Frequency words and Barton

[PeterPan]

Help me think through this.  Does Barton cover high frequency words as part of working through the levels? And how does she deal with actual reading automaticity?  

 

When I look at the Barton scope & sequence, some of the rules are presented in a different order from what I expected.  The rules for final E are delayed till level 5??  So how does the student begin to read non-basal, non-controlled readers before then?  Or they don't?

 

I guess, here's my problem.  Barton is very tidy and organized in a way I think I can make work for my student.  So far B1 + LIPS is going well, so I'm hopeful that would continue.  However my quandry, and I'm REALLY not meaning to offend here, is that nothing I'm doing is going to get him reading at IQ level (not just grade level) for what seems like a long time.  Am I missing something?  And many dyslexics are quite bright.  How do you resolve this?  

 

It's not enough to say go with a faster program like AAS/AAR, because frankly that's like trying to put his trike on top of a Porche.  He's doing well because we keep pedaling, pedaling, pedaling with his tiny trike wheels.  He clearly needs Barton.  What I don't know is whether there's a point where we could bring in some high frequency words (SWR), start working on getting automaticity with them, and get him READING without messing things up.

 

Caveats.  It's very clear he'll revert to guessing when he doesn't know.  I'm also concerned that time spent on SWR word lists, even just doing say 4 new words 3X/week (which I think would be a sane pace) would DISTRACT from moving forward with Barton.  It might be the time would be better spent to add on more daily sessions of Barton if we have that kind of reserve.

 

The other thing that nags at me is the Eides' comment (written, blog, I don't remember, sorry) that dyslexics don't read well even after instruction.  I want him to read well!!  I want him to ENJOY reading!!!  So why in the world am I going to plug down the same path, doing it exactly the same way everyone says, if it's just going to result in him being a slow, morbid reader?  I'm working on the RAN/RAS thing with him.  I just assume that frequency word automaticity is part of the issue, that they NEED to be able to hit those words and nail them quickly.  

 

So help me think through this!  I spent an hour pondering whether it could work to merge in SWR lists and another two hours convincing myself it was nuts.  But at what level of Barton will he actually READ?

 

Adding: He doesn't "get" basics like homonyms, that the words schoolhouse and house don't rhyme but actually have the same word within them, etc. etc.  There's a lot about language like that that is just not clicking.  So I KNOW I'm on track using Barton, no doubt there.  It's just the question of whether I'm doing EVERYTHING I CAN to get him reading competently at IQ level as soon as possible.  He seems to memorize the rules pretty well.  Doesn't mean he can apply them or kjnow what they mean, but he can memorize them.  That's another reason I thought maybe the frequency word lists could work with him, because he could actually start memorizing some of those rules early.  But then I read all that does is disorganize their brain and that you need to keep it all organized.  So it doesn't work to go organized approach 4 sessions a day, frequency lists once a day?

[merry gardens]

I don't have time for much but wanted to put in that I love that silent e at the end gets pushed off.  It helps to get dyslexics reading left to right.  (Silent e means eyes have to move to the end then back.) It also helped my ds with vowel confusion to work on short vowels longer, (then long vowels through open syllables before silent e. )

 

Many high frequency words are phonetically regular.  Barton addresses those through optional fluency drills.  Others are truly sight words, which Barton addresses gradually over time.

 

Out of time--gotta go!

[OneStepAtATime]

Edited to add I agree with merry gardens!!!!  :)

 

Well I can't really speak for other kids working through Barton, only mine, but here is my 2 cents worth.

 

1.  Frequency words ARE introduced, slowly.  They are done systematically and the way they are introduced has worked WAAAAAY  better than just memorizing a list of words, even a short list, for my kids.  I don't believe you hit them until Level 3, though.  Level 2 focuses on CVC decoding and encoding exclusively IIRC.

 

2.  Once the site words/high frequency words are introduced, the system is set up so you go at the pace of the child.  There are 3 lists introduced in each level as far as I can tell and you work on three words at a time.  As a word is mastered you take another word and add it to the mix until the entire list is mastered for both reading and spelling.  Reading and spelling are tracked separately so, for example, if a word is grasped quickly for reading fluency but spelling is still a struggle spelling continues to be worked on but for reading the word is checked off the list.  It just becomes part of what they can now read without help.

 

3.  There are leveled readers that Barton recommends that track with her program.   If the list isn't in your Level 1 box it should be in Level 2.  You may be able to find it on her website under tutor support as well.  I bought one and it worked o.k. but honestly I have a similar problem, just with older kids.  Intellectually, leveled readers are a bit boring in the early levels.

 

4.  As for the Eides saying reading will always be difficult, I guess it depends on what they mean by that.  Would a dyslexic win a speed contest for reading compared to an NT kid?  Probably not.  But even DD managed to read Divergent in 5 days almost exclusively without my help after getting mostly through Level 3 of Barton so yes, a dyslexic CAN learn to read, and read well, IMHO.  If DD can do that after just three levels, how much more effective a reader will she be after 7 more levels?  It is her other issues that seem to trip her up more, not remediation of the dyslexia.  And every single child is different, KWIM?  Plus you are starting with this when he is still very young.  He has a lot more time to master all of these skills.  I would take what they said with a grain of salt, especially since you may not be fully conversant with the context of their meaning?

 

5.  Barton does introduce silent e later than many programs.  This is an issue.  I admit I am a bit frustrated by this.  But now that I see where she is going with Level 4 it does make sense, even to me as a layman.

 

HTH

[PeterPan]

Wow, thanks for those explanations!!!  Sounds like I was solving a problem Barton already figured out.  :D  Superb!

[OneStepAtATime]

Honestly, this is why I wish there were some sort of clearly explained over all plan given to parents trying to implement Barton.  As a parent you second guess yourself since the overall picture doesn't seem that clear.  It seems a bad idea just blindly trusting that the system will work when it HASN'T for some and of course many of us come into this having already tried other systems that were dismal failures.  So we question and we worry and we doubt, maybe tweak and add and change, which may damage the efficacy of the program because we aren't really given a clearly laid out overall idea of what and how and why for each level from the very beginning, KWIM?  In moving through this program things are making sense now.  As we get to the next level I keep going "OOOOH, that's why we did it this way or that way".  I get where she is coming from and why certain things are done a certain way.  I just wish I had known these things back in Level 1 and 2 so I wouldn't have worried so much about not all the pieces being there.

