Phun with Phonics
Luz Shosie and Ned Vare
Unschoolers and others,
There is a protest against phonics among us. Why? Must I apologize for
stating facts? My posts are not for everyone. If you have your own ideas,
fine. Mine are for others. Also, I'm not talking about particular children
or your children who have learned things seemingly by magic, but the vast
numbers of "average" kids who want to learn to read and are ready and need
to be shown HOW....right NOW, or sometime.
Even though some kids seem to pick it up by osmosis, they are learning
skills. It is not magic. The skills (collectively) are called Phonics. I
agree that it does not always require teaching, and certainly not
factory-style rote repetitions. But when teaching is requested, it needs to
be right; it needs to be useful; it needs to provide skills, and today it
needs to be fast and easy.
It needs to be phonics...the nuts and bolts of reading.
English is a phonetic language. It was designed (imperfectly due to
complications in England with other languages in use there) as a compromise
between Latin and northern European tongues, and several forces have
influenced the evolution of modern American English. That doesn't change the
basic simple fact...the letters stand for spoken sounds.
The idea (the discovery) behind English is phonetics. In order to read, we
MUST be able to turn printed letters into sounds -- whether they are spoken
or silently "read" to ourselves. Until a child can do that, reading is not
happening.
To repeat: If we can read this, we are using phonics to do it (not something
else).
Phonics and Phonetics:
Phonics is a method of learning to read by learning the phonetic value
(sounds) of letters and groups of letters. Phonetics is the study of speech
sounds -- the sounds of languages. For my purpose here, those are virtually
interchangable -- with distinctions, but not differences.
If there are other concepts about learning to read, fine, but they do not
tell us HOW to read. The ability to read, unlike the abilities of walking
and talking, requires specific knowledge. It's not esoteric, or difficult,
but it is specific. Unlike walking and talking our native tongue, reading
is not "natural," it is a sophisticated skill.
All the "motivation" in the world does not teach us to read. We can be
surrounded by books and such, but that doesn't give us the skill that's
needed. All such "immersion" is mere therapy. Many are not "getting" it
today, and those kids end up in a growing disaster -- special ed. It's not
instruction in skills. We don't usually throw children into deep pools to
"teach" them to swim. Hey, it has worked, but there's a down side for too
many.
Sandra sends this:
Little Holly, who took that telephone message, knows that in order to write,
she needs to use letters to represents sounds. She did a great job. She
proved that she knew the principles of phonics. She can learn to spell some
other time, if she wants to.
My point is this: Holly would not have been able to write the message if she
had not had the skill and knowledge she had. I am not suggesting that
parents sit down and torture their kids with rote learning or even gentle
persuasion. I am also not suggesting that people not surround their kids
with motivations to read and write. (Literacy is vital to survival in our
society) I am simply stating the facts of how the English language works.
All the "exceptions" that are cited seem to be used in trying to prove that
phonics is not a fact, but they are still merely exceptions to the rules.
The vast majority of English words follow the simple patterns of its
origins. Who doesn't know that there are exceptions?
I am not talking about "why" a child reads or should learn to read. It
really doesn't matter why. What matters is HOW to do it. The HOW is
phonics...Letters stand for sounds...make the simple connection between
letters and sounds and Bingo, I can read. If I don't make that connection, I
can't. Can anyone tell us another way?
No. So why is there any argument?
The reason why I'm writing this is so that when children ask about learning
how to read, parents and others will know how to help them. Sure, read to
them for motivation, show them the necessity of reading in order to learn
about the world, let them know the joys and satisfactions that come from
reading, etc. But when they want to know HOW, they need the specific skill
that comes from knowing that letters stand for sounds. They need to know the
letters and their related sounds.
What separates a kid who can read from one who can't read. One knows the
connection between letters and sounds; the other doesn't.
They need to know. It doesn't mean that they need to be taught. Many kids,
including mine, learned it on their own. BUT THEY DID LEARN IT, because
without it, they can't read. Sounding out (decoding the print) is a first
step, and soon children get so good at it that they don't notice that
they're doing it. They have advanced their skills into fluency and
understanding.
I am not talking about "interpreting" or, as WL enthusiasts say,
"constructing meaning." I am talking about finding out, as exactly as
possible, what the author is saying -- accurate transmission of particular
words -- that's the purpose of written language. Interpreting is needed when
trying to understand pictographic languages (such as Chinese) in which
pictures (characters) stand for ideas, not specific words. Try drawing a
picture of Truth, or Freedom, or polite or desperate...and you'll see that
words work better.
