phonics curriculum with sight words???

[juliebee]

I am looking for a phonics program that also teaches sight words. Does anyone have suggestions on what to use?

[Ellie]

I am looking for a phonics program that also teaches sight words. Does anyone have suggestions on what to use?

 

If something teaches *phonics,* there would be no need to teach sight words. :confused1:

[Tenaj]

I guess it depends on how extensive you want the sight words lists to be.  In my opinion, all phonics teach sight words to some extent.

 

I quit using CLE's Learning to Read because I felt it had too many sight words built in so maybe you could look at that one?  To me, Rod and Staff was the same way so that might be a possibility.  

 

My definition of sight words might be different than yours.  When a program is teaching words such as "and" as a sight word before teaching the sounds /a/, /n/ and /d/ that annoys me because "and" is not a sight word in my mind.  It's a phonetic spelling that if you just wait a bit until the child knows all the sounds and blends they will be able to sound it out.  On the other hand, in my mind "the" is a sight word.  I know some programs teach it as /thee/ but that's not the way we talk so trying to force it into a phonetic pattern annoys me.  It's a sight word, learn to read it in five minutes and move on - LOL!

 

One of my favorite programs is Phonics Pathways - teaches phonetically all words it possibly can but includes sight words that don't follow the rules.  It doesn't however include lists of random sight words for kids to memorize.  OPGTR is another phonetic-based program that includes sight words as necessary.  The reading programs from the Apples and Pears folks (we're using Bear Necessity) include sight words in conjunction with phonics.  It's the first time I've used that particular program and I have enjoyed their mix of phonics the sight words.  Seems to be a good balance for my little guy who needs lots and lots and lots of review.

 

 

[Ad astra]

Hooked On Phonics introduces some of the sight words ("helper words") as the lessons go. I also used sight word flash cards separately.

[SkateLeft]

K12's Phonicsworks, which I used with all my kids, teaches some sight words in addition to phonics.

[Erin]

I would suggested just doing a Google for "100 most common sight words" and then printing each on a flashcard.   Move on to "200" should the spirit move you.

 

That's what I've always done with my emergent readers, in addition to phonics (I've never understood the idea that either method should be taught to the exclusion of the other, personally)

[alisoncooks]

Christian Light and Rod & Staff include sight words pretty heavily.  However, I think some of their word choices could be better; it seems only some of them actually come from high frequency word lists... ("obey" isn't a word my kiddo needs to read right off the bat, ya know?)

 

Other programs teach sight words, just not as heavy-handedly.  Dancing Bears and High Noon include sight words.

So does ETC, Primary Phonics and Recipe for Reading.   McRuffy, BJU and Abeka probably all have some sight words.

 

Many "complete" reading/phonics programs include some high frequency words, just in small doses and introduced systematically throughout the program.

[michaeljenn]

Saxon Phonics teaches sight words.  Rod and Staff teaches sight words as well.  I have used both of these programs.  I have used Saxon with my older three, and Rod and Staff with my younger three:)  I personally love Rod and Staff.  R&S teaches extensive phonics, but also has words to memorize in their reading program.  So, while you  are learning phonics and decoding skills in phonics, you are also memorizing words for the reading program.  My kids loved this because they felt very successful when they could "read" the Bible and Nurture Readers.  Both methods work very well together!  My younger kiddo's are reading very, very well due to this method.  My 7yo is now finishing Rod and Staff Phonics and Reading 2, and the child can read just about anything!  We do not do all of the Reading Workbook, as it would be too much written work... but we do a lot of orally.  Probably more information that you wanted, but this is what has worked very well for us:) 

[AimeeM]

I'm a huge fan of teaching sight words alongside phonics.

 

We use PAL Reading (Primary Art of Language Reading). It is a fantastic game based phonics/reading program. Time intensive to PUT TOGETHER (you put the games together, the workbook, etc), but once that is done, it is VERY open and go (scripted, even).

[GrammarGirl]

nm

[juliebee]

Thanks for the replies. I believe we are going to look at Rod and Staff and go from there :)

[MerryAtHope]

I am looking for a phonics program that also teaches sight words. Does anyone have suggestions on what to use?

