Are you a phonics purist?

[Kathleen in VA]

Just wondering about homeschoolers as a group. Do/did you use a purely phonetic approach when teaching beginning reading or do/did you mix it up with sight words or other methods? If you used another approach (please elaborate) what percentage would you say was phonics compared with the other approach. And lastly, if you used pure phonics did you run into glitches or problems or was it smooth sailing? Same with the other approaches, did you run into glitches or problems?

[BigMamaBird]

Ooooooh!

 

(((Listening Intently))))):bigear:

[Tap]

We combine phonics and sight words to build speed and understanding faster. We then tackle sight words within the phonics program as appropriate.

 

ETA: the sight words we use are only the basics... to, of, for etc. I don't use a whole language approach.

Edited October 14, 2009 by Tap, tap, tap

[Tree House Academy]

We did a combo. I am continuing with phonics even though my son is reading at a 3rd or so grade level because I think it is important to know those rules...especially as they later pertain to spelling.

 

My older son was taught in ps with sightwords only and his spelling is absolutely horrid. Horrid. And he struggles to sound out words. He has learned to read the first similar word that comes to mind and his phonics skills are lacking so much that he can't seem to even sound out the actual word. His reading, overall, is on level - but I worry as we continue on if he doesn't start to pick up those skills. They are lifelong - I remember sounding out LOTS of words as I read, Harry Potter, for instance. LOL

[keptwoman]

Well I'm fairly new to teaching reading, and I'll only get to do it once. Both boys learnt at school using whole language with a bit of phonics thrown in when they started to struggle. Because of watching the boys disasterous experience I'm fairly purist in my approach, no sight words. So far it's working great.

[Perry]

DD1: Her school taught reading with "balanced literature". She had terrible problems learning to read. I did my research, intervened with intensive phonics instruction, and within weeks she had made dramatic improvement. She has read above grade level since.

 

DD2. Learned my lesson after dd1. I started teaching her to read at age 3 with pure phonics, and it was very easy for her. She entered kdg reading at about 4th-5th grade reading level, and has read above grade level since.

 

DS. I was determined to teach him to read before he entered school, to avoid issues we had with dd1. He had great difficulty learning to read with phonics. When he entered kdg, he could still not identify letters or their sounds. He made no progress in kdg, but his teacher was not the least bit concerned. We switched to a private school for grades 1 and 2, where they used an Orton Gillingham (phonics) approach. He made slow but steady progress. Decoding improved, fluency was terrible. Back to ps for 3rd and 4th grade, where they gave up on phonics and concentrated on fluency. He made very little progress. I pulled him and homeschooled him for 5th grade. We had to go back and redo phonics, because he was guessing at everything. He made MAJOR progress in decoding and he can now decode most words. Fluency is still terrible, despite heavy concentration on fluency building. He is back in ps this year.

 

He has been tested and has rapid automatic naming deficit. If he had not had intensive phonics instruction I really don't think he'd be able to read at all.

Edited October 14, 2009 by Perry

[KidsHappen]

I used 100 Easy Lessons with all my children which use a combo approach. I wasn't happy with the way the presented some words but it worked and all my children read well now. Once they were reading I taught site words as special words that just had to be memorized. It has presented some problems with spelling though.

[kalanamak]

Yes. I was a sight-reading child and have (for my level of education) poor spelling. I wanted to avoid that. Kiddo's Papa has dyslexia. I wanted to avoid that. Kiddo has his own mind, however, and he'll hesitate on a word, I'll help him, than he knows it for the rest of the story, and perhaps next week. He is a sight word boy. BUT, and this is a big but, he does sound things out to spell, and he spells better than he reads. I don't think the phonics was a waste, even though he seems to be a sight reading kid.

[Matryoshka]

I never taught a single sight word. I may have explained that "one" was a crazy word you'd just have to remember was spelled crazy. But pretty much 100% sounding it out. I used Reading Reflex, which teaches a phonetic method that allows you to sound out more words logically and clearly than many other programs.

 

My kids also learned how to read in German almost simultaneously, and in Spanish not long after. No problems at all - they can sound out words in all three languages easily using the different phonetic rules of the three languages correctly.