Also, I'm not talking about "understanding" what is read. That depends on
the experience of the reader. Understanding is a level beyond simple
reading, but reading comes first. We cannot "understand" what we can't
decipher (read).
Someone asked if I have ever been a school teacher. Yes. Two years in
elementary grades; one year high school -- all grades, most subjects,
private schools; one year college -- continuing ed (adults). My professional
training (and part-time career) was/is in architecture, and I have had many
occupations.
For those who might be interested in the origins of writing, and therefore
reading, I would advise going to any good encyclopedia. There you will find,
as I have, that phonics is not just a fad or a fancy that modern "theories"
of schooling can discard as "out of fashion" or "no longer useful" in a
world of therapy and excuses. Phonics is the basis of the English language.
For those who want some facts about the world of Whole Language and its
equally evil twin, Outcome Based Education (OBE), I suggest the book, "The
OBE/Whole Language Fraud," by Samuel Blumenfeld...available from Paradigm
Books. Blumenfeld also clears up the myth that people from New Zealand
"invented" Whole Language, and that it was successful there. It was the same
failure there that it was in Israel, USSR, Cuba, and is today in our
country. California has recently changed back from WL to phonics-based
reading instruction because of the massive failure of WL that took the state
from near the top to the very bottom in just ten years. Trouble is, they
need to retrain the teachers -- that's the hard part.
Blumenfeld also tells the true history of the origin of Whole Language in a
book called "The New Illiterates." It was developed in about 1903 to teach
deaf people to read. Phonetic languages are difficult for people who can't
hear or speak, since they have no concept of sound. Whole Language connected
words to pictures, allowing a person to make a connection between print and
the real world. It became popular in public schools in the twenties as
"look-say," but it is extremely limited, and as a learning method for
hearing people it can be debilitating. Today, critics mockingly call it
"Look-Say-Fail."
The great "success" of WL is that it feeds millions of kids into Special
Education -- a fraud even worse, and more damaging, than the Whole Language
mistakes it is purported to cure.
Ned Vare
There is a protest against phonics among us. Why? Must I apologize for
stating facts? My posts are not for everyone. If you have your own ideas,
fine. Mine are for others. Also, I'm not talking about particular children
or your children who have learned things seemingly by magic, but the vast
numbers of "average" kids who want to learn to read and are ready and need
to be shown HOW....right NOW, or sometime.
Even though some kids seem to pick it up by osmosis, they are learning
skills. It is not magic. The skills (collectively) are called Phonics. I
agree that it does not always require teaching, and certainly not
factory-style rote repetitions. But when teaching is requested, it needs to
be right; it needs to be useful; it needs to provide skills, and today it
needs to be fast and easy.
It needs to be phonics...the nuts and bolts of reading.
English is a phonetic language. It was designed (imperfectly due to
complications in England with other languages in use there) as a compromise
between Latin and northern European tongues, and several forces have
influenced the evolution of modern American English. That doesn't change the
basic simple fact...the letters stand for spoken sounds.
The idea (the discovery) behind English is phonetics. In order to read, we
MUST be able to turn printed letters into sounds -- whether they are spoken
or silently "read" to ourselves. Until a child can do that, reading is not
happening.
To repeat: If we can read this, we are using phonics to do it (not something
else).
Phonics and Phonetics:
Phonics is a method of learning to read by learning the phonetic value
(sounds) of letters and groups of letters. Phonetics is the study of speech
sounds -- the sounds of languages. For my purpose here, those are virtually
interchangable -- with distinctions, but not differences.
If there are other concepts about learning to read, fine, but they do not
tell us HOW to read. The ability to read, unlike the abilities of walking
and talking, requires specific knowledge. It's not esoteric, or difficult,
but it is specific. Unlike walking and talking our native tongue, reading
is not "natural," it is a sophisticated skill.
All the "motivation" in the world does not teach us to read. We can be
surrounded by books and such, but that doesn't give us the skill that's
needed. All such "immersion" is mere therapy. Many are not "getting" it
today, and those kids end up in a growing disaster -- special ed. It's not
instruction in skills. We don't usually throw children into deep pools to
"teach" them to swim. Hey, it has worked, but there's a down side for too
many.