 

Most "sight words"--even those on the Dolch Sight Word list, are actually decodable. But some people mean flash-card practice to become fluent in reading or spelling words--All About Reading and All About Spelling include that kind of practice as well. 

[boscopup]

My struggling reader has had very good success with R&S. I do teach the "sight words" phonetically, and I have not used flash cards (the reading in the reader and the writing work in the Reading workbook has been enough). But I like that they introduce them, because stories are much more interesting with those words than "The cat sat on the mat."

[Ellie]

Well this is not only untrue but in all actuality even most phonics based instruction also includes sight words.

 

If by "sight words" you mean "words which the children memorize without learning any of the phonics that are used to sound them out," then I'd have to disagree with you. A *true* phonics methods doesn't need to teach children to memorize words by sight.

[Caclcoca]

We use The Ordinary Parents Guide to Teaching Reading.  They introduce "sight words"  to help children be able to read sentences before they get to some phonics rules.  Today my ds learned "the"  as a sight word.  He does not know th or long e yet, but with "the" he can read simple sentences using cvc words.  He is doing the Explode the Code workbooks too.

[Ad astra]

If by "sight words" you mean "words which the children memorize without learning any of the phonics that are used to sound them out," then I'd have to disagree with you. A *true* phonics methods doesn't need to teach children to memorize words by sight.

Just curious. How would you explain a child why "give" doesn't follow the silent e rule like "five" does with the "true" phonics method? Why does "put" sound differently from "cut"? And "great" and "meat"? Simply too many rules get broken so I'm curious how you deal with those irregular words when teaching. OPGTR also tells to memorize those.

[KarenNC]

Check out Progressive Phonics. I recently read about it and it looks like a good resource (as well as free). http://www.progressivephonics.com/

 

When I was teaching my daughter, I used a combo of Explode the Code, Dolch sight word cards, leveled readers, and Dick and Jane books.

[Ad astra]

Many if not most phonics programs are not that pure.

They can't be because English is not a phonetic language.

 

ETA; In Korean, a phonetic language, each letter always has the same sound (including the vowels) and once you know to put them together to form words, you can basically sound out every single word you see. No exception to the rules. No "easy readers" needed. Just a comprehension level matters for children books.

[nature girl]

Just curious. How would you explain a child why "give" doesn't follow the silent e rule like "five" does with the "true" phonics method? Why does "put" sound differently from "cut"? And "great" and "meat"? Simply too many rules get broken so I'm curious how you deal with those irregular words when teaching. OPGTR also tells to memorize those.

 

I do think there are actual rules around most of these irregularities. I'm thinking ElizabethB could explain them. :) (Probably Ellie too.) But I don't expect children, especially young children, to learn all those rules.

 

I don't know if this is the best way to deal with it, but I've taught my DD to first sound out a word the way it looks like it should be pronounced, but then if that word doesn't make sense to change the vowel sound. So when she was beginning to read, she would've read "give" with a long i, but would then try the short i to see if that worked. (With "put" she would've first sounded it out to rhyme with "cut" but understood what the word actually was because it sounded close enough to her ear, she didn't need to correct herself, just went on with understanding.) And in time she grew out of needing to try different vowel sounds for words she'd seen before, I think they almost became sight words to her because she'd read them so frequently. But at least for first learning this method worked just fine, and I ended up teaching her very few sight words.

[Ellie]

They can't be because English is not a phonetic language.

 

I disagree. :-) More than 90% of all English words can be sounded out phonetically. Of the remaining words, most are *mostly* phonetic.

[AimeeM]

Many if not most phonics programs are not that pure.

 

Insisting that my son wait to read every word he wanted to read until he was able to understand the phonics rules behind it, would have swiftly killed any desire to read that he had. The rules for a simple word like "the" would have been introduced so much later than he needed the word to be able to read very simple CVC sentences.

I know this... because I tried it... the "pure" phonics route, I mean, as we had tried Phonics Pathways, which is great, but seems pretty insistent on "no sight words, if I remember the introduction clearly.

