shr, scr, str, spr, spi)

Diphthong -ey

Three sounds of -ed

 

Books 6 and 6 ½

r-controlled vowels (ar, or, er, ir, ur)

Diphthongs (oo, oi-oy, ou-ow, au-aw, ew-ui-ue-ou)

Vowel digraphs (ea, ie, igh)

 

Book 7

Soft c and g

Silent consonants

Word patterns (ear, ei, eigh)

Digraph ph

 

Book 8

Advanced suffixes and endings

 

Each of these books is expected to last up to a full semester. Even starting at age 4 with the pre-primers for consonants (and going at her pace), we were not finished with all the whole number books until the 2nd grade year. We didn't need the 1/2 books. Under this sequence, assuming one refuses to teach *any* words out of sequence from the rules in their program (which is what I hear when I hear folks adamantly against anything but pure phonics, no sight words *ever*) , the child will not encounter:

"I", "he", "she", "the", "three", "said" or "me" until book 3,

"they" until book 5,

"you", "good", "night", "mother" or "father" until book 6

and so on. Who knows when they will be allowed to look at and learn how to read their own name. I really don't know what sort of books these kids will be able to then read and understand before potentially 2nd grade.

 

In the real world, what I believe often happens is that kids who are read to and who are taught with phonics are going to *on their own* start recognizing some of these high frequency words by sight just because they are exposed to them in so much material (presuming they are allowed to look at real "living" books with real stories that might contain words from phonics rules they haven't yet studied, not just readers created solely for use with their program).

 

I decided I could wait for that to happen (and slow down her fluency, confidence and competence with even very easy books leading to a great deal of needless frustration), force her to wait until we got to that rule in the book, perhaps a year or two down the road (even worse frustration) or, every time I came across these words or she asked, I could say "this word is _____" and have a much happier child and more productive reading lessons. Yes, I even used flashcards for some of these. From what I can tell from some posts, this means that I was indeed using "sight" words and dooming my child to a lifetime of inability to sound out anything, if not actively causing her to develop dyslexia and other problems.

 

She is now in 4th grade. She has not only not developed dyslexia from knowing these words before we got to the rule for it, she has consistently tested many grades ahead of her age in reading comprehension, decoding, spelling and vocabulary on the Woodcock Johnson III.

 

I don't think we do a service to homeschoolers who are just beginning with young children to present anything as an "all or nothing" iron-clad position in regards to teaching their children. I no more advocate teaching every word by sight than I do every word only by sounding out after one has studied that rule. I advocate common sense and using what works for your child from the continuum of strategies available.

Edited September 24, 2009 by KarenNC

[ElizabethB]

I like ETC for practice, but not as a primary program, it moves too slow.

 

With Blend Phonics or 100EZ lessons or the first bit of PP or OPG, you can get them reading almost any book in 3 months!

 

With Webster's Speller, my daughter was reading out of the KJV Bible after 5 months.

 

It only takes a handful of rules and patterns to teach all but 5 of the most commonly taught sight words phonetically, I show how on my sight word page. If people are going to teach them early on, it's easy to do it phonetically with only a few minutes more work. I don't teach them out of order because my remedial students have made me paranoid--I've seen the damage just 220 sight words can do.

 

My remedial students are so damaged that I just want to make sure no one else has to suffer what some of them go through--some of them remediate quickly, the 4 weeks johnandtinagilbert was talking about, some take years of painful remedial work.

 

Around 60 to 70% of children end up fine when taught with sight words. But, 30 to 40% are not, and that's a pretty large percentage, I personally don't think it is worth the risk for a month or two earlier reading books when you can finish out phonics quickly if you choose a good program and teach all the sounds quickly.

Edited September 24, 2009 by ElizabethB

[ElizabethB]

While I don't agree with everything at Children of the Mind (they don't realize that it's actually not rocket science to teach phonics with the right program and that millions of homeschool parents are doing a better job of teaching reading than many certified teachers because most of them choose good programs like PP or OPG), their videos on shame capture just how much a poor reader can be impacted, this is life for many of my remedial students.