Sandra sends this:
>>VA HUSPEDEL WILL CALL DAD TO REE SKEGUEL MRI<<(translation: VA hospital will call Dad to re-schedule MRI)
Little Holly, who took that telephone message, knows that in order to write,
she needs to use letters to represents sounds. She did a great job. She
proved that she knew the principles of phonics. She can learn to spell some
other time, if she wants to.
My point is this: Holly would not have been able to write the message if she
had not had the skill and knowledge she had. I am not suggesting that
parents sit down and torture their kids with rote learning or even gentle
persuasion. I am also not suggesting that people not surround their kids
with motivations to read and write. (Literacy is vital to survival in our
society) I am simply stating the facts of how the English language works.
All the "exceptions" that are cited seem to be used in trying to prove that
phonics is not a fact, but they are still merely exceptions to the rules.
The vast majority of English words follow the simple patterns of its
origins. Who doesn't know that there are exceptions?
I am not talking about "why" a child reads or should learn to read. It
really doesn't matter why. What matters is HOW to do it. The HOW is
phonics...Letters stand for sounds...make the simple connection between
letters and sounds and Bingo, I can read. If I don't make that connection, I
can't. Can anyone tell us another way?
No. So why is there any argument?
The reason why I'm writing this is so that when children ask about learning
how to read, parents and others will know how to help them. Sure, read to
them for motivation, show them the necessity of reading in order to learn
about the world, let them know the joys and satisfactions that come from
reading, etc. But when they want to know HOW, they need the specific skill
that comes from knowing that letters stand for sounds. They need to know the
letters and their related sounds.
What separates a kid who can read from one who can't read. One knows the
connection between letters and sounds; the other doesn't.
They need to know. It doesn't mean that they need to be taught. Many kids,
including mine, learned it on their own. BUT THEY DID LEARN IT, because
without it, they can't read. Sounding out (decoding the print) is a first
step, and soon children get so good at it that they don't notice that
they're doing it. They have advanced their skills into fluency and
understanding.
I am not talking about "interpreting" or, as WL enthusiasts say,
"constructing meaning." I am talking about finding out, as exactly as
possible, what the author is saying -- accurate transmission of particular
words -- that's the purpose of written language. Interpreting is needed when
trying to understand pictographic languages (such as Chinese) in which
pictures (characters) stand for ideas, not specific words. Try drawing a
picture of Truth, or Freedom, or polite or desperate...and you'll see that
words work better.
Also, I'm not talking about "understanding" what is read. That depends on
the experience of the reader. Understanding is a level beyond simple
reading, but reading comes first. We cannot "understand" what we can't
decipher (read).
Someone asked if I have ever been a school teacher. Yes. Two years in
elementary grades; one year high school -- all grades, most subjects,
private schools; one year college -- continuing ed (adults). My professional
training (and part-time career) was/is in architecture, and I have had many
occupations.
For those who might be interested in the origins of writing, and therefore
reading, I would advise going to any good encyclopedia. There you will find,
as I have, that phonics is not just a fad or a fancy that modern "theories"
of schooling can discard as "out of fashion" or "no longer useful" in a
world of therapy and excuses. Phonics is the basis of the English language.
For those who want some facts about the world of Whole Language and its
equally evil twin, Outcome Based Education (OBE), I suggest the book, "The
OBE/Whole Language Fraud," by Samuel Blumenfeld...available from Paradigm
Books. Blumenfeld also clears up the myth that people from New Zealand
"invented" Whole Language, and that it was successful there. It was the same
failure there that it was in Israel, USSR, Cuba, and is today in our
country. California has recently changed back from WL to phonics-based
reading instruction because of the massive failure of WL that took the state
from near the top to the very bottom in just ten years. Trouble is, they
need to retrain the teachers -- that's the hard part.
Blumenfeld also tells the true history of the origin of Whole Language in a
book called "The New Illiterates." It was developed in about 1903 to teach
deaf people to read. Phonetic languages are difficult for people who can't
hear or speak, since they have no concept of sound. Whole Language connected
words to pictures, allowing a person to make a connection between print and
the real world. It became popular in public schools in the twenties as
"look-say," but it is extremely limited, and as a learning method for
hearing people it can be debilitating. Today, critics mockingly call it
"Look-Say-Fail."