[PeterPan]

OneStep, thank you.  That makes very good sense, and I think I'm finally at that point where I've questioned enough that I'm concluding she HAS been really thorough.  I'm a picky person, and it's not very often I meet someone who is as picky as I am.  ;)  It's a HUGE THING to entrust your child's reading to someone.  You don't just do that without being SURE. It's too important.

 

I should change my username to "Bear Claws for Child's Cause" or some such thing.   :lol:

[Julie of KY]

Yes to what Merry and OneStep said above.

 

Barton does introduce sight words. About 16 every third or fourth lesson starting with level 3. I agree that it seems like a long time before silent e in introduced, but it words. There are controlled readers out there that can be read earlier.

 

My daughter didn't take off in reading until this year (6th grade) and now she is outpacing all her friends and one of her older brothers.

 

Hang in there. I'd encourage you that if your son needs Barton to actually embrace the system and take it one step at a time.

[OneStepAtATime]

OneStep, thank you.  That makes very good sense, and I think I'm finally at that point where I've questioned enough that I'm concluding she HAS been really thorough.  I'm a picky person, and it's not very often I meet someone who is as picky as I am.   ;)  It's a HUGE THING to entrust your child's reading to someone.  You don't just do that without being SURE. It's too important.

 

I should change my username to "Bear Claws for Child's Cause" or some such thing.   :lol:

Picky here, too.  I absolutely get where you are coming from.  100%.  :)

 

And hey, I like that user name.  It would work well for you.  :laugh:

[PeterPan]

Thanks Julie, I was rereading some old posts of yours and wondered how that had turned out.  So then, out of curiosity how do you (Julie, whoever) determine when you have the sweet spot for amount of time spent on remediation each day?  It just doesn't seem right to take this child, who is otherwise so curious and enjoys learning, and reduce him to ONLY hours every day of interventions (Barton, OT, Ronit Bird), but it's also true any time you're spending doing other stuff COULD have been spent doing more Barton.  How do you find your sweet spot?  

[OneStepAtATime]

Hopefully Julie will respond but honestly it has depended on the child in our home.  

 

With DD, she has to have time to process each piece.  So progressing further in a lesson each day doesn't help.  In other words, when I introduce a new concept, there are usually two in each lesson, at least starting with Level 3.  Thankfully, the lessons are set up so that I can introduce just one of those concepts, progress through the next several parts of the lesson to reinforce that concept, then stop for the day.  The next day we review that concept then introduce the next one and go through those same parts of the lesson again only this time using both concepts.  Then we get to the site word part of the lesson and we stop.  Then the next day we review both concepts, the site words again, and then we usually can complete all of the rest of the lesson.  If she struggles, then we slow down and review some more.  The next day will either be additional review with more practice pages/games/repeat of the lesson with other words, or we move on to the next lesson.  But rushing her through gains nothing since she won't retain it unless she has had time to sleep on it, process it, let it sink in, KWIM?  

 

DS grasps everything really quickly.  We could go through the whole lesson in a day in many instances but even using a dry erase he fatigues with the handwriting portions.  So for him the pace is different.  I break up each lesson into two days so that his hands get a rest.  We go through the lesson and stop after he has written the words and site words and sometimes phrases.  The sentence writing and the other parts of the lesson are done the next day.  If he struggles it is rarely with internalizing the rules. It is with sounding out hard and soft c (although he knows when, he cannot switch between them easily, his brain just sort of overrides his knowledge and he physically has to force his mouth to make the correct sound) or hearing the difference between e and i that cause him difficulties.  Even if he didn't have handwriting issues, I don't think I would do more than one lesson every 2 days, though.  I want to make certain that they are retaining the material before I move on to the next lesson.  Others, I know, have been able to do a lesson a day and their kids seem to do just fine, though. 

 

In other words, it depends entirely on your child.  If they are grasping and internalizing everything and are not fighting you on doing lessons, then sure, you could keep going.  I wouldn't, though, if they are fighting you on it.  DD, especially, was resistant at first.  It helped when I guaranteed her that we would stop at a certain time.  She didn't feel like we would end up doing Barton for hours and was much more enthusiastic.  Once she started seeing progress then she was more willing to keep going and actually asking for lessons but by then I had noticed that she really needed more time for the rules to sink in so I HAVE to break up each lesson into multiple days or she doesn't retain it long-term.  When she wants more, we don't go on, we just review in different ways until I am certain everything is internalized.

 

If your son does well with Barton, you may be able to get through Level 1, 2 and 3 in one year.  If so, I don't see why you would need to rush through any faster than that.  Level 4 is a bear.  He may be much better off tackling that level next year, when his brain is a bit more mature.  Level 9 and 10 are really High School level material prep.  Lets say that he gets through Level 4 and it takes him a year (some kids move through it in just a few months but lets just say a year) and you started it next fall, when he would be sort of in 1st, right?  Then he would probably be able to get through Level 5 and possibly 6 in 2nd grade.  Level 7 and 8 in 3rd grade.  Then he'd be hitting 9 in 4th and 10 in either 4th or 5th.   Barton actually recommends waiting on those two levels until at least Middle School.  Therefore, even at this pace you could slow down.  You really have more time than you realize, I think.

[Lecka]

Okay, so, just to brag.... we went to the library 3 nights ago b/c my son required a book of between lexile level 600 and 700 for school, the librarian helped him to pick book 1 of Spiderwick Chronicles, and he finished it the first night in a little under 2 hours, and we went back 2 nights ago to get him book 2, and he read 60 pages the first night, then I read to him last night.

 

So -- I would not worry about dire predictions of kids not being good readers.  Every one can get to a different level and maybe not everyone gets to the same place, but I am extremely pleased with how my son is doing.  

