Reading in PS

[ReadingMama1214]

I was talking to a friend who is a public school 1st grade teacher and pursuing her masters in reading instruction so she is knowledgable about reading.

 

I told her that we are doing mainly phonics with DD. We use OPGTR and some of the phonemic awareness games in AAR Pre as well as Nora Gaydos books, BOB books, and Progressive Phonics (the books are our readers).

 

My friend seemed a bit concerned and said "well they need more than phonics, they need sight words, picture cues, and other skills". Has me feeling a bit inadequate.

 

Is picture cues more than just seeing what's happening in the pic? We obviously have the sight words from OPG, but I don't intend to teach any extra ones. We do segmenting activities with AAR and dd can rhyme like doctor Seuss. She can blend, recognize beginning sounds and tell what letters are in a word if we stretch it out. We ask questions about the picture, but most stories we read are decodable. So I'm a bit curious about what "skills" outside of phonics that we might not be covering?

[Aiden]

Let's see ...

 

Phonics = phonics

Sight words = memorized strings of letters so they don't need phonics

Picture cues = illustrations they can look at to see what's happening so they don't need phonics

Other skills = who knows what so they don't need phonics

 

Really, all they need is phonics and a very few sight words. That's what will have them reading rather than guessing based on pictures. You're doing fine.

[ReadingMama1214]

Thanks! That helps understand where she's coming from better. I am thankful that we will have a charter school that uses a phonics based program. This is also why I am glad that I am the one teaching my daughter to read rather than a school who is stuck with a certain curriculum

[SparklyUnicorn]

I don't agree with your friend.  Although it is a different situation having to teach a room full of students to read verses one student.  So maybe some of those things are useful in that situation.

 

I used a phonics based program with both of mine and it worked out very well. 

 

All that said, I was taught using sight words.  That was "the" method during my time.  I did learn how to read so I can't say it doesn't work.  Although we did have separate phonics workbooks on top of that. 

 

I've had lots of teachers tell me all sorts of things over the years.  I listen, but really the way I look at it is they teach to a large group.  I work one on one with my kids.  There are some things I do that work out very well in that situation that wouldn't be so easy to do with a group.  It's not wrong or bad, it's just different.  If my kid is not getting something, I am going to know it pretty quickly.  I don't claim to know better than them though.  Although I don't particularly appreciate it when they assume I'm not doing it right.  I have encountered that attitude occasionally. 

[HomeAgain]

Your friend is wrong.  She is right if she would like the appearance of reading quickly and fluently without being able to translate those skills out of a specially prepared text.

 

I'd hand her a copy of Why Johnny Can't Read with a smile.

[ReadingMama1214]

We don't actually live in the same state. She's in PA. Is this type of reading really what they teach when you get your masters in reading specialist? We fortunately have great classical charter schools that use Riggs. And DD attends a public pre-k program, but is not learning to read there since it is play based. But our public schools (Denver) were just granted more freedom in curriculum choice. Not sure what that entails for grades K-12, but our pre-k teacher was excited about it and I know if DD stays there for half day 4 year old pre-k, she'll learn phonics. Although probably not more than she already knows.

[HomeAgain]

I cannot speak for what she is learning, but the history of teaching English speakers how to read is fascinating.  Educational reform from the early 1920's and beyond is itself a separate study, and seeing how the charts and statistics over the years change to reflect the popular method of the day is confusing and interesting all at once.  Public schools are meant to churn out results quickly.  This woman is a credentialed reading specialist in CA, and here are her methods to teach writing.  I find them deplorable, but they get the output teachers want - seemingly quick ability to write, but not outside of the specialized words the teacher has given them, and only able to sound out a few of them before sight reading.

[rocassie]

I think when multiple kids are being taught, it is useful for a teacher to have multiple methods in order to reach all the kids.  Also, they have a time frame in which to get the kids reading.  As a homeschooler, we have the luxury of going at our child's pace and using the resources that best fit our child and ourselves.

[Tsuga]

I was talking to a friend who is a public school 1st grade teacher and pursuing her masters in reading instruction so she is knowledgable about reading.

 

I told her that we are doing mainly phonics with DD. We use OPGTR and some of the phonemic awareness games in AAR Pre as well as Nora Gaydos books, BOB books, and Progressive Phonics (the books are our readers).

 

My friend seemed a bit concerned and said "well they need more than phonics, they need sight words, picture cues, and other skills". Has me feeling a bit inadequate.