The great "success" of WL is that it feeds millions of kids into Special
Education -- a fraud even worse, and more damaging, than the Whole Language
mistakes it is purported to cure.
Ned Vare
[email protected]
On Thu, 01 Aug 2002 00:23:33 -0400 Luz Shosie and Ned Vare
<nedvare@...> writes:
facts, and then you never address the *facts* posted that contradict
your opinions.
relay conversations with a Deaf friend who sure seemed to be reading my
messages, but she certainly couldn't turn printed letters into sounds.
It would slow me down. I know the shapes of the words. rain - and many
other people I know, kids and adults - often doesn't bother to
phonetically decode long names in books she reads. She remembers what the
name-word looks like, and that's enough.
the names of all of the letters? As a matter of fact, I'm still not sure
she knows all of the names.
had already had intensive phonics instruction before they came to me (I
taught grades 3 through 12). None were fluent readers. Only a handful
considered reading to be anything other than torture.
Dar
<nedvare@...> writes:
> Unschoolers and others,What others?
> There is a protest against phonics among us. Why? Must I apologize forYou're not stating fracts. You're stating your opinions and calling them
> stating facts?
facts, and then you never address the *facts* posted that contradict
your opinions.
> The idea (the discovery) behind English is phonetics. In order toread, we
> MUST be able to turn printed letters into sounds -- whether they arereading
> spoken or silently "read" to ourselves. Until a child can do that,
> is not happening.Then no congenitally Deaf people read, apparently. I've had many voice
relay conversations with a Deaf friend who sure seemed to be reading my
messages, but she certainly couldn't turn printed letters into sounds.
> To repeat: If we can read this, we are using phonics to do it (notNope. I rarely use phonics when reading, IMO most fluent readers don't.
> something else).
It would slow me down. I know the shapes of the words. rain - and many
other people I know, kids and adults - often doesn't bother to
phonetically decode long names in books she reads. She remembers what the
name-word looks like, and that's enough.
> I am not talking about "why" a child reads or should learn to read. Itbetween
> really doesn't matter why. What matters is HOW to do it. The HOW is
> phonics...Letters stand for sounds...make the simple connection
> letters and sounds and Bingo, I can read. If I don't make thatconnection, I
> can't. Can anyone tell us another way?Yes. Many people have done so, but you're not listening.
> But when they want to know HOW, they need the specific skillknow the
> that comes from knowing that letters stand for sounds. They need to
> letters and their related sounds.Did I mention our friend who could read Harry Potter before she learned
the names of all of the letters? As a matter of fact, I'm still not sure
she knows all of the names.
> The great "success" of WL is that it feeds millions of kids intoI was once a special education teacher in California. *All* of my kids
> Special
> Education -- a fraud even worse, and more damaging, than the Whole
> Language
> mistakes it is purported to cure.
had already had intensive phonics instruction before they came to me (I
taught grades 3 through 12). None were fluent readers. Only a handful
considered reading to be anything other than torture.
Dar
[email protected]
In a message dated 7/31/02 10:23:34 PM, nedvare@... writes:
<< Must I apologize for stating facts? >>
What you stated was not all factual.
It's not protest against phonics. It's objection to the claim that phonics
is more than just one of many tools readers use to decipher written English.
<<Even though some kids seem to pick it up by osmosis, they are learning
skills. It is not magic.>>
No, it is real, honestly natural learning and involves more than one skill.
<<But when teaching is requested, it needs to
be right; it needs to be useful; it needs to provide skills, and today it
needs to be fast and easy.>>
When questions are asked, they can be answered without being a course in
phonics. If it's a phonics question, great! If phonics games are played,
great!
WHY does it need to be fast and easy?
Why does it need to be fast?
<<It was designed (imperfectly due to
complications in England with other languages in use there) as a compromise
between Latin and northern European tongues,>>
It wasn't designed. It evolved. It is not a compromise. It is a living
language with a rich and still-evident history.
<<Unlike walking and talking our native tongue, reading
is not "natural," it is a sophisticated skill.>>
Speaking a language is very sophisticated.
<<All such "immersion" is mere therapy.>>
That immersion is real life.
<< Many are not "getting" it
today, and those kids end up in a growing disaster -- special ed. >>
Many kids don't "get" phonics.