 

He still has the glitchy things that some of us talk about sometimes, but he is also a pleasure reader (well -- I can't say in independent pleasure reader, but he does read pleasurably).  

[OneStepAtATime]

Okay, so, just to brag.... we went to the library 3 nights ago b/c my son required a book of between lexile level 600 and 700 for school, the librarian helped him to pick book 1 of Spiderwick Chronicles, and he finished it the first night in a little under 2 hours, and we went back 2 nights ago to get him book 2, and he read 60 pages the first night, then I read to him last night.

 

So -- I would not worry about dire predictions of kids not being good readers.  Every one can get to a different level and maybe not everyone gets to the same place, but I am extremely pleased with how my son is doing.  

 

He still has the glitchy things that some of us talk about sometimes, but he is also a pleasure reader (well -- I can't say in independent pleasure reader, but he does read pleasurably).  

:hurray:  :hurray:  :hurray:

[Lecka]

Re-reading -- I would not do frequency lists of words that are not phonetic according to phonetic rules (or whatever word) that he currently can sound out.  

 

My son did sight words through Abecedarian and it sounds like -- it was a very similar method to Barton.  Many sight words were learned phonetically as we came to them in phonics.  Then a few were also learned here and there and it was made clear (with a star next to them, lol) that they were not words you would expect to sound out.

 

To be very clear about why I don't think it is a good idea:  you are telling kids to sound out a word, and that a certain letter makes a certain sound.  Then you are telling them to (somehow????) memorize a word where that letter does not make that sound.  So IMO it is totally destroying what you are trying to teach them.  

 

Of course ------- I cannot deny that *all the other kids out there* (as it seems!!!!!!!!) are able to do this with no problem.  

 

But *all the other kids out there* are not struggling with the letter sounds such that they are having to devote a lot of energy just to match the sounds they are hearing up with the letters they are seeing in the words.  

 

For *all the other kids out there* that is not very difficult at all, so it is appropriate for them to also have these sight words, and it is easy for them to see "oh, this is different" instead of ----- they do not have the overall picture, and they are trying to add this information (from the sight words) into their overall picture.

 

And the truth is -- the overall picture of reading is that you want to use phonics.  It is not the WHOLE picture, b/c the whole picture does include non-phonetic words.  

 

It happens that many words that are VERY COMMON and needed to read most easy readers fall into this category, but they do not give an accurate idea of the OVERALL picture.  

 

And what you are hoping to do, to be honest, is to get the OVERALL picture down, and then add the WHOLE picture.  

 

What you do not want, is to confuse the overall picture, by adding in a whole category that is "exceptions to the overall picture."  

 

You are giving your son information and asking him to create meaning from the information you give him.  I think it is cruel (sorry) to give him one kind of information 3 times a day, when you KNOW that he is still working on sounds and matching sounds to letters and letters to sounds, and then 1 time a day ask him to do a different process.  He is smart, as you have mentioned, maybe he takes after you (can you imagine?) and will be trying to integrate this knowledge and make it work together.  Does this seem like a good idea to do to him, when he is working on sounds?  

 

Of course we all want our kids to reach automaticity.  That is the ultimate goal.  

 

I don't think it is something to rush.

 

As far as the FACT that most early readers are full of totally inappropriate words?  It is so irritating.  Think of all the thread titles here "looking for easy readers for my child" ----- it is something a lot of us think.

 

The FACT that in English the most common words do not follow  the rules is so irritating.  

 

It would be more sensible if the most common words were the most phonetic, and the harder (instead of the "easier") words were least phonetic.

 

But it is not the case.  

 

I have read an explanation of this -- but I can't quite remember it.  It is something from the history of the English language and the process of spellings becoming standardized.  It is an artifact.  It is NOT b/c anyone thinks it is helpful for children learning to read.  

 

I also think that for children who are taught to read vs. just picking it up (as so many children do) that it always takes TIME.  If children are not intuiting phonics rules (aka -- they are not *noticing for themselves* that the letters and sounds match up in a certain way) then that means they are learning phonics as they are taught it.  And it takes time -- you can only teach so much phonics at a time, it takes time.  

 

But this means there is a HUGE variation between the kids who are learning phonics, vs. kids who just pick it up.  

 

This is why, in public school, it is learning to read through 3rd grade, and reading to learn starts in 4th grade.  B/c in a school sequence, K-2 is phonics (plus decoding plus fluency), 3rd grade is fluency, and in 4th grade there is an expectation that you are a fluent reader ready to read grade level texts and talk about them and understand them vs. just read them.  With my son in 4th grade -- I am seeing that in his case, it is still far from "here kid, here's your textbook, go after it."  He is still being given a lot of instruction about how to effectively read and find information and find main ideas and take notes etc. etc. etc. etc.  

 

But anyway -- it is hard to believe that in the usual public school sequence, K-2 is phonics instruction.  What about all those kids who are grade levels ahead in reading?  It was half of the class in all my son's classes.  Well -- they were all either natural readers, or pre-taught (so still taught, but ready at an earlier age and picking it up faster).  That is why they were "above grade level."  But "at grade level" is for the kids who have to be taught.  

 

But also anyway --------- if you want the overall explanation, I recommend Wiley Blevins.  I have read Phonics A-Z from the library, and I bought the intermediate phonics book by him.  He is someone who explains a lot of "why" things.  It takes up its own book, lololol.  It would be hard to add it into an open-and-go reading curriculum.  But I think I got a lot of my questions answered that way.  

 

I also could not handle waiting for "silent e" and it is a reason I did not continue with Barton.  Also, oddly enough, it is one of the few reading (decoding) concepts my son learned in school.  He did not have trouble with that.  But ---- his foundation was good, and it is a binary rule in words of 4 letters either CVC or CVCE.  It was not hard for him.  There are things where it is like "okay, you have got 5 options, figure one out" that people present like "no problem, kid" but then there is an easy-to-apply rule of "silent e" (I mean -- only for the purpose of making a vowel have a long sound) and it gets a lot of press.  