[The Governess]

I used HOP which teaches some sight words so that they can start reading books very early on in the program. The sight words were never a problem for us, and many of them are taught again later using phonics. I don't think learning a few sight words is a bad thing. But I think that 99% of the focus of any reading program should be on phonics. So, I guess I'm not a purist, but I'm pretty close. :001_smile:

[LibraryLover]

I'm not.

 

A couple of my kids started reading well on their own at very young ages (one of mine was reading chapter books well beyond the simplicity of Magic Treehouse by age 6. There was a never a moment we dealt with CVC struggles, fi), before anyone tried to teach them. It wasn't about phonics, it was ...osmosis. I, nor my dh, had ever picked up a book and said, "B makes the Buh sound" but the child could read most anything by the time we realized the child was reading text and not memorizing it. What can you say about a 4 year old who has never been instructed in phonics, or even given a list of sight words, but can easily read the word 'official'?.

 

I think some kids need phonics instruction, some kids need a mix of experiences, and some kids learn to read with no phonics instruction whatsoever. Ime, learning to read is a mix of all sorts of things. It's absolutely not just about phonics.

Edited October 14, 2009 by LibraryLover

[Jean in Newcastle]

I used phonics with both of mine. But once they really "got it" they then took off and learned on their own - with a combination of sight words and phonics. My dd however, has some speech issues and I've had to go back to a heavy phonics refresher to help her through her difficulties. Phonics helps her with her speech because it focuses her attention on the actual sounds in the words instead of the ones that she thinks she "hears".

[hsmom3tn]

I'll be the weirdo here...

 

I didn't really use a phonics approach, other than teaching them what each letter sounds like and how to put the sounds together to sound out a word. And actually, most of that teaching came from a Richard Scarry learning video that they watched a few times.

 

They learned to read by reading. We played sight word Bingo a few times, but they mostly caught on to the sight words from reading them over and over again in the books. We started out with very easy readers with low word counts and progressed from there. It took a lot of practice and I had to spend a lot of time with them as they read to help them sound out some of the words. If a new sight word came up, I usually just had to tell them once or twice what it was and they remembered it.

 

I wanted them to be able to read independently as soon as possible. It worked, they all learned to read very quickly. One of my girls struggles a bit with spelling, but we can fix that. The other two spell very well.

 

I think the most important thing, though, is to read to them a lot. We have always done a lot of reading aloud. I read to them, they read to me and each other, and we listen to audio books. When DS was learning to read, he practiced a lot by reading to his sisters. This year we're focusing more on poetry and they've been enjoying reading their favorite poems aloud.

 

Another thing worth mentioning are the Read-Aloud Plays. Scholastic makes several books of these, but they are intended for a classroom so there are several parts to be filled. Well, we found that Steck-Vaughn (not sure if I spelled that right) publishes books of read-aloud plays written for just two students. My kids loved these.

[ElizabethB]

As you might have guessed, I'm totally a phonics purist---and have been driven more and more in that direction the longer I tutor and the more heartbreaking cases of harm from sight words I see.

 

I don't even teach them out of order, I'm so paranoid, but if you must teach them, it's so easy to spend a few extra minutes to teach the Dolch words phonetically, 70% of them are phonetic and a few extra rules or patterns (pattern is easier for a young child, rules for an older child) will teach the rest phonetically.

 

10 more minutes up front (30 max, really!) could save years worth of remedial frustration.

[staceyobu]

I'm not.

 

A couple of my kids started reading well on their own at very young ages (one of mine was reading chapter books well beyond the simplicity of Magic Treehouse by age 6. There was a never a moment we dealt with CVC struggles, fi), before anyone tried to teach them. It wasn't about phonics, it was ...osmosis. I, nor my dh, had ever picked up a book and said, "B makes the Buh sound" but the child could read most anything by the time we realized the child was reading text and not memorizing it. What can you say about a 4 year old who has never been instructed in phonics, or even given a list of sight words, but can easily read the word 'official'?.

 

I think some kids need phonics instruction, some kids need a mix of experiences, and some kids learn to read with no phonics instruction whatsoever. Ime, learning to read is a mix of all sorts of things. It's absolutely not just about phonics.