 

[Ellie]

Just curious. How would you explain a child why "give" doesn't follow the silent e rule like "five" does with the "true" phonics method? Why does "put" sound differently from "cut"? And "great" and "meat"? Simply too many rules get broken so I'm curious how you deal with those irregular words when teaching. OPGTR also tells to memorize those.

 

The reason for the final silent e in "give" is that English words don't end with v. 

 

The phonogram "ea" has three sounds: ea (meat), ea (head), and /A/ (break). There's no need to involve a silent-e rule, so there are no rules broken here, and there's no reason to refer to them as "irregular."

 

This is why I love Spalding. :-)

[nature girl]

^^Haha, see I knew Ellie would be able to explain. ;)

[AimeeM]

The reason for the final silent e in "give" is that English words don't end with v. 

 

The phonogram "ea" has three sounds: ea (meat), ea (head), and /A/ (break). There's no need to involve a silent-e rule, so there are no rules broken here, and there's no reason to refer to them as "irregular."

 

This is why I love Spalding. :-)

 

I'm curious now, too, lol.

How are children to know which sound to use? To the best of my recollection, the different sounds do not really follow a "rule" (except, perhaps, the /A/ sound)... but I may be forgetting something important :P

[Ad astra]

I disagree. :-) More than 90% of all English words can be sounded out phonetically. Of the remaining words, most are *mostly* phonetic.

So how do you phonetically teach "the, give, put, great, who, was, into" and so on? I'm really curious.

 

ETA: Oops you explained. Yea, how do you teach which sound to choose, for "give" and "hive"? Think that's just another way of teaching exceptions by introducing more rules to the same phonogram.

[AimeeM]

But now I'm more confused. There ARE words that end in "v"... they aren't commonly used, and they are of foreign origin... but most, if not all, English words are of some type of foreign origin. These words are in the English dictionary.

[Ad astra]

I disagree. :-) More than 90% of all English words can be sounded out phonetically. Of the remaining words, most are *mostly* phonetic.

 

If English is to be phonetic ideally or at such a high rate, there should be a complete one-on-one correspondence between each letter (grapheme) and its sound (phoneme), but as you pointed out, it is far from the case. So no "pure" phonics program exists. In linguistics, English is in the category of "highly non-phonemic" languages.

[Farrar]

If English is to be phonetic ideally or at such a high rate, there should be a complete one-on-one correspondence between each letter and its sound, but as you pointed out, it is far from the case. So no "pure" phonics program exists.

 

Yeah...  but then it doesn't follow that it's better to just memorize the words than to practice sounding them out and choosing different sounds to try when there are options.  English is not as phonetically simple as a language like, say, Spanish or Russian, where each sound says the same sound nearly every time with only a few exceptions.  There are more exceptions and there are many letters and letter combinations that make multiple sounds.  But it's still a better system to learn phonics than to memorize the words one by one as if we're learning Chinese.  Ack.  Chinese.

 

I second what people are saying above about how most phonics programs introduce a few high frequency words alongside teaching phonics, often by saying that there's a rule, but you don't need to know it yet.  I think this is good simply because if a child has to wait to learn enough phonics to read a Frog and Toad then they may lose the desire to read that Frog and Toad in the meantime.  Showing kids the purpose of reading is a good strategy in getting their interest in learning to read, and if teaching a dozen or so words (or, heck even more) early on helps them do that, then it's unquestionably worth it in my opinion, especially if you have a plan in place to teach the rules more systematically.

[Farrar]

But now I'm more confused. There ARE words that end in "v"... they aren't commonly used, and they are of foreign origin... but most, if not all, English words are of some type of foreign origin. These words are in the English dictionary.

 

I'm pretty sure the words that end in v entered English after spelling was standardized.  So they're from the last couple of centuries, basically.  I can't even think of that many...  Improv, which is clearly a new concept.  Perv, which is short for a longer word.  Are there even any others?

[AimeeM]

Yeah...  but then it doesn't follow that it's better to just memorize the words than to practice sounding them out and choosing different sounds to try when there are options.  English is not as phonetically simple as a language like, say, Spanish or Russian, where each sound says the same sound nearly every time with only a few exceptions.  There are more exceptions and there are many letters and letter combinations that make multiple sounds.  But it's still a better system to learn phonics than to memorize the words one by one as if we're learning Chinese.  Ack.  Chinese.