 

But if you are giving a sight word list, you are in effect asking kids to figure out on their own why many, many letters are doing crazy things besides what you have taught them.    

 

But overall -- I think you are in a place where you need to build a strong foundation.  I do not think that sight word lists will contribute to a strong foundation.  I think that AFTER there is a strong foundation, it will be a good time.  EVEN IF you think it may take a LONG TIME to get sight words down.  It did take a long time here.  But that doesn't mean to let it get in the way of the foundation.  

 

I also know this is a divide between us ----- about the process of how words become automatic.  Can you skip "sounding out" and go straight to "automatic."  I think there are kids where they do that, and I think it is partly b/c they are intuiting phonics rules, and partly b/c they have had a hang-up with automaticity that needed attention.  

 

But -- if you know that there is not a foundation at the phonological level, I don't think you can skip up 5 steps to something that is very possible that you will (or maybe won't) need to be focusing on in a year or 18 months or 2 years.  

 

But when you are working on the foundation, the GOAL is the foundation.  The goal is not easy readers.  Easy readers are not the first step that you would think they would be, when you are working on a foundational level.  Unless they are decodable. And even the decodable books can leave something to be desired.  

 

What i did that had pros and cons -- point at words my son CAN read as I read to him.  Pre-read and underline phrases or sentences where I know he can read it.  

 

It is not "here, kid, read this book" or "here, kid, here is an easy reader, now I can tell people you are reading on your own."  But -- it is moving along in the reading process, even if it is not giving markers that we expect to see.  

 

It did take a lot for my son to transition to independent reading, and I think that is a kind of a down side.  But -- he did transition to reading without me sitting with him.  But, I do think it might have left him thinking he needed me to sit with him, instead of feeling confident.  But when you have someone who has the skills and all you are doing is slowly weaning them off the "needs to sit by mom" then I think that even though it is a problem, in the scheme of things it is not a bad problem.  But I don't think we would have had that if he had had independent readers all along.  Maybe.  Or maybe he would have had it anyway.

 

I am going to see if I can find a Wiley Blevins excerpt in a free preview on Amazon.  He is very worthwhile.   

 

Edit:  I don't disagree with any of your concerns about fluency/automaticity.  My son also struggled in this area.  But ---- I don't think that changes, that you build a strong foundation FIRST.  How big does the foundation need to be?  I think ---- it needs to be *at least* a really solid ability to blend.  And not just to blend when there are no additional demands beyond blending, but blending when there are also other things going on (more phonemes to blend, possible sounds to use for a certain phonogram) and various things like that ----- where it is still a challenge to do basic decoding.  B/c while you are still at that level, I think that you CAN work on becoming automatic with learned/understood patterns, but it is still too soon to throw in sight words where you have a different untaught process going on and have not covered how those words work.  I really believe -- that my son was trying to incorporate that in to reading words where you would not want him to incorporate that in ---- and it messed him up ---- he was given conflicting information.  I do think it is cruel -- I think it is needlessly frustrating and confusing a child, instead of presenting them with learning in a way that will be as efficient as possible for them to understand.  And it doesn't really matter if the child is picking it up -- but if you know they are working on sounds and blending -- then I think you err on the side of not messing with the foundation you are trying to build.  

 

Also, I did not use Barton, really, though I have gotten so much from my purchase of Level 1.  But I went in a more public school order, where you learn one-syllable words first, all the phonograms etc, for one-syllable words.  Then you add 2-syllable words.  This is different from Barton -- Barton does 2-syllable words before you can read every one-syllable word.  (I have looked at the scope and sequence and this is my understanding).  But I do think -- I had legitimate reasons to follow the public school order, and Barton has legitimate reasons to go in that order.  But I think that is a minor difference in sequence.  I think the principles are the same.  And then after the principles -- if you see that you have a reason to tweak, or you think one route will make a little more sense, you can.

 

But I think that some things are going counter to principles, and that I do not think is good.  I think there is a principle -- build a strong foundation first, and look at what you are asking the child to learn.  Don't teach them things that are counter to the main lesson you are teaching them.  Build a foundation and then add to it.  I think it is frustrating for a parent b/c of all the time spent on reading with a feeling like there is nothing concrete to show for it (aka -- reading a simple easy reader).  But if you really look at what IS being accomplished, it is a lot.  It is just that we are needing to teach things many kids do not really need to be taught.  But -- that is how it is, we have got to be patient and create a learning environment where our kids can be successful.  We cannot ask our kids to master some obvious, visible skills just to make us feel better.  We have to trust that they are building a strong foundation and that they will be able to show us in the future.  

 

And it is happening!  Onestep's daughter read Divergent in 5 days!!!!!  Julie's daughter has taken off this year.  Etc, etc.  

 

Edit again -- the free Amazon preview of Phonics A-Z by Wiley Blevins is good I think!

 

[Julie of KY]

Thanks Julie, I was rereading some old posts of yours and wondered how that had turned out.  So then, out of curiosity how do you (Julie, whoever) determine when you have the sweet spot for amount of time spent on remediation each day?  It just doesn't seem right to take this child, who is otherwise so curious and enjoys learning, and reduce him to ONLY hours every day of interventions (Barton, OT, Ronit Bird), but it's also true any time you're spending doing other stuff COULD have been spent doing more Barton.  How do you find your sweet spot?

I definitely wouldn't reduce your child to only working on remediation. There's too much other stuff out there to keep learning by listening to books, experimenting, playing, learning orally. Be sure to keep a balance.

 

How do "I" determine how much time - I go by mom's instinct. We generally work 5-6 days per week. I try to challenge my child without overwhelming them. If we're getting frustrated with the new learning, I may set it aside and work on review. If we hit a real battle between mom and child, mom needs to win for that day, but then I try to step back and reassess. If anything I err on smaller, shorter lessons than others. I also will try to split the teaching up into morning reading, after lunch reading, and maybe bedtime reading. Along the way, I've touched base with professionals who've encourage me to keep doing what I was doing.