<< We don't usually throw children into deep pools to
"teach" them to swim. Hey, it has worked, but there's a down side for too
many.>>
And neither has anyone here thrown their children into a deep pool of
language and left them to d. >>
Holly picked up those sophisticated skills on her own, from immersion in
language, from playing, from asking questions, from reading, gradually,
without "instruction."
<<I am not talking about "why" a child reads or should learn to read. It
really doesn't matter why. What matters is HOW to do it. The HOW is
phonics...Letters stand for sounds...make the simple connection between
letters and sounds and Bingo, I can read. If I don't make that connection, I
can't. Can anyone tell us another way?>>
We apparently can tell it, but you apparently don't care to read it.
<<No. So why is there any argument?>>
Yes. Because you're stuck and will not consider what others are telling you
IS happening in their homes on July 31, 2002.
<<What separates a kid who can read from one who can't read. One knows the
connection between letters and sounds; the other doesn't.>>
This is simplistic and it isn't in a narrow and immediate sense true.
I have kids who knew letters and their sounds years before they could read.
I wasn't in a hurry and they weren't either. JUST knowing phonics rules
isn't the same as reading. And there are readers who don't "know the rules."
<<Try drawing a
picture of Truth, or Freedom, or polite or desperate...and you'll see that
words work better.>>
Well in ideographic writing systems, the picture and the word would have been
the same thing.
<<Also, I'm not talking about "understanding" what is read. That depends on
the experience of the reader. Understanding is a level beyond simple
reading, but reading comes first. We cannot "understand" what we can't
decipher (read). >>
Sounding out words without comprehension isn't reading. It's decoding.
<<Phonics is the basis of the English language.>>
This sounds like it would mean something, but it doesn't. ALL spoken human
language is made up of sounds, and so phonics can be said to be the basis of
any language.
<<For those who want some facts about the world of Whole Language and its
equally evil twin, Outcome Based Education (OBE), I suggest...>>
This is a list of 850 people whose kids don't go to school (with a few
exceptions), who are unschoolers almost all. There's no need to badmouth
school here.
Sandra
<< Must I apologize for stating facts? >>
What you stated was not all factual.
It's not protest against phonics. It's objection to the claim that phonics
is more than just one of many tools readers use to decipher written English.
<<Even though some kids seem to pick it up by osmosis, they are learning
skills. It is not magic.>>
No, it is real, honestly natural learning and involves more than one skill.
<<But when teaching is requested, it needs to
be right; it needs to be useful; it needs to provide skills, and today it
needs to be fast and easy.>>
When questions are asked, they can be answered without being a course in
phonics. If it's a phonics question, great! If phonics games are played,
great!
WHY does it need to be fast and easy?
Why does it need to be fast?
<<It was designed (imperfectly due to
complications in England with other languages in use there) as a compromise
between Latin and northern European tongues,>>
It wasn't designed. It evolved. It is not a compromise. It is a living
language with a rich and still-evident history.
<<Unlike walking and talking our native tongue, reading
is not "natural," it is a sophisticated skill.>>
Speaking a language is very sophisticated.
<<All such "immersion" is mere therapy.>>
That immersion is real life.
<< Many are not "getting" it
today, and those kids end up in a growing disaster -- special ed. >>
Many kids don't "get" phonics.
<< We don't usually throw children into deep pools to
"teach" them to swim. Hey, it has worked, but there's a down side for too
many.>>
And neither has anyone here thrown their children into a deep pool of
language and left them to d. >>
Holly picked up those sophisticated skills on her own, from immersion in
language, from playing, from asking questions, from reading, gradually,
without "instruction."
<<I am not talking about "why" a child reads or should learn to read. It
really doesn't matter why. What matters is HOW to do it. The HOW is
phonics...Letters stand for sounds...make the simple connection between
letters and sounds and Bingo, I can read. If I don't make that connection, I
can't. Can anyone tell us another way?>>
We apparently can tell it, but you apparently don't care to read it.
<<No. So why is there any argument?>>
Yes. Because you're stuck and will not consider what others are telling you
IS happening in their homes on July 31, 2002.
<<What separates a kid who can read from one who can't read. One knows the
connection between letters and sounds; the other doesn't.>>
This is simplistic and it isn't in a narrow and immediate sense true.
I have kids who knew letters and their sounds years before they could read.