 

I second what people are saying above about how most phonics programs introduce a few high frequency words alongside teaching phonics, often by saying that there's a rule, but you don't need to know it yet.  I think this is good simply because if a child has to wait to learn enough phonics to read a Frog and Toad then they may lose the desire to read that Frog and Toad in the meantime.  Showing kids the purpose of reading is a good strategy in getting their interest in learning to read, and if teaching a dozen or so words (or, heck even more) early on helps them do that, then it's unquestionably worth it in my opinion, especially if you have a plan in place to teach the rules more systematically.

 

I think that most, if not all, programs that do use sight words, use them in the way you described. In the PAL program we're using, they DO teach all the rules - but they aren't afraid to introduce some "sight" words first, that they haven't yet taught in phonics, so that the children can "read" them. In the TM it always notes the phonics rules that accompany the sight word, but notes that there's no need to explicitly teach it yet, because that isn't where the program is at this time - systematically. Until I actually read through the entire manual, I was terrified at the amount of "sight words"... because I hadn't read through it to realize that they DO teach all the rules... but they also want the child to enjoy reading before they get to that point.

[AimeeM]

I'm pretty sure the words that end in v entered English after spelling was standardized.  So they're from the last couple of centuries, basically.  I can't even think of that many...  Improv, which is clearly a new concept.  Perv, which is short for a longer word.  Are there even any others?

 

When I looked it up, there's "spiv" and "chav", and a couple others.

 

I guess it gets confusing to me when we call them "rules"... but there seem to be several "exceptions" to every "rule", lol. <----- Admittedly, that's why I'm fond of teaching some high frequency words as sight words, just until you get to that point in phonics.

[Ad astra]

Yeah...  but then it doesn't follow that it's better to just memorize the words than to practice sounding them out and choosing different sounds to try when there are options.  English is not as phonetically simple as a language like, say, Spanish or Russian, where each sound says the same sound nearly every time with only a few exceptions.  There are more exceptions and there are many letters and letter combinations that make multiple sounds.  But it's still a better system to learn phonics than to memorize the words one by one as if we're learning Chinese.  Ack.  Chinese.

 

I second what people are saying above about how most phonics programs introduce a few high frequency words alongside teaching phonics, often by saying that there's a rule, but you don't need to know it yet.  I think this is good simply because if a child has to wait to learn enough phonics to read a Frog and Toad then they may lose the desire to read that Frog and Toad in the meantime.  Showing kids the purpose of reading is a good strategy in getting their interest in learning to read, and if teaching a dozen or so words (or, heck even more) early on helps them do that, then it's unquestionably worth it in my opinion, especially if you have a plan in place to teach the rules more systematically.

 

No one said anything against teaching phonics. Ellie argued there's no need to teach memorizing words by sight at all so we were talking about whether a 100% "pure" phonics method is possible. My son and I went through a full phonics program with sight word flash cards, and it worked beautifully without causing confusion with multiple sound rules that don't apply regularly.

 

ETA: I mean, to know which sound to choose when requires memorization, too. Memorizing "irregular" words by sight also requires knowing basic letter sounds. So I don't really see a point of arguing using one method exclusively is better for such a "highly non-phonemic" language, or there's even a significant difference between methods. A "true" phonics method can only work for "purely" phonetic languages like Korean, and English is not one of them.

[Farrar]

When I looked it up, there's "spiv" and "chav", and a couple others.

 

I guess it gets confusing to me when we call them "rules"... but there seem to be several "exceptions" to every "rule", lol. <----- Admittedly, that's why I'm fond of teaching some high frequency words as sight words, just until you get to that point in phonics.

 

But those are really slang, right?  No rules for slang.  Yes, there's nearly always an exception, but part of that is because English has more words than most other languages.  Like, literally, we have more words.  We keep borrowing and adding and letting the language change and it has just picked up a lot of words, a lot of which are abbreviations, or come from names, or come from foreign languages.  So, yeah, it makes sense that there are exceptions, but the vast majority are still rule followers.