 

Hang in there. You can't predict the future, but hopefully it will keep improving with time and otherwise, there are ways to accommodate.

 

Three of my kids are 2E - very smart with learning disabilities:

oldest - 10th grade - dyslexic and severely dysgraphic - he was relatively easy to teach reading compared to my younger kids. His huge problem was severe dysgraphis - years and years of work and various therapies. Mostly just accommodated through middle school. This year is the first time he's writing without a scribe!!! (I think most of his writing improvement was due to vision therapy this past year).

 

6th grade daughter - has taken off in reading for the first time this year. Last year she was finially getting to where she could decode the words easier, but then also needed vision therapy for convergence insufficiency, etc. She started picking up books for the first time this past spring and is now reading hours every day. She's on level 7 of Barton and I think she needs to keep going slowly through some of the upper levels. I want to give her more "school reading" but she is balking at that and all my instincts say to just let her read right now and not to force "school reading". We are still working on finding a balance as it is still work for her. She's still listening to literature for school and I'm reading textbooks, but she is reading 300 page age-appropriate novels at a rate of about one book per week. She remains a slow reader, but is spending lots of time doing it and loving it.

 

2nd grader - at the beginning of level 3 of Barton. Plugging along working on Barton. I've started a marble jar with him - he has to do a minimum of work with me on Barton, but can do more work to earn more marbles. I've been giving him one to five marbles for each section (a,b,c etc) in Barton as well as for the extra fluency pages. I break it down into one marble per two sentences or one per 2-3 lines of fluency drill. (Do you have the extra practice pages and fluency drills from Susan Barton's website?) He can cash in the marbles at a rate of 1 marble = 1 extra minute of computer time or he has spent some of his marbles for other things (50 marbles got him a roll of duct tape to make things with). The marbles have been a good motivator for him recently.

[OneStepAtATime]

 

But I think that some things are going counter to principles, and that I do not think is good.  I think there is a principle -- build a strong foundation first, and look at what you are asking the child to learn.  Don't teach them things that are counter to the main lesson you are teaching them.  Build a foundation and then add to it.  I think it is frustrating for a parent b/c of all the time spent on reading with a feeling like there is nothing concrete to show for it (aka -- reading a simple easy reader).  But if you really look at what IS being accomplished, it is a lot.  It is just that we are needing to teach things many kids do not really need to be taught.  But -- that is how it is, we have got to be patient and create a learning environment where our kids can be successful.  We cannot ask our kids to master some obvious, visible skills just to make us feel better.  We have to trust that they are building a strong foundation and that they will be able to show us in the future.  

 

This in particular I wanted to agree with and emphasize.  I keep forgetting this important piece, and it applies not just to foundational reading skills but foundational everything skills.  All children need a solid foundation.  For some kids, that process is easy, or takes just a bit of consistent instruction.  For others, it is a much longer process, starting at very, very basic skills that are intuitive for most.  They cannot get those basic skills at the pace of other children and they cannot get those skills intuitively.  When they can't, we cannot rush them through just so we feel good about doing something that shows progress.  I absolutely agree with this.  Lecka, you need this in big bold letters on your siggie (is anyone proud that after all this time I finally have one, limited as it may be :)? ).  'Cause I forget this rather often then have to hit myself over the head with it on a regular basis.   :laugh:

 

DD is finally "getting it" in reading and math because, thanks to Barton and you lovely ladies, I stepped her way, way back to the very basic building blocks of those skills and moved slowly forward again.  Irregardless of what she or DH want (or me for that matter) she needs those foundational skills for History and Science and even house chores and personal grooming, and, well a lot of other things, too.  She just isn't going to get any of this intuitively or if I rush her through.  Thankfully, we here on the LC board have each other to keep reminding us all as parents to take the path that fits our own child.

 

Best wishes.

[OneStepAtATime]

I definitely wouldn't reduce your child to only working on remediation. There's too much other stuff out there to keep learning by listening to books, experimenting, playing, learning orally. Be sure to keep a balance.

 

How do "I" determine how much time - I go by mom's instinct. We generally work 5-6 days per week. I try to challenge my child without overwhelming them. If we're getting frustrated with the new learning, I may set it aside and work on review. If we hit a real battle between mom and child, mom needs to win for that day, but then I try to step back and reassess. If anything I err on smaller, shorter lessons than others. I also will try to split the teaching up into morning reading, after lunch reading, and maybe bedtime reading. Along the way, I've touched base with professionals who've encourage me to keep doing what I was doing.

 

Hang in there. You can't predict the future, but hopefully it will keep improving with time and otherwise, there are ways to accommodate.

 

Three of my kids are 2E - very smart with learning disabilities:

oldest - 10th grade - dyslexic and severely dysgraphic - he was relatively easy to teach reading compared to my younger kids. His huge problem was severe dysgraphis - years and years of work and various therapies. Mostly just accommodated through middle school. This year is the first time he's writing without a scribe!!! (I think most of his writing improvement was due to vision therapy this past year).

 

6th grade daughter - has taken off in reading for the first time this year. Last year she was finially getting to where she could decode the words easier, but then also needed vision therapy for convergence insufficiency, etc. She started picking up books for the first time this past spring and is now reading hours every day. She's on level 7 of Barton and I think she needs to keep going slowly through some of the upper levels. I want to give her more "school reading" but she is balking at that and all my instincts say to just let her read right now and not to force "school reading". We are still working on finding a balance as it is still work for her. She's still listening to literature for school and I'm reading textbooks, but she is reading 300 page age-appropriate novels at a rate of about one book per week. She remains a slow reader, but is spending lots of time doing it and loving it.

 

2nd grader - at the beginning of level 3 of Barton. Plugging along working on Barton. I've started a marble jar with him - he has to do a minimum of work with me on Barton, but can do more work to earn more marbles. I've been giving him one to five marbles for each section (a,b,c etc) in Barton as well as for the extra fluency pages. I break it down into one marble per two sentences or one per 2-3 lines of fluency drill. (Do you have the extra practice pages and fluency drills from Susan Barton's website?) He can cash in the marbles at a rate of 1 marble = 1 extra minute of computer time or he has spent some of his marbles for other things (50 marbles got him a roll of duct tape to make things with). The marbles have been a good motivator for him recently.