 

Funny... I was just talking to my mom about this. She is working on her doctorate in reading. My 4.5 year old is reading well. She has done starfall and some ETC. So, she has had some phonics. However, she knows all kinds of crazy words that I don't know how she has figured out.

 

My mom said most people can intuitively pick up on phonics. You read cool, tool, drool... you get that "oo" makes an "oo" sound. Even if you can't explain why. She said the problem is with people who can't intuitively pick up on phonics (dyslexics for instance). They must learn the rules and apply them because they aren't going to intuitively "know" them.

 

So, I believe in teaching phonics. But, I've decided I'm not going to start from scratch and make DD go back and memorize phonics rules she may have missed. I'm just gonna let her read.

 

FWIW, I read well and I learned mostly a whole word approach. I think for *most* kids if you expose them to books and language, they will learn to read without much effort. "Reading is easy" remember. ;) It's just when you have a child that needs the extra help that you have to diligently provide it.

[Spy Car]

As you might have guessed, I'm totally a phonics purist---and have been driven more and more in that direction the longer I tutor and the more heartbreaking cases of harm from sight words I see.

 

I don't even teach them out of order, I'm so paranoid, but if you must teach them, it's so easy to spend a few extra minutes to teach the Dolch words phonetically, 70% of them are phonetic and a few extra rules or patterns (pattern is easier for a young child, rules for an older child) will teach the rest phonetically.

 

10 more minutes up front (30 max, really!) could save years worth of remedial frustration.

 

You make a great point here Elizabeth!

 

And one I've taken to heart from other (earlier) post by you on this topic.

 

I've done my utmost to keep to a phonic approach and my son's reading (while not wildly advanced) is strong and well grounded.

 

This fall he began attending kindergarten at a very fine school here in Los Angeles. While over-all I'm thrilled with school, on the "sight word" issue I'm less pleased.

 

And the "problem" is most of these "sight words" DO FOLLOW phonetic rules. They are better called "high frequency" worlds, but only a small percentage don't follow rules.

 

So, while my son is expected to "know" these as "sight words" I'm fighting a rear-guard action to make sure he understand the phonics of all the ones I can explain, rather than just having him "memorize" them.

 

I'll re-check your page to see if I'm missing anything.

 

Good work!

 

Bill

[The Governess]

So, I believe in teaching phonics. But, I've decided I'm not going to start from scratch and make DD go back and memorize phonics rules she may have missed. I'm just gonna let her read.

 

 

I just went through the same thing with my dd. We were going through the ETC workbooks and dd5 was having no problems reading any of the words. It really just felt like busy work. I switched to All About Spelling and now we are covering all of the phonics rules that we skipped over the first time around as we learn how to spell. I think for kids that pick up reading very quickly and just "get" the whole phonics thing, switching to a phonics-based spelling program once they are reading well might be the best way to go.

[staceyobu]

I just went through the same thing with my dd. We were going through the ETC workbooks and dd5 was having no problems reading any of the words. It really just felt like busy work. I switched to All About Spelling and now we are covering all of the phonics rules that we skipped over the first time around as we learn how to spell. I think for kids that pick up reading very quickly and just "get" the whole phonics thing, switching to a phonics-based spelling program once they are reading well might be the best way to go.

 

 

How are you liking AAS? I'm planning that for next year! I figured it would cover our bases but not make us backtrack with phonics...

[ElizabethB]

 

....

This fall he began attending kindergarten at a very fine school here in Los Angeles. While over-all I'm thrilled with school, on the "sight word" issue I'm less pleased.

...

 

Good work!

 

Bill

 

Thanks!

 

We have friends in Pasadena who told me that some of the schools here in the LA area not only teach sight words, but have speed drills on them. :eek:

 

I'm glad you found a good school other than the sight word thing. Maybe if the teacher was politely shown just how phonetic most of them are, that would help? The way they are listed--broken up by grade level and alphabetized--makes it difficult for teachers and parents not in the know to realize how phonetic most of them really are. (The are the most frequent 220 words in children's literature as of the early 1900's, not the most irregular. Of course, a fair number of them are a bit irregular, but not so crazy that they need to be taught by sight.)