[Ellie]

I'm curious now, too, lol.

How are children to know which sound to use? To the best of my recollection, the different sounds do not really follow a "rule" (except, perhaps, the /A/ sound)... but I may be forgetting something important :p

 

No, it isn't always possible to know for sure which sound a phonogram makes. When a phonogram has more than one sound, the most common one is given first. That the first sound of "ea", for example, is /EE/ is not a rule, however. A *rule* would be using "ay" at the end of a word instead of "ai" because English words do not end with i. Or Rule 4, which says that the letters a, e, o and u usually say their second (or long) sounds at the end of a short word or syllable.

 

One of the reasons Spalding works so well that the children analyze the most commonly used words, which allows them to be able to read and spell most words they meet and gives them tools to be able to read and spell new words.

[Ad astra]

No, it isn't always possible to know for sure which sound a phonogram makes. -> This is exactly what "highly non-phonetic language" means. 

 

One of the reasons Spalding works so well that the children analyze the most commonly used words, which allows them to be able to read and spell most words they meet and gives them tools to be able to read and spell new words.

 

So do other phonics programs. So I guess Spalding teaches more different ways of sound a phonogram makes. But that doesn't follow to saying "a *true* phonics methods doesn't need to teach children to memorize words by sight" at all or arguing English is a highly phonetic language, which is against a general linguistic consensus. Even with Spalding, a child still needs to memorize non-phonetic words like "the" by sight and which sound to choose for each word even for all "exceptions", which could be equally confusing. I used less than a hundred of sight word cards, which don't seem to be that much anyway.

[Plateau Mama]

I highly recommend reading "uncovering the Logic of English". It's a quick read but very eye opening. English is thought to have so many exceptions, but the reality is people are not taught the sounds of of the phonograms or the rules. In teaching my 6 yo to read I can't really think of more than one or two words he hasn't been able to decode using his knowledge of phonogram sounds and spelling rules.

[Ellie]

So do other phonics programs. So I guess Spalding teaches more different ways of sound a phonogram makes. But that doesn't follow to saying "a *true* phonics methods doesn't need to teach children to memorize words by sight" at all or arguing English is a highly phonetic language, which is against a general linguistic consensus. Even with Spalding, a child still needs to memorize non-phonetic words like "the" by sight and which sound to choose for each word even for all "exceptions", which could be equally confusing. I used less than a hundred of sight word cards, which don't seem to be that much anyway.

 

"The" is absolutely, 100% phonetic. The phonogram "th" has two sounds: th as in thing, and th as in this; rule 4 says that a, e, o an u usually say their second sounds at the end of a short word or syllable.

 

There are very few "exceptions,"  and very few words which do not follow phonics norms. Spalding encourages children to find those exceptions and to embrace them, lol.

[Ad astra]

I highly recommend reading "uncovering the Logic of English". It's a quick read but very eye opening. English is thought to have so many exceptions, but the reality is people are not taught the sounds of of the phonograms or the rules. In teaching my 6 yo to read I can't really think of more than one or two words he hasn't been able to decode using his knowledge of phonogram sounds and spelling rules.

 

What I'm saying is you can always add a new rule to the same phonogram even for a sole case and name it a phonics/spelling rule, but that only makes it less "phonetic" and there's little difference between memorizing the word by sight or by the rules for such rare cases. For some kids, simply memorizing those few number of "exceptions" by sight could be much simpler than learning all those "rules" for every different sound the phonogram makes. 

[Ad astra]

"The" is absolutely, 100% phonetic. The phonogram "th" has two sounds: th as in thing, and th as in this; rule 4 says that a, e, o an u usually say their second sounds at the end of a short word or syllable.

 

What about "she"? Why is it pronounced with its first (or third) sound at the end of a short word or syllable? And what other words share the same rule with e in "the"?

 

Ellie, I know what you're saying. "e" in "the, be, great, were, there, here..." is applied by all different rules and second, third, or fourth sounds of its each location, which is clearly proving my point that English has very low degree of phonemic orthographies and it's not necessarily most efficient for everyone to go 100% with phonics since there're very few one-on-one correspondences between letters and sounds, thus, too many rules. I don't know everything about Spalding, but it is honestly tiring for me to even hear about all those "rules" and "decoding" while it took my child less than 5 minutes to memorize all these 6 words by sight.