 

Is picture cues more than just seeing what's happening in the pic? We obviously have the sight words from OPG, but I don't intend to teach any extra ones. We do segmenting activities with AAR and dd can rhyme like doctor Seuss. She can blend, recognize beginning sounds and tell what letters are in a word if we stretch it out. We ask questions about the picture, but most stories we read are decodable. So I'm a bit curious about what "skills" outside of phonics that we might not be covering?

 

Her methods are probably necessary for an entire classroom of 28 children over a period of 30 years. I'm sure if you were planning to teach 28 children only for 2 hours per day for just 9 months to achieve a standard outcome, you'd want to have more tools in your bag.

 

You are working to reach one child at a time and you only need to do it twice, so choosing a high-intensity, specialized system, which you won't be judged on for another three years (unless you choose), makes sense.

 

I would highlight that for her--what "works" in short-term and medium-term studies on children in groups may not be necessary for individual instruction because they don't need to guess for a classroom tester in a 10-minute pre-test and post-test situation to get their highest score. You can focus only on the long-term decoding skills, which might indeed have worse outcomes in the short run, because it's a complex system, but it's what they really need and you can afford to be patient.

[Ellie]

I was talking to a friend who is a public school 1st grade teacher and pursuing her masters in reading instruction so she is knowledgable about reading.

 

I told her that we are doing mainly phonics with DD. We use OPGTR and some of the phonemic awareness games in AAR Pre as well as Nora Gaydos books, BOB books, and Progressive Phonics (the books are our readers).

 

My friend seemed a bit concerned and said "well they need more than phonics, they need sight words, picture cues, and other skills". Has me feeling a bit inadequate.

 

Is picture cues more than just seeing what's happening in the pic? We obviously have the sight words from OPG, but I don't intend to teach any extra ones. We do segmenting activities with AAR and dd can rhyme like doctor Seuss. She can blend, recognize beginning sounds and tell what letters are in a word if we stretch it out. We ask questions about the picture, but most stories we read are decodable. So I'm a bit curious about what "skills" outside of phonics that we might not be covering?

 

Your friend is "knowledgeable" about the current public school mentality regarding teaching children to read. It is does not mean she is knowledgeable about the best ways to actually teach children to read.

 

In the 50s, sight reading became popular with public school educators. It was a disaster.

 

The vast majority of children will need good phonics instruction to learn to read well. They do not need to memorize words by sight. They do NOT NOT NOT need picture cues. A few children can learn to read by memorizing words, but most will struggle.

 

When you teach children to read with a good phonics-based method, you don't need to teach them to memorize words by sight. In fact, most "sight words" can be taught phonetically. And eventually, children recognize them "by sight," but that does not mean they are "sight words." That term specifically refers to the words that children are taught to memorize by sight alone, not by having learned to sound them out using phonics.

 

An excellent book on the subject is "Why Johnny Still Can't Read." He explains in great detail the reasons that sight reading has been a failure.

[MomatHWTK]

If you wish to discuss the topic with your friend further, I would simply emphasize that you are firm in your belief that a phonics-only approach is best.  Phonics is actually not the only way to teach reading, just the one that is very popular in this forum and I assume the general homeschooling community.  All the methods your friend mentioned are real methods that have been and continue to be used by educators.  Pictures teach children to learn meaning through context, sight words allow a struggling reader to gain confidence and fluency.  I would say more but don't feel like dodging tomatoes today.  

 

The bottom line is that you get to choose how to instruct your child.  If phonics works for you, then stick with it.  If you feel unsure, there is plenty of research on the topic of teaching reading that will support you (or not) in whatever you choose.  :)

[mathmarm]

There is more than one way to teach a child to read. Your chosen method is known to work splendidly. If you are enjoying it and your child is progressing, I whole-heartedly encourage you to stick with it.

 

My son is a phonetic reader who has automated plenty of words to "sight words" through exposure and repeated use. We don't intend to change what we are doing.