[Spy Car]

Thanks!

 

We have friends in Pasadena who told me that some of the schools here in the LA area not only teach sight words, but have speed drills on them. :eek:

 

I'm glad you found a good school other than the sight word thing. Maybe if the teacher was politely shown just how phonetic most of them are, that would help? The way they are listed--broken up by grade level and alphabetized--makes it difficult for teachers and parents not in the know to realize how phonetic most of them really are. (The are the most frequent 220 words in children's literature as of the early 1900's, not the most irregular. Of course, a fair number of them are a bit irregular, but not so crazy that they need to be taught by sight.)

 

She has 32 years experience teaching. Is a lovely, poised, intelligent and inspiring teacher (the one every parent wanted) so (very uncharacteristically:D) I'll probabally fight this battle in the shadows ;)

 

Bill

[The Governess]

How are you liking AAS? I'm planning that for next year! I figured it would cover our bases but not make us backtrack with phonics...

 

We aren't that far into it yet, but so far we are both loving it! It's nice because you can zoom through the lessons your student knows well, and slow down for the topics that need to be reviewed. It's very interactive, easy to teach, and I really do feel like I am killing two birds with one stone. I started at the very beginning with level 1 because I didn't want to accidentally miss anything, and I am glad I did. She is already learning things that we never covered (that most vowels have three or four different sounds, not just short and long; how to alphabetize when given letters in random order, etc.).

[IsabelC]

I'm a card carrying phonics purist. I introduce 'sight words' phonetically as per ElizabethB's suggestions. (And when you find a good rule to cover one, once and eye, let me know! :lol:) There are some words that are now so familar to ds that he reads them in one gulp, but every word he sounded out to begin with.

[Jumping In Puddles]

Phonics here for my k and 1st grader. They need it. I read to them and they love for me to read to them. I read poetry, fiction, non fiction plus they listen to audiobooks and are surrounded by books. I was hoping teaching them to read would be easier. :glare:

[Kathleen in VA]

Funny... I was just talking to my mom about this. She is working on her doctorate in reading. My 4.5 year old is reading well. She has done starfall and some ETC. So, she has had some phonics. However, she knows all kinds of crazy words that I don't know how she has figured out.

 

My mom said most people can intuitively pick up on phonics. You read cool, tool, drool... you get that "oo" makes an "oo" sound. Even if you can't explain why. She said the problem is with people who can't intuitively pick up on phonics (dyslexics for instance). They must learn the rules and apply them because they aren't going to intuitively "know" them.

 

So, I believe in teaching phonics. But, I've decided I'm not going to start from scratch and make DD go back and memorize phonics rules she may have missed. I'm just gonna let her read.

 

FWIW, I read well and I learned mostly a whole word approach. I think for *most* kids if you expose them to books and language, they will learn to read without much effort. "Reading is easy" remember. ;) It's just when you have a child that needs the extra help that you have to diligently provide it.

 

This is how I was - I don't remember learning to read. I was reading before I went to kindergarten and no one ever taught me phonics. I intuitively picked up on it.

 

I first learned about phonics when I taught first grade at a private Christian school (no, I wasn't taught anything about phonics during my four years at college getting a degree in Elementary Education:001_huh:). We used the Lippincott readers and it was a real treat to see it all laid out so logically and in order.:) The next year I taught kindergarten and Sing, Spell, Read and Write had just come on the market so I asked my principal if I could use that. It was wonderful! When I finally got married and decided to homeschool my own children I knew phonics was the way I wanted to go. I used the Victory Drill Book, Bob Books, Teach Your Child to Read in 100 Easy Lessons and then transitioned into the Pathway Readers. Pathway introduces some sight words at the beginning so the pupil can start reading stories right away and not just lists of words. I never considered that teaching sight words could be harmful. I just figured since young children have a great capacity for memorization it wouldn't hurt to capitalize on that with some of the weirder words. None of my children have had any major difficulty learning to read once they were ready.

 

It's been interesting to read all these comments. Thanks for your responses.