[pitterpatter]

For what age?

 

We used HOP and this resource for sight words to help get her reading (I aligned the words with HOP), as it was difficult finding very early readers without sight words in them. Also, we played Pop for Sight Words.

 

http://www.carsondellosa.com/products/804038__The-Best-Sight-Word-Book-Ever-Resource-Book-804038

 

Having said that, if I had it to do over again, I wouldn't use HOP.

[Ellie]

What about "she"? Why is it pronounced with its first (or third) sound at the end of a short word or syllable? And what other words share the same rule with e in "the"?

 

Ellie, I know what you're saying. "e" in "the, be, great, were, there, here..." is applied by all different rules and second, third, or fourth sounds of its each location, which is clearly proving my point that English has very low degree of phonemic orthographies and it's not necessarily most efficient for everyone to go 100% with phonics since there're very few one-on-one correspondences between letters and sounds, thus, too many rules. I don't know everything about Spalding, but it is honestly tiring for me to even hear about all those "rules" and "decoding" while it took my child less than 5 minutes to memorize all these 6 words by sight.

 

Rule 4 applies to "she": a, e, o an u usually say their second sounds at the end of a short word or syllable.

 

No, I'm not saying that the "e" in the, be, great, were, there, here is applied by all different rules. Goodness. Why would you think I said that at all?  

 

There are only 27 rules, BTW. That "a" has three sounds is not a rule; that it says its second sound at the end of a short word or syllable is a rule. 

 

Yes, it is very clear that you do not know everything about Spalding. In fact, I'm thinking that your knowledge about true phonics is limited (and also that spelling and phonics are not the same things). But that's ok. Your dc is reading (and presumably spelling) and that's what is important. But while your child learned to memorize those words in five minutes (which would be about the same amount of time that it would take to teach them phonetically), the children I taught would have learned the spelling and phonics those words represented and would be able to use that same knowledge to read and spell words they had not memorized. Same amount of time, more useful knowledge.

[Ellie]

 

Research is fairly firm that explicit part to whole instruction is more effective but since the sight word craze took over US ed years ago its not been firmly established in schools despite the evidence supporting it.

 

The book which made me a believer in phonics was "Why Johnny Still Can't Read." I hadn't thought much about it at all, because I started out mom-hood with the idea that my children would go to Christian schools. The end. :-) But I ended up having to teach my second child how to read (older dd did go to a Christian school that used all ABeka, and by the time I took her out at Easter vacation, she was reading wonderfully well and I never had to work with her at all), and so I did my due diligence and learned why phonics was so important. A friend introduced me to Spalding (her dc's school had taught Spalding), and I was sold.

[Erin]

I teach sight-words for the simple fact that I don't want my students hung up in sounding out every common word.  Fluency improves when there are more sight-words in a reader's vocabulary.  Adults don't read by sounding out every word.  Instead, our sight-word vocabulary is enormous...

[Ad astra]

Rule 4 applies to "she": a, e, o an u usually say their second sounds at the end of a short word or syllable.

 

No, I'm not saying that the "e" in the, be, great, were, there, here is applied by all different rules. Goodness. Why would you think I said that at all?

 

There are only 27 rules, BTW. That "a" has three sounds is not a rule; that it says its second sound at the end of a short word or syllable is a rule.

 

Yes, it is very clear that you do not know everything about Spalding. In fact, I'm thinking that your knowledge about true phonics is limited (and also that spelling and phonics are not the same things). But that's ok. Your dc is reading (and presumably spelling) and that's what is important. But while your child learned to memorize those words in five minutes (which would be about the same amount of time that it would take to teach them phonetically), the children I taught would have learned the spelling and phonics those words represented and would be able to use that same knowledge to read and spell words they had not memorized. Same amount of time, more useful knowledge.