This was really interesting, Julie.  And I love the marble idea!  So I take it you had a good COVD doctor for the VT?

[PeterPan]

Lecka, thanks, that gives me a lot to chew on!  I had not thought of it in terms of contradictions.  And you're right, it was my wanting the flash in the pan while ignoring the slow foundation, sigh.

 

OneStep, yes your sig is terrific.   :thumbup: 

 

Julie, thanks for sharing all that!  Like Onestep I LOVE your marble idea.  Right now his maturity/memory is so short, the daily reward (do 4 Ears sessions with me, receive a gift), works well.  I could totally see us switching over to that earned reward thing and cashing it in, and I love that you're weaving the fine motor into it, hehe.  Well thanks for sharing all that so honestly.  And you're right, it just has to be gut on the balance.

 

 Now off to our exciting day!  He woke up tired and is communing with Peg & Cat.  When that ends, I'm on!   :auto:

[OneStepAtATime]

Good luck, OhE!  :)

[ElizabethB]

You could teach the sight words phonetically with my marked print, UPP. Then, you could mark up a short story that you own or print yourself with the same markings until all has been learned through Barton.

 

My apraxia student was smart enough to learn 5 different marking systems, he was able to read almost anything it it was marked to make it fully phonetic. He read well with my UPP, the marked print in the 1908 Webster, the CLE markings, the 1879 McGuffey Readers, and I forget the last one...

 

http://www.thephonicspage.org/On%20Reading/upp.html

 

http://www.thephonicspage.org/On%20Reading/Resources/sightwordsinUPP1.pdf

 

The markings were helpful until he was old enough to consistently apply the rules, he used marked systems for a few years and then was able to transition to regular books.

[OneStepAtATime]

You could teach the sight words phonetically with my marked print, UPP. Then, you could mark up a short story that you own or print yourself with the same markings until all has been learned through Barton.

 

My apraxia student was smart enough to learn 5 different marking systems, he was able to read almost anything it it was marked to make it fully phonetic. He read well with my UPP, the marked print in the 1908 Webster, the CLE markings, the 1879 McGuffey Readers, and I forget the last one...

 

http://www.thephonicspage.org/On%20Reading/upp.html

 

http://www.thephonicspage.org/On%20Reading/Resources/sightwordsinUPP1.pdf

 

The markings were helpful until he was old enough to consistently apply the rules, he used marked systems for a few years and then was able to transition to regular books.

This an interesting approach.  Hmmm.

 

Here's a question, though.  Why 5 different marking systems?  Was there a specific advantage/philosophy/reason for that?  Or just the circumstances kind of flowed that way?  Or...?

 

Looking at your links now.  Cool.  I have McGruffy Readers here.  I am going to look at the markings more closely.  What is CLE like?  DD is doing well with CLE Math so I was considering doing something with the other CLE materials but haven't tried yet.  I will admit I thought there was just a standard way to mark words.  I didn't realize there were multiple systems.  Learn something new every day....

 

FWIW, Barton does introduce marking.   She starts introducing marking in Level 2 of Barton.  She begins with marking the short vowel sounds for the CVC words.

[PeterPan]

You could teach the sight words phonetically with my marked print, UPP. Then, you could mark up a short story that you own or print yourself with the same markings until all has been learned through Barton.

 

My apraxia student was smart enough to learn 5 different marking systems, he was able to read almost anything it it was marked to make it fully phonetic. He read well with my UPP, the marked print in the 1908 Webster, the CLE markings, the 1879 McGuffey Readers, and I forget the last one...

 

http://www.thephonicspage.org/On%20Reading/upp.html

 

http://www.thephonicspage.org/On%20Reading/Resources/sightwordsinUPP1.pdf

 

The markings were helpful until he was old enough to consistently apply the rules, he used marked systems for a few years and then was able to transition to regular books.

I had never considered marked print.  I've seen Heathermomster mentioning it too, so maybe Wilson does it also?  I don't know if Barton does. Oh duh, I see OneStep answered that!  I'll definitely keep it in mind as a tool, thanks.  I'll go look at your marking.  Thanks!  :)

[Lecka]

I used some markings with two-syllable words.  I did not do it for different sounds of a phonogram, but I did not know about it, either. 

 

I did underline phonograms of two letters when they were new or when they were more difficult.  Underlining is used in Abecedarian, as part of looking at a word and deciding how to sound it out. 

 

For two-syllable words I really just drew a line to show the syllable break for words that did not clearly follow a rule.  There are some words where you apply a rule and it is very straightforward.  There are some words where you have to try one rule, and see if it makes a word, then you try the 2nd rule.  That was hard for my son for quite a while, it just took a lot of practice.  In the meantime I did mark words for him for some reading, so he could be reading, while also working on the words separately. 

 

When I used markings the most was for fluency.  My son had a hard time with fluency.  At the sentence level (so not -- flash cards of words or lists of words, but going from that to reading a sentence or paragraph).  He had a hard time seeing and using punctuation.  He had a hard time with phrasing.  It was more of a "read it at one constant speed, few pauses, monotonish" thing.  He was able to read the words, though, but was not sounding good when he read.  I used a fluency book that had a lot of recommendations for using marked text and then reading the passage (usually half a page or so) with the marked text, and then having the child read the same text without markings.  You can teach phrase breaks by looking for commas, and by looking for prepositions.  A prepositional phrase will usually have a natural pause, so you can look for prepositions and then make a scoop under the prepositional phrase.  There were some other tricks like that. 

 

I saw with him, if he was reading, but couldn't figure out the phrasing as he went, he had a hard time, but he could learn the phrasings with a lot of practice.  The marking definitely helped. 

 

He did not mark anything independently, he just helped me to do it.  He could mark periods by himself. 