[Annie Laurie]

This is a subject near and dear to my heart and I had to trim down the book I wrote on my experiences with my kids and reading. I hope the following is more succinct.

 

They all learned to read mostly on their own.

 

Oldest ds was 3. No phonics, he just learned how to read and I knew nothing about phonics at the time. He has always tested very high for reading but his spelling is truly awful. He's 15.

 

Second ds was nearing 6 when I started showing him some phonics- he lacked the maturity and needed time. So he hadn't taught himself to read, but I did very basic phonics with him (tbh, it was Leapfrog dvds and basic writing the letters and reciting the sounds, not pure phonics), and he took off very quickly. He reads well above grade level, reading level increases every year when I test him, and he seems to be a natural speller. He did the first 3 books of ETC and level 1 and most of 2 of AAS.

 

Dd started reading around later 4 yrs/early 5. She just picked it up. She later did most of MFW 1st grade, which teaches phonics, but not pure phonics as I recall. She later did some AAS too. She reads at a very high level and has great comprehension. She also spells well for her age. I've noticed her spelling really picking up in the last few months but she hasn't done AAS since June, she just reads several books a day.

 

Ds5 tagged along all his life and probably heard bits of their limited phonics instruction but has not gone through a phonics program. He has probably had the least amount of phonics instruction of any of them. And he's reading amazingly well.

 

Neither dh nor I recall learning phonics in school, we just picked up reading the way our kids have. I was always a natural speller and so was he.

 

So, while I read about the importance of pure phonics, a balance makes more sense to me. I would feel better though if my kids had gone through all the phonics rules while learning to read, but I can't help the way they're wired and I think that worrying and trying to force it was unnecessary and put a cramp in things until I learned to chill about it.

 

That said, I've got my 3rd grade ds back in AAS because learning all the rules feels like "insurance" and like a good idea, since I keep reading about that dreaded "wall" they're supposed to hit later. But then I wrestle with how time consuming it is and how we could be learning Latin or Spanish, or doing more science, like they beg to do, with that time.

 

And that was supposed to be my succinct version. :001_huh:

[Laura Corin]

Calvin had a little phonics but then took off on his own. I suspect he is mostly a sight reader - he doesn't know many phonics rules.

 

I taught Hobbes using phonics, but added in Dolch words once he started to hit words that he couldn't sound out.

 

Laura

[IsabelC]

I don't remember learning to read. I was reading before I went to kindergarten and no one ever taught me phonics. I intuitively picked up on it.

Actually I'm the same. But I know that not all kids will learn naturally, and I know my husband was a slow reader (still is: he can read advanced material, but he'll take about 5 times as long to read a page as I do), so I'm not going to risk my kids not getting it.

Edited October 15, 2009 by Hotdrink

[gardening momma]

Pure phonics here. Even "sight" words have sounds, a beginning sound, a middle sound, and an ending sound (except 1-2 letter words, which still have sounds ;)). Some words don't follow the "rules", but we used 100 EZ lessons, which doesn't teach the rules. When it came to a word that didn't follow the pattern of previous words (the "rule"), it still had us sound out the word and said something like, "that's a funny word." Words like "the" still have a sound, even if the /e/ isn't the same as many Es we've come across to that point.

 

Eh, I forgot the rest of the question. :001_smile:

 

And lastly, if you used pure phonics did you run into glitches or problems or was it smooth sailing?

Oh, no glitches here. We just finished our reading lessons, and had no problems with not doing sight words.

Edited October 15, 2009 by gardening momma

[Dawn in OH]

I'm pretty obsessed with phonics. I don't even use the phrase "sight words" with the children. We have a list of words (much shorter than anyone's "sight words" list) that we refer to as "words that don't follow the rules".

 

When I first started teaching the children to read I had thought I was going to have to teach a combination of both methods, and then I read a book that convinced me that phonics was the best route to go. I found answers to so many things that I had never understood or learned as a child.

 

I was taught to read using Phonics and I am an excellent speller and reader. I believe that with a strong phonics background you can read nearly any word you come across. I don't understand how people taught to read using Sight Words ever become good readers. (Not saying it's not possible, I just don't understand how it could happen).