Do you realize that you just repeated the exact same rule for two different sounds in "she" and "the"? If only your explanations were clearer for my questions or made sense to me, I'd have not kept asking or assumed so. You're the Spalding expert, not me, and I was genuinely curious about your method. I still have no idea how you taught your child to be able to figure out the sound difference between "she" and "the" with the Rule 4, and sound out more new words of the same phonogram but different sounds (that are "Dolch and Fry sight words" for others) with 27 rules, without any memorization by sight, but I guess it worked for your dc that way. Just don't like when someone insists using a certain method exclusively in teaching is always better/efficient/more useful for everyone.

[nature girl]

For what age?

 

We used HOP and this resource for sight words to help get her reading (I aligned the words with HOP), as it was difficult finding very early readers without sight words in them. Also, we played Pop for Sight Words.

 

http://www.carsondellosa.com/products/804038__The-Best-Sight-Word-Book-Ever-Resource-Book-804038

 

Having said that, if I had it to do over again, I wouldn't use HOP.

 

I looked through the linked book (their sample pages include the entire book in pdf) with my DD, who was probably never taught more than 10 sight words. We just flicked through the pages, and got through the n's, and she was able to read all the words immediately without sounding out, except for blue and eight. It's not that she's particularly brilliant, she's not, I just taught her phonemes as we encountered them through our reading, and after encountering them a handful of times she remembered them. Note that I've tried to teach her a few rules and they don't seem to stick when she writes, that will probably have to wait till she's a bit older, but sounding out words phonetically has worked perfectly well for her.

 

Now that's not to say that some of the words haven't become sight words for her after repeated readings, they probably have (as words have for all of us.) But because she knows the phonemes, along with knowing the word "could" she automatically can read "would" and "should." Along with reading "down" she can read "crown" and "frown" and "brow" and "cow." I don't see any purpose in teaching words with common phonemes as sight words, when the phonemes have such broad application, and knowing them allows kids to read words they've never seen before. (And why does the book include words like dog and get, in and it? That especially makes no sense to me.)

[OneStepAtATime]

FWIW, my children did not learn to read through site word instruction.  They struggled with strictly phonics rule memorization, too.  They are doing much better with a blending of the two with the emphasis being heavily on phonics.  

 

But they are definitely doing a WHOLE lot better with the emphasis being not on rote memorization of a bunch of phonics rules but learning those rules and then applying them in multiple contexts so that the rules become internalized.  With internalization they no longer have to study for a spelling test or struggle so hard to sound out a word or spend a tremendous amount of time sorting through all the rules at a conscious level to do either.  They hear the word and know the most likely possibilities sort of subconsciously, process through which of those fits all the parameters and they get 100's nearly every time on spelling tests.  They can sound out and read fluently quite a few words now, too..  Before, if it hadn't been rote memorized, they didn't have the background knowledge to figure it out.  We are still working through the program so there are some areas we haven't covered yet, but the areas we have have created tremendous changes in how the kids function.  I love phonics.

 

And to be honest, until I started teaching the kids phonics myself I had no idea how many words actually do have a rule associated with it.  I was told a tremendous number of words are exceptions and must be rote memorized.  I learned to read well that way.  But it was inefficient.  Now that I am teaching a primarily phonics based program that incorporates internalization of the rules, not just rote memorization, I understand the English language far better and wish with all my heart that I had had this type of instruction in school.

 

OP there are some great suggestions on this thread for options that incorporate both phonics and site words.   I just would encourage you to work hard at helping your kids internalize phonics rules more than rote memorizing a bunch of site words since internalization of phonics will give them a much greater chance of effectively decoding/reading/spelling not just the one word they memorized but the many other words that the phonics rule applies to.

 

Best wishes.

[Ellie]

Do you realize that you just repeated the exact same rule for two different sounds in "she" and "the"? If only your explanations were clearer for my questions or made sense to me, I'd have not kept asking or assumed so. You're the Spalding expert, not me, and I was genuinely curious about your method. I still have no idea how you taught your child to be able to figure out the sound difference between "she" and "the" with the Rule 4, and sound out more new words of the same phonogram but different sounds (that are "Dolce and Fry sight words" for others) with 27 rules, without any memorization by sight, but I guess it worked for your dc that way. Just don't like when someone insists using a certain method exclusively in teaching is always better/efficient/more useful for everyone.