[happyhappyjoyjoy]

I have a Masters in Elem. Ed with a specialty in ESL, and I learned more from 100 EZ lessons about how to teach children to read than two college degrees.  I was never taught logical spelling rules that are included in Orton Gillingham based phonics.  I took two classes recently from a 'top reading education' university.  The professors and students (all teachers) had never heard of those rules either.  The hailed program written by one of the tenured professors drove me batty when my own child used it in 2nd grade.  It has the basic idea of sorting words with no explicit instruction on why they are spelled the way they are.  My text book began with the claim that their is no one right way to teach reading (mmm where have I heard that philosophy before), but then the professor's power point slides slammed Direct Instruction with almost no explanation, and what was explained was false.  Of course she neglected to say that DI is the only method proven successful by a ten year study.  In addition to all the above, I spent a year in a first grade classroom after ten years at home with homeschooling mixed in.  It is almost impossible to implement true phonics (not wannabe phonics in name only with a host of bad methodology thrown in) unless the entire school is set up for it and the parents understand it.  I went back to homeschooling and would only reenter teaching if I found such a school or if I start my own classical school that is ungraded to 3rd grade.  There is simply too much of a range in reading ability for me to do otherwise.

Edited November 29, 2015 by happyhappyjoyjoy

[ReadingMama1214]

Happyhappyjoyjoy, DDs preschool (which she won't stay at for K-12) uses 100 Easy Lessons in their reading intervention program. Not sure if that's for general or just remedial use.

 

The school she will attend (classical) is phonics based, but they have these kids from K up and are able to integrate it into all of the curriculum.

 

I agree, it is obviously not the only way to teach reading and I know many kids and adults who learned the way m friend described. I also use pictures for context and comprehension. And dd has learned some sight words mainly by gaining fluency.

[Farrar]

The schools often really have to use those methods in order to get kids ready to pass standardized tests faster. They are often faster methods in the beginning, especially for kids who just aren't there yet with blending and fluency. So basically they're teaching them to get around that so they can pass the test.

 

It seems to vary a huge amount school to school, state to state, and district to district. Around here, most schools seem to have moved back toward phonics as a base, but a lot of places are still using sight words as a base. Oh well.

[HS Mom in NC]

The only sight word I remember teaching was "one." Maybe there were a couple of others. Other than those exceptions it was all phonics around here. Sight words at my house mean words that have been correctly sounded out so many times, the child recognizes them on sight and doesn't have to sound them out anymore.

Kids taught phonics can use a dictionary and a little deductive logic to look up a word they don't know how to spell.  Kids taught a lot of sight words are completely baffled in that situation. When kids who have been taught phonics see new, long, complicated words they don't need mommy or teacher or someone else to hold their hand and tell them what it says because they learned how to sound things out.  The typical sight word approach is learned helplessness and dependence. It's giving a child a fish rather than teaching a child to fish.

[happyhappyjoyjoy]

Two more notes:

 

My main beef with whole language and sight word, etc, is that so many children end up in remedial reading groups or sent to the resource teacher not because they aren't capable but rather they are being taught with a faulty method.  While it is true that some children will learn to read not matter the method, it is also true that many children that would learn most efficiently with OG based methods and when they are ready will be mislabeled as dyslexic.  Here was another interesting tidbit from one of my classes: dyslexia is no longer used for flipping letters or order of letters in the brain.  It now means anything issue that arises in which a child is not learning to read on 'grade level.'  Here again I see a commonality between the philosophies of the day: 'Let's throw everything under an umbrella' and 'changing the definition of a word to suit our practice.'  I was also told that 'Sight Words' no longer refer to undecodable but rather words are instantly recognized, which is what we've always called automaticity.  

 

Second, picture clues and context, etc all fall into place naturally when sound phonics is taught.  When phonics and loigical spelling rules are taught explicitly, all those strategies come about intrinsically.  However the reverse is not true.  For students that don't learn with whole language and are explicitly taught picture cues, etc..., phonics and logical spelling rules do not fall into place intrinsically.  Other than phonics, the MOST important skill is reading aloud to the child above his grade level, or in my case playing audio books because I hate to read out loud.  When a child has a strong vocabulary, they can easily decode new words when they come to them in reading.  I also have my kids constantly listening to audio books while they read to help them develop into strong readers and speakers. 

 

To my dying day I will shout from the mountains if a first grade teacher doesn't tell her students that love, have, and give have silent e's because English words don't end in V, how is a 2nd/3rd grader supposed to understand how to spell weave, heave, or sieve, and a 4th/5th grader supposed to understand how to spell intuitive and fugitive.

 

OK, one more...I will say I did learn about a neat study that shows a natural spelling development.  I'd have to look it up, but it was valuable information.