[ChristusG]

We're teaching only phonics right now. But I'm not even close to experienced since my oldest DD is 5 years old and we are on Book C of the Explode the Code pre-books. We're nearly finished with all the consonant sounds and will be moving into the vowel sounds shortly.

[joannqn]

I use the K-3rd grade phonic workbooks put out by Spectrum and that's about it. I don't bother with memorizing rules. Both of my kids learned to read without any problems. They read well above grade level and fluently. My daughter rarely runs into any problems. Just today I was trying to remember how to spell something and she corrected me. My son runs into some issues when reading 5th-6th grade material. I just correct him when we run into words he mispronounces. He is only 7 after all.

[Kirch]

My philosophy is pretty much pure phonics, but ds picked reading up so quickly that he far outpaced our ability to keep up with formal lessons. We're doing phonics, but it's been review almost constantly since day one with regard to his actual reading skills. I want to make sure he's got a good foundation, though, and I've seen him using some of the things we've learned in decoding difficult words, so I know it's worth it.

[dirty ethel rackham]

I'm a whatever works kind of mom. I strongly believe that phonics is important for spelling and to learn to pronounce unfamiliar words. I am also a huge promotoer of reading aloud to kids from the time they are babies until well after they have learned to read well. (Actually, I would love to continue reading to my almost 16yo, but he is too impatient and wants to just read it himself.)

 

However, I know of plenty of children who learned to read without phonics. My oldest was one of them. He had some basic phonics - knew the letter sounds and the short vowel sounds, just from conversations in the car. But he taught himself to read at age 4. We called it magic because he could not explain how he knew, just that he knew. I had to teach him phonics so that he could learn how to spell. My friend was a phonics purist until her 2nd child could not learn to read. He just couldn't get it. She switched to sight words and then he took off.

[KrissiK]

We're using A Beka, which is mostly phonics. I did teach the boys a list of site words in Kindergarten, but they seem none the worse for wear. They approach words from a phonetic stand-point and I'm very pleased with how they sound words out. My 5 year old not only sounds words out when he's reading, but when he's writing them out, too.

[Erica in PA]

Just wondering about homeschoolers as a group. Do/did you use a purely phonetic approach when teaching beginning reading or do/did you mix it up with sight words or other methods? If you used another approach (please elaborate) what percentage would you say was phonics compared with the other approach. And lastly, if you used pure phonics did you run into glitches or problems or was it smooth sailing? Same with the other approaches, did you run into glitches or problems?

 

Three kids, three different approaches needed:

 

13 yos- started out with pure phonics using Phonics Pathways at age four, went straight to reading fluently at age five; Never taught him a single sight word; he figured them all out himself.

 

9 yos- started out with pure phonics using Phonics Pathways at four; by six, could still only read strictly phonics-controlled beginner readers; had to start teaching some sight words and work much harder at the whole process; read fluently at age seven.

 

7 yod- started out with pure phonics using Phonics Pathways at four; at six, started adding some sight words; still learning to read beginner books that aren't phonetically controlled.

 

So we've had a mixed bag. After my first son, I thought phonics were all kids ever needed. My younger two changed my mind about that. ;)

[Closeacademy]

My approach is about 50/50. We use Spell to Write and Read and the Dolch Sight word list. Both of my children have found it painful to sound out words so I brought in the sight word activities.

 

Basically, the sight words sort of balance out the phonics. And a lot of time I do mark up the sight words with the SWR markings to show how things are pronounced.

 

Honestly, I think reading is the hardest thing to teach. Both of my children have been reluctant to learn. My oldest just took a long time going from step to step in reading and my youngest doesn't like to put effort into schoolwork.

 

So I keep getting creative while using things that seem to work. With my oldest we tried a lot of different phonics programs and used SWR for 3 years before she just sort of learned how to read on her own.:001_smile:

[TravelingChris]

I would say that we did phonics but with modifications with some. My oldest did phonics with a few exception words but he caught on very quickly. My next two did 100 Days to Reading which is a primarily phonics based program. For further work, my youngest used phonics. My middle was a difficult case since we did use phonics but I found out that there are many more than 80 sounds or whatever is the common number. She has extremely acute hearing and could hear differences others either don't hear or gloss over. I needed to find linguistic texts to understand her issues.