 

I think a lot of kids go from decoding to naturally reading with natural pauses and inflection, but that was not the case for him.  At the same time -- I think if he had been *more* fluent at the word level it would have been easier.  But I think it just took time, and it took time spent reading.  It is not like he didn't do word lists, also, he did word lists. 

 

This book I read talked about fluency with a spectrum model, starting with being fluent (automatic) at the word level, and then working up to fluently reading a short passage with expression and pauses. 

 

But anyway -- I have a really good impression of markings, it worked well for fluency.  We marked words for syllable division, just looking at words, but didn't really mark up text that way (besides just drawing the syllable division line to help him). 

 

But I think the big pro would be -- letting kids read sooner and work on their fluency.  It lets kids focus on fewer acts of reading at a time, so they can focus on one specific skill at a time. 

 

I don't think it would be "easy" to go from marked to unmarked, but I think it could be a good prompt to use and then use it less over time.  You could read some text without markings, or slowly start to use fewer and fewer markings. 

 

But since we did that kind of fluency of "sounding good, paying attention to phrasing," only really after a certain level of decoding, I can see why it would be good to use marked text and work on that kind of fluency at the same time as working on decoding. 

 

At the time I was doing decoding, I didn't realize my son would have to work on fluency, too.  I saw a lot of things that gave me an impression that once he could decode, he would naturally start to read fluently.  But, when that didn't happen, I started to notice things that had been saying all along, that a lot of times you have to work on fluency, too. 

 

I was not using Barton where (I am told and believe) that fluency is built in.  I used a program focused on decoding, and then used a book focused on fluency afterward, with some overlap of still doing decoding after we started on fluency. 

 

I was a lot happier to have him able to read the words.  In fluency (this kind of fluency) they (authors) always kind-of complain about kids who read every word but sound like robots.  I was more "reads every word?  I will take it!  Sign me up for that!"  But I thought it was good to have specific instruction for how to read phrases and how to know where to pause.  He also had fluency instruction at public school I think helped him.  He was in readers theater at school and they read poems together and things like that, a lot of recommended things.  It was not the same dismalness of the reading instruction before where it was mostly just not doing a thing to help him. 

 

Exposure to oral reading (from a person or an audiobook) is the top thing that is supposed to help with this kind of fluency, so that is very possible to do while kids are not at the point where it makes sense to work on reading fluency.  It is building a strong foundation for it. 

 

And again, I swear I read to my son all the time.  I don't know why I mention it, I am sure no one thinks I don't read to my kids, but I always read these things where they say "possible cause:  child has not been exposed to enough oral reading"  and I think "no, no, that can't be right." 

[OneStepAtATime]

 

At the time I was doing decoding, I didn't realize my son would have to work on fluency, too.  I saw a lot of things that gave me an impression that once he could decode, he would naturally start to read fluently.  But, when that didn't happen, I started to notice things that had been saying all along, that a lot of times you have to work on fluency, too. 

 

 

I didn't get this either.  :)  I made the same erroneous assumption that decoding well = fluency.  Not with every kid.  Heavy sigh.

 

There are fluency drills and exercises that can be used in addition to the normal Barton lessons starting with Level 2.  I didn't use them because I thought they were overkill.  DS was getting the rules so quickly and DD was doing well, too, so why add MORE when there were so many things we needed to cover and so many things we wanted to cover in other areas, plus Barton takes time and effort as it is.  Turns out DS needed those fluency drills, too.  But it took until mid-Level 3 before I clued in.  Duh!  

[Heathermomster]

I had never considered marked print.  I've seen Heathermomster mentioning it too, so maybe Wilson does it also?  I don't know if Barton does. Oh duh, I see OneStep answered that!  I'll definitely keep it in mind as a tool, thanks.  I'll go look at your marking.  Thanks!   :)

I don't know whether Wilson teaches that or son's tutor pulled that from her extensive bag of tricks.  DS struggled to decode.  After a time, he did not need the markings.  Markings gave DS confidence so that he didn't guess.

[ElizabethB]

With my apraxia student, his mom did CLE with him, she had been doing it with him all along. It worked fairly well, it is IMO the best regular phonics program out there for an apraxia student. There are better choices in the OG realm and I like Webster for all my remedial students, but she was comfortable with CLE and he was progressing through the basics with it.

 

I started teaching him the Dolch words with UPP and then moved on the 2+ syllable words with the marked 1908 Webster. He had not yet done a lot of work with two letter vowel combinations and had a lot of trouble remembering them, my charts were already made but were in black and white, I color coded them to help him. The red for ou was chosen for ou, red, blood, ouch as a cue to help him remember the sound of ou. After a few months of first drilling the sounds in color and then black and white, he was able to wean down to just black and white.

 

http://www.thephonicspage.org/On%20Reading/Resources/PL26VowelChart.pdf

 

He needed the explicit schwa accent pattern of Webster to properly and easily sound out multisyllable words. He was my only native english speaker who needed this taught explicitly. Some ESL students need it taught explicitly, and he did as well, he needed explicit teaching about how and why we schwa accent patterned words and lots of repetition with them.

 

He also needed a lot of repetition to be able to divide words on his own. He worked through my syllable division worksheet about a dozen times over the two years I worked with him and his mom continued to work with this explicitly with Megawords.

 

Before he internalized all of these things, he could not read unmarked text on his own, except very simple books way below his grade level. The McGuffey readers have the difficult words divided and marked, so you work on the hard things first, then get to enjoy reading the story. He was able to read things a few grade levels above his grade with McGuffey, but not with a normal non marked book. With Webster, he was reading sentences up to 9 grades above his grade level before he could read that that level on his own. I used Webster with him and his mom did McGuffey. He also read a few 12th grade Bible passages with my UPP.

 

So, that is how he ended up with so many different systems! Mom was comfortable with easy to use resources like CLE and McGuffey, and I taught him more advanced things with Webster and my UPP. If he hadn't been able to learn the markings so easily, I would have limited the number of different systems he used, but they were all very helpful to him and he leaned them easily. I still can't remember the last one I used with him, it has been a few years since I worked with him.