 

Watch a few of their shame videos and see if your heart doesn't break for these children and if you wouldn't want to warn people away from sight words at all costs:

 

(Shame videos are about halfway down the page, in the picture of the brain)

 

http://www.childrenofthecode.org/Tour/index.htm

Edited September 24, 2009 by ElizabethB

[KarenNC]

With Blend Phonics or 100EZ lessons or the first bit of PP or OPG, you can get them reading almost any book in 3 months!

 

My girlfriend (my role model for homeschooling when I started as her son was 5 years older) used 100 EZ lessons and it was a breeze. Others have raved about PP. Unfortunately, I tried both PP and 100EZ Lessons (OPG wasn't out and I'm not familiar with Blend Phonics). Both were abject failures at our house, eliciting all kinds of crying, fighting and resistance. Life was incredibly miserable with a child who actively *wanted* to learn to read very badly but was so frustrated with those programs she couldn't stand it (nor could I!). We would not have had her reading anything in 3 months with those programs--more like taking days of misery to get through one lesson. ETC, on the other hand, was cheerfully brought to me from the beginning with requests of "can't we just do a little more" and "this is my favorite".

 

My point is not to say that any of those programs are inherently bad, but that they were bad fits *for my child.* I am glad I had the confidence even as a novice homeschooler to move on to something else or adapt curricula to be a better fit despite all the posts that "x" program was the "best" or the "only" way to do it if I wanted my child to succeed (and even in opposition to the recommendations from TWTM:eek:).

 

There's a continuum in everything and I think we would do better to encourage novice hsers to realize that it's okay to take folks' experiences and consider them in light of their own situation, then do what is working or makes sense to them even if it isn't the most popular choice in any given group.

[Lovedtodeath]

But, happily, I'm not charged with the task of teaching 100 children. With only 2 kids, I can customize. DD1 does best with a combination. DD2... well, we'll see. :001_smile:

 

I find myself repelled by arguments saying that one method is THE best method for ALL kids. I don't need the best method for ALL kids. Just the best method for mine. That's one reason I love homeschooling :001_smile:

{Hesitantly} You don't know if she does best with that. Children who have problems from too many sight words or bad habits of sight reading usually do well until they hit between 3rd and 6th grade work when more difficult words come up frequently in their reading.

 

We don't know how many sight words anyone is talking about here, though. Some good programs like Phonics Pathways and OPG do have some sight words.

 

I prefer to skip them, personally, and it is a must if you are remediating. DD was reading so much better before I sent her for 6 months of PS K. Why don't they teach phonics in PS K? Why oh WHY!!:confused: She is just now back to where she was before that and making progress. It took me 18 months to get her back to where she is after that stupid sight reading in PS.

 

She was reading before she turned 3. At 3rd grade level at 5 before K, and reading the SL 2 Regular Readers, I am just now able to get her the next level because of the lazy habits and horrible attitude caused by sight reading in K. I took her out in April, she turned 6 in July...

Edited September 25, 2009 by Lovedtodeath

[Lovedtodeath]

My girlfriend (my role model for homeschooling when I started as her son was 5 years older) used 100 EZ lessons and it was a breeze. Others have raved about PP. Unfortunately, I tried both PP and 100EZ Lessons (OPG wasn't out and I'm not familiar with Blend Phonics). Both were abject failures at our house, eliciting all kinds of crying, fighting and resistance. Life was incredibly miserable with a child who actively *wanted* to learn to read very badly but was so frustrated with those programs she couldn't stand it (nor could I!). We would not have had her reading anything in 3 months with those programs--more like taking days of misery to get through one lesson. ETC, on the other hand, was cheerfully brought to me from the beginning with requests of "can't we just do a little more" and "this is my favorite".