 

All children read very well and have no problems. The only difficulty with phonics is that later on they tend to mispronounce certain words that they have read but never heard. On the other hand, if people are reading well and can read material they never heard, I suspect they learned phonics on their own if not formally.

[Pamela H in Texas]

Three different kids, three different methods....

 

DD was reading chapter books at 3. I decided she needed phonics. That kinda messed things up but I think I should have started at the beginning and worked through systematically. I wish I had. I also gave her site words of things that she would be interested in, friends' names, etc.

 

DS wasn't even speaking. I used Doman's Teach Your Baby to Read in order to help him learn to communicate. We didn't keep up with it once he was signing and "talking." We did one phonics program after another. He even went to a reading specialist at one point. Upon implementing repeated readings (which I had previously opposed because of how P.S. does them), he took off reading.

 

Gregory is 6. We do A LOT, but it is all phonics based. He uses AlphaPhonics as his main reading program. With that, I made sheets like the ones at http://www.tampareads.com. We also use those for spelling. I also use the sentence pages in AP for repeated reading. In addition to that, he does ETC Online and Earobics (moved to the 2nd level this week). We use Progressive Phonics while reading together daily also. We have some other readers that assume certain sight words but we don't push those. He can read what he can and I tell him otherwise. He is by far the most solid in his beginning reading/phonics skills.

[DarlaS]

I use a combination. I'm not really sure how you could be totally purist in your approach to phonics. Hide all the books?

 

I start with phonics but then (since they try to follow along in books I read to them) the kids start learning by sight also.

[lisabees]

As you might have guessed, I'm totally a phonics purist---and have been driven more and more in that direction the longer I tutor and the more heartbreaking cases of harm from sight words I see.

 

I don't even teach them out of order, I'm so paranoid, but if you must teach them, it's so easy to spend a few extra minutes to teach the Dolch words phonetically, 70% of them are phonetic and a few extra rules or patterns (pattern is easier for a young child, rules for an older child) will teach the rest phonetically.

 

10 more minutes up front (30 max, really!) could save years worth of remedial frustration.

 

Thanks for the link Elizabeth. I've never checked it out, thinking I wouldn't need it. But, with dd6 in ps, all she is learning is sight words. The books she brings home and is required to read are based on repetitive sight words and corresponding pictures. I haven't figured out how to deal with that.

 

So, I teach phonics at home. I use ETC, Elizabeth's concentration game and phonics using AAS tiles. She also reads Bob Book and Nora Gaydos books.

 

Between the nightly phonics and math I do (school uses Everyday Math), I teach her for about an hour. Crazy!

[IsabelC]

Between the nightly phonics and math I do (school uses Everyday Math), I teach her for about an hour. Crazy!

I do kind of wonder why parents send their children to school when they parents still have to teach the kids to read.

[JVA]

I haven't read all of your responses so I'll jump in w/o an awareness of other's opinions.

I've been homeschooling for 23 years. I taught all 5 of our children to read using the Writing Road to Reading. It's also called the Spaulding method. It's intensive as it uses the 72 phonograms and teaches LOTS of rules and their exceptions. When I first heard and saw it, I was overwhelmed by the sheer number of the 72 sounds! Well, I learned them pretty quickly and so did my twins. I found the rules were so helpful and gave them a big foundation to attack unknown words and read smoothly, with comprehension.

All other programs I have perused seem thin to me. I think the idea of 'sight' words comes from the idea of memorizing words and not having a 'code' with which to decipher them. I actually think it handicaps the learner.

We've been involved with Classical Conversations now for about 5 years and I see that the author of their English program (Leigh Bortins) incorporates Mrs. Spaulding's phonograms.

The drilling, memorizing and practicing fit nicely with the classical model, I think.

[ereks mom]

ER figured out reading on his own, even before I started teaching him sight words OR phonics, but EK had a harder time learning to read. With her, I started with a few sight words (and, for, in, on, the, said, etc.) and then went on to letter sounds, consonants first, then short vowels, then long vowels, then blends, diphthongs, and digraphs.