 

You misunderstand. Again.

 

The rule I quoted was for the "e." Yes, it is correct to pronounce "the" with a long e at the end. 

 

Clearly you have not read enough of my posts here to know that I have repeatedly said that I know that millions of children have learned to read and spell with methods other than Spalding. I am advocating for a phonics approach that does not involve children memorizing words by sight alone, not for Spalding alone, but you have focused on your misunderstanding of Spalding as well as basic phonics instruction.

[WahM]

I would recommend staying away from a program that uses sight words. I taught in a school where programs like that were used and have seen the outcome, sure they end up reading, but it seems like never get past a certain a hump in their reading level and struggle in spelling. I would stick to a "true" phonics program. Not sure why some posters seem so defense to use a pure phonics based program if that's not what you use or prefer is there really a need to argue about it? Posting your preference in a respectful manner is different than being so argumentative.

 

OP, hope you find a program that is a good fit for you and your children. There are lots of options out there.

[pitterpatter]

We used this when DD was a new four...right when we started HOP and I was officially teaching her how to read. I only used it to reinforce the "helper words" she was being taught with HOP. It was a great supplement to the HOP program and DD enjoyed it a lot at that age. We used stickers, stamps, letter tiles, letter beads on pipe cleaners, etc. for the writing part since she was just beginning with handwriting too. We did not use the entire book, nor would I think most people would. It's a resource book...a pick-and-choose kind of book. Sight word resources often include the most common words for a particular age...not just phonetic rule-breakers. Sounds like your DD is beyond it and it doesn't fit your teaching method anyway. My suggestion is for the OP (and others) who is looking for a phonics program that includes sight words. I feel this is a good, fun supplement for teaching sight words.

 

 

I looked through the linked book (their sample pages include the entire book in pdf) with my DD, who was probably never taught more than 10 sight words. We just flicked through the pages, and got through the n's, and she was able to read all the words immediately without sounding out, except for blue and eight. It's not that she's particularly brilliant, she's not, I just taught her phonemes as we encountered them through our reading, and after encountering them a handful of times she remembered them. Note that I've tried to teach her a few rules and they don't seem to stick when she writes, that will probably have to wait till she's a bit older, but sounding out words phonetically has worked perfectly well for her.

Now that's not to say that some of the words haven't become sight words for her after repeated readings, they probably have (as words have for all of us.) But because she knows the phonemes, along with knowing the word "could" she automatically can read "would" and "should." Along with reading "down" she can read "crown" and "frown" and "brow" and "cow." I don't see any purpose in teaching words with common phonemes as sight words, when the phonemes have such broad application, and knowing them allows kids to read words they've never seen before. (And why does the book include words like dog and get, in and it? That especially makes no sense to me.)

 

[pitterpatter]

I agree. Also, you could always just teach a handful of the most common (to, the, for, etc.) in a fun manner to help your child move along a little faster in the early readers. It's hard to find books for the earliest readers without these very common "sight" words. After you and your child get going, you can drop formal study of them.

 

 

Oh geez. Honestly just pick the program or book you like the best....I love reading reflex and opgtr.... and get on with it. If YOU or your child are especially interested in knowing everything about words, then get into the nitty gritty of it. I think logic of english is more user-friendly than the other really in-depth programs.

Honestly, a lot of kids just pick up "sight words." Even in the midst of phonetic training. Once my son started reading fat cat mat stuff, he just started reading everything. I know for sure he didn't know the phonics rules for everything. So we started doing spelling, which is phonics in reverse.

Some people think I'm doing him a huge disservice by foregoing further intensive phonics. :shrug: I just can't get worked up about it. I have a reading child, who ultimately will know all the rules for words he needs to know. We just kind of backdoored the process.

So what I'm saying, is I wouldn't worry about teaching sight words, but NOT because I've got some psuedo-idealogical stance against them. Just, in my limited experience, you might not be able to keep them from "sight reading." It will not render phonics pointless, but nor will it hold your child back from a fruitful reading, and spelling, life.