 

My point is not to say that any of those programs are inherently bad, but that they were bad fits *for my child.*

Of course these will not work for everyone. Point taken.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

:iagree: I teach phonics, but always have used it along with sight words in the beginning. You *could* wait to learn them when they show up in your phonics lessons, but it usually takes a while to get there - meanwhile your dc are missing out on some fun readers that they can feel good about reading.

You could also just teach them phonetically without waiting on a phonics program. Individual needs homeschooling at its best.

[SheWillFly]

We don't set out to teach high frequency words. My kindergartner entered K reading at easily a 1.5 grade level. So far with the sight words she has come home with they were ones that she knew from us working on phonics together.

 

My older daughter can't decode a word to save her life. My older was taught to read primarily by the public school. I tried at home but at the time wasn't aware of the resources to help me help her. As a result she primarily sight reads which means sometimes she just puts words in that she thinks might make sense when it isn't anything close to what the letters are actually saying. We spend a solid 30 minutes a night working on phonics because she is so frustrated by not being able to read the books she wants to read because she can't decode unknown words. :(

[Matryoshka]

You could also just teach them phonetically without waiting on a phonics program. Individual needs homeschooling at its best.

 

:iagree: I never taught a single sight word (well, I did explain the crazy word "one" - but I just mentioned it). If we came upon new words, I had them sound them out, and if the new word had new sounds, I told them what they were. I used Reading Reflex, which does things a little differently than many other phonics programs (sounds more similar to how Ellie was describing Spalding).

[ElizabethB]

My older daughter can't decode a word to save her life. My older was taught to read primarily by the public school. I tried at home but at the time wasn't aware of the resources to help me help her. As a result she primarily sight reads which means sometimes she just puts words in that she thinks might make sense when it isn't anything close to what the letters are actually saying. We spend a solid 30 minutes a night working on phonics because she is so frustrated by not being able to read the books she wants to read because she can't decode unknown words. :(

 

I'm sorry.

 

After working with children like her for a while, I have learned a few tricks that speed up the process, my first few students took much longer than the ones I work with now, on average, although every child learns at a different rate.

 

Here's what I've found to be the most helpful, hopefully they will speed up the process for you as well:

 

nonsense words

adding in a bit of spelling with the phonics

syllable division rules and syllables with Webster

 

(Since Webster, my students have been able to progress to much higher grade levels.)

 

My phonics concentration game makes both nonsense and real words. If you need more nonsense words, you can get James William's "We All Can Read: 3rd grade through adult"

 

My how to tutor page has instructions on how to add in spelling and syllables to Blend Phonics for a good review, and a gentle intro to Webster's Speller. It also has links to syllable division rules and exercises, this paragraph has all the links:

 

Your number one task is to get them to stop guessing and start sounding out each and every word from left to right. Nonsense words are key, they help prevent guessing. Here is a free website that generates nonsense words. Syllables are also helpful, I would use the Blend Phonics Reader (it helps show how guessing is a bad strategy by showing words with similar configuration together) followed by Webster’s Speller. Here is a step by step guide to using Blend Phonics that also adds in syllables, spelling and phonics rules, syllable division rules, and syllable division exercises. There are also readings from Hebrews 12 that can be added to show progress through the program.

[DawnL]

I'm new, too, and I'm using the Bob books for my kindergartener. It uses phonics, which I think are really important. we will work on a few site words, too, but phonics is the key to reading.

[RoughCollie]

Am I doing this right? I mean, in my mind sight words are useless.....why even teach them?

 

You are doing this right if it is working.

 

I taught all 4 of my kids to read. One of them needed to memorize the sight words. It really helped him to learn to read.

[Lovedtodeath]

What on earth does that tag mean?

[ElizabethB]

There was a bahr (bear) thread, then multiple ones asking what a bahr was.

 

However, bahr is actually a sight word! It's on the list of 95 Dolch nouns, not as many schools teach the Dolch nouns, but several do, here's the Dolch noun list:

 

http://www.mrsperkins.com/dolch-words-nouns.html