[OneStepAtATime]

With my apraxia student, his mom did CLE with him, she had been doing it with him all along. It worked fairly well, it is IMO the best regular phonics program out there for an apraxia student. There are better choices in te OG realm and I like Webster for all my remedial students, but she was comfortable with CLE and he was progressing through the basics with it.

 

I started teaching him the Dolch words with UPP and then moved on the 2+ syllable words with the marked 1908 Webster. He had not yet done a lot of work with two letter vowel combinations and had a lot of trouble remembering them, my charts were alread made but we're in black and white, I color coded them to help him. The red for ou was chosen for ou, red, blood, ouch as a cue to help him remember the sound of ou. After a few mocnths of first drilling the sounds in color and then black and white, he was able to wean down to just black and white.

 

http://www.thephonicspage.org/On%20Reading/Resources/PL26VowelChart.pdf

Interesting!  I will need to come back and ponder this later when I have more time to think.

[ElizabethB]

Interesting! I will need to come back and ponder this later when I have more time to think.

I added a bit more to it, too...

[ElizabethB]

I think I used Leigh Print with him, too!

 

http://www.thephonicspage.org/On%20Reading/leighprint.html

 

I do not have the original books, though, he could read the stories well but since they were all scanned copies, he had to struggle a bit with slightly fuzzy font, so I stopped using it with him. He used the key and thought it was an interesting system. They other marking systems he used long enough that he memorized all the symbols, he was better at memorizing systems than individual sound letter correspondences for some reason.

[ElizabethB]

I'll just add my thoughts about my apraxia student here...

 

I met him when he was 7 and had the basic sound spelling correspondences already learned (after much pain and repetition with mom.)  He did CLE at 1/2 speed for a few years, then at pace once he was 8 or 9 (he caught up eventually by continuing phonics and spelling and reading work over the summer and eventually he was able to accelerate a bit more than on pace.)

 

He had gotten PROMPT training, so his speech had been totally fixed by the time I met him, but there was still an underlying language processing problem.  For most students, if the sounds and words are close to the actual word, that is fine.  For him, it needed to be 100% matched and 100% explicitly explained.  For example, he was having a hard time with the sound of ts in as in cats.  He could pronounce the word well in normal speech.  But, when trying to sound it out as a blend, he had a very hard time. I asked my tutoring friends (Don Potter and Dr. Gene Roth) and found out that TS is actually articulated as a single sound.  (As is DS or DZ, I can't remember which since for some reason he could deal with DS/DZ but not TS.)  I got out my Russian textbooks for him and showed him that Russian had a single letter for the sound.  He thought this was highly interesting, he had no problems with TS after that.  

 

For a young student with apraxia, you might want these charts, I use them with my son who needed a fair amount of repetition and Don Potter uses them with his remedial students:

 

https://www.phonovisual.com/products.php?c=1

 

They are arranged in phonemic order, not alphabetic, so they could be especially helpful.  My students seem to learn the sounds faster when they look them up themselves with a cue as opposed to just giving the sound if they struggle.  (The small charts should work fine.)

 

Since he was older and had the basic sounds mastered, I just used my 2 letter team chart with him.  Its order is logical and appropriate for his age, its arrangement might be wasted on a younger child.  He found the color cues very helpful.

 

I think the color cues and the marking cues acted as a prompt to help him recall the sounds until he could learn them without the prompt.  They are helpful for all my students with underlying speech/language processing problems, but they were especially helpful for him and he needed them longer than any of my other students, despite his being in the top 5% of IQ in my estimation of any of my tutoring students.

[ElizabethB]

Oh, one more thing...

 

He might enjoy this and find it useful.  They 2nd movie starts with explanation that will be more for you, but a young boy should enjoy the lego aspect and it might help as a visual of how sounds change and combine.  I started working out this project and then decided that other things were more useful, I may never finish but the first few lessons may help people here.

 

http://www.thephonicspage.org/RELTR/reltrlinks.html

 

There is also a good visual of how sounds in syllables fit together better than letter sound approximations on my dyslexia page, start at "The atomic nature of syllables" about 1/3 of the way down:

 

http://www.thephonicspage.org/On%20Reading/dyslexia.html

 

 

[PeterPan]

I'll just add my thoughts about my apraxia student here...

 

I met him when he was 7 and had the basic sound spelling correspondences already learned (after much pain and repetition with mom.)  He did CLE at 1/2 speed for a few years, then at pace once he was 8 or 9 (he caught up eventually by continuing phonics and spelling and reading work over the summer and eventually he was able to accelerate a bit more than on pace.)

 

He had gotten PROMPT training, so his speech had been totally fixed by the time I met him, but there was still an underlying language processing problem.  For most students, if the sounds and words are close to the actual word, that is fine.  For him, it needed to be 100% matched and 100% explicitly explained.  For example, he was having a hard time with the sound of ts in as in cats.  He could pronounce the word well in normal speech.  But, when trying to sound it out as a blend, he had a very hard time. I asked my tutoring friends (Don Potter and Dr. Gene Roth) and found out that TS is actually articulated as a single sound.  (As is DS or DZ, I can't remember which since for some reason he could deal with DS/DZ but not TS.)  I got out my Russian textbooks for him and showed him that Russian had a single letter for the sound.  He thought this was highly interesting, he had no problems with TS after that.  

 

My ds figured out "ts" with me, but that's because I'm using the PROMPTs with LIPS.  By integrating the two and slowing everything down he can FEEL the differences.  That is what has been making things click.  PROMPT speech therapy is always done full speed, as normal motor planning, since of course it's about the motor planning.  If we slowed the words down unusually in therapy, we would be altering the motor planning.  So now that his speech is better and he can tolerate it, I'm slowing him down myself, using the PROMPTs and that helps him feel the component sounds.  It's why I pretty much ditched the psych's adamant comment that parents shouldn't teach their kids, because I actually know the prompts to do this with him, to slow him down and let him feel them.  It's a path directly into his brain and the connection and progress doing this is amazing.  

 

Back for another session.  Been a long day and we're behind, ugh.