[Margo out of lurking]

J And lastly, if you used pure phonics did you run into glitches or problems or was it smooth sailing?

 

Phonics, phonics, phonics.

 

I am a self-taught reader, natural speller, and after ~40 years, was awed to see that there IS a reason words are spelled the way they are. However, I believe most programs don't teach accurate phonics and/or spelling rules. True exceptions are very few and far between.

 

That said, I don't believe that pure phonics works for every single child, but it was a perfect fit for my children.

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

I use 100 Easy Lessons to start.

 

Halfway through that we start working through the Explode the Code books and use sight word flash cards for speed, as well. However, the sight words are learned phonetically first.

 

When we finish 100 Easy lessons, every day we review phonics flash cards and phonetic rules that I learned from The Writing Road to Reading, do an Explode the Code lesson, and my child reads aloud to me for a specific amount of time while I go over any rules that are necessary to get through the reading. We do this through 3rd grade. I don't do much spelling as a subject till 3rd grade.

 

My kids are all excellent readers, spelling ability varies in each of them. One son would much prefer to spell intuitively, but he is coming around.

[Kathleen in VA]

Phonics, phonics, phonics.

 

I am a self-taught reader, natural speller, and after ~40 years, was awed to see that there IS a reason words are spelled the way they are. However, I believe most programs don't teach accurate phonics and/or spelling rules. True exceptions are very few and far between.

 

That said, I don't believe that pure phonics works for every single child, but it was a perfect fit for my children.

 

I was self-taught too and I, too, was amazed when I discovered all the spelling rules. I never had problems with spelling, but, still, it was nifty to learn the rules and patterns associated with it. I definitely think my children benefited greatly from my having taught them with a phonics approach. I know my husband was taught the sight-word method and he has trouble when he happens upon an unfamiliar word. He cannot apply phonics principles and just guesses. I notice my pastor does this as well when he reads those difficult-to-pronounce Bible names. I think that even if a child doesn't actually need phonics to become a good reader they should be taught the rules anyway.

[Rosy]

Nope, not a purist. I do teach phonics, but my kids enjoy learning to read much more when they get to read "real books" that are above their level of phonics understanding. I figure the motivation they have will serve them much better in figuring out difficult words than knowing all the rules and having learned them in perfect order.

 

DD (9) learned to read before I had read TWTM, so I just did what came naturally--taught her letter sounds, and then how to put them together. She was motivated, so it didn't take her long to figure out the harder words. She reads and spells well above grade level.

 

DS (7) started school after I had read TWTM, so we started with much closer to a purist approach (using Phonics Pathways). It was painful for him. We made it through long vowel sounds and then switched over to just reading books he likes. Reading is still painful for him, but I really think he's just a late bloomer.

 

DD (6) learned all of her letter sounds and how to read 3-letter words with no help from me, we're doing phonics now and have just gotten to long vowel sounds. I'll go as far through Phonics Pathways with her as I can, but if/when it starts to kill her enjoyment of reading we'll drop it.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

As you might have guessed, I'm totally a phonics purist---and have been driven more and more in that direction the longer I tutor and the more heartbreaking cases of harm from sight words I see.

 

I don't even teach them out of order, I'm so paranoid, but if you must teach them, it's so easy to spend a few extra minutes to teach the Dolch words phonetically, 70% of them are phonetic and a few extra rules or patterns (pattern is easier for a young child, rules for an older child) will teach the rest phonetically.

 

10 more minutes up front (30 max, really!) could save years worth of remedial frustration.

 

I have to agree with ElizabethB. English was meant to be sounded out not read as a picture language such as heiroglyphs;) I also know of several families who had dyslexic children who were helped by intensive phonics.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

My ds was also an advanced, early reader with the help of lots of my reading to him with occasional sounding out, lots of Between the Lions, and Starfall.com. However, we still did intensive phonics for 2 years in his charter school which I used as a beginning spelling course;) I plan on still covering and emphasizing phonics since I have read that you can never do too much phonics and it does help spelling:)