I wasn't in a hurry and they weren't either. JUST knowing phonics rules
isn't the same as reading. And there are readers who don't "know the rules."
<<Try drawing a
picture of Truth, or Freedom, or polite or desperate...and you'll see that
words work better.>>
Well in ideographic writing systems, the picture and the word would have been
the same thing.
<<Also, I'm not talking about "understanding" what is read. That depends on
the experience of the reader. Understanding is a level beyond simple
reading, but reading comes first. We cannot "understand" what we can't
decipher (read). >>
Sounding out words without comprehension isn't reading. It's decoding.
<<Phonics is the basis of the English language.>>
This sounds like it would mean something, but it doesn't. ALL spoken human
language is made up of sounds, and so phonics can be said to be the basis of
any language.
<<For those who want some facts about the world of Whole Language and its
equally evil twin, Outcome Based Education (OBE), I suggest...>>
This is a list of 850 people whose kids don't go to school (with a few
exceptions), who are unschoolers almost all. There's no need to badmouth
school here.
Sandra
[email protected]
In a message dated 7/31/02 11:23:15 PM Central Daylight Time,
nedvare@... writes:
the *phonic rules* are. I learned to read well before I ever went to school.
My first school was the American School in Iran and they *taught* us much the
same way my Mom had been *teaching* me at home. When we came to the States
and I started school here, phonics was part of the curriculum. I never could
*get it.* My teachers sent notes home, my Mom (who doesn't know phonics
either) tried to help me. Finally, after two agonizing years, my Mom told me
not to worry about it. She told me I could read (no matter what the teachers
said) and that if I failed phonics it didn't matter to her. What a relief!
I read well, have excellent comprehension skills and still have no idea what
phonics are about. I am sure phonics work for some, but for me it is not the
be all and end all of learning to read. To me, reading is magical.
~Nancy
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
nedvare@... writes:
> The reason why I'm writing this is so that when children ask about learningI guess I must be an illiterate ignoramus. I have absolutely no idea of what
> how to read, parents and others will know how to help them. Sure, read to
> them for motivation, show them the necessity of reading in order to learn
> about the world, let them know the joys and satisfactions that come from
> reading, etc. But when they want to know HOW, they need the specific skill
> that comes from knowing that letters stand for sounds. They need to know the
> letters and their related sounds.
>
> What separates a kid who can read from one who can't read. One knows the
> connection between letters and sounds; the other doesn't.
>
the *phonic rules* are. I learned to read well before I ever went to school.
My first school was the American School in Iran and they *taught* us much the
same way my Mom had been *teaching* me at home. When we came to the States
and I started school here, phonics was part of the curriculum. I never could
*get it.* My teachers sent notes home, my Mom (who doesn't know phonics
either) tried to help me. Finally, after two agonizing years, my Mom told me
not to worry about it. She told me I could read (no matter what the teachers
said) and that if I failed phonics it didn't matter to her. What a relief!
I read well, have excellent comprehension skills and still have no idea what
phonics are about. I am sure phonics work for some, but for me it is not the
be all and end all of learning to read. To me, reading is magical.
~Nancy
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 7/31/2002 9:52:35 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
freeform@... writes:
production - BEFORE she knew all the letter names and sounds. She could read
the script - she could read it with great expression - having learned it by
reading along with the actors, in rehearsal after rehearsal.
She had not "just memorized" the play, either. Having figured out how to read
the words in that script (probably from a combination of just
"word-recognition" and "sounding out" - she was able to read other stuff,
too.
--pam
National Home Education Network
http://www.NHEN.org
Changing the Way the World Sees Homeschooling!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
freeform@... writes:
> Did I mention our friend who could read Harry Potter before she learnedRosie was reading Shakespeare - we were all involved in a Shakespeare company
> the names of all of the letters? As a matter of fact, I'm still not sure
> she knows all of the names.
production - BEFORE she knew all the letter names and sounds. She could read
the script - she could read it with great expression - having learned it by
reading along with the actors, in rehearsal after rehearsal.
She had not "just memorized" the play, either. Having figured out how to read
the words in that script (probably from a combination of just
"word-recognition" and "sounding out" - she was able to read other stuff,
too.
--pam
National Home Education Network
http://www.NHEN.org
Changing the Way the World Sees Homeschooling!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
N.McV.
Luz Shosie and Ned Vare wrote:
Unschoolers and others,
There is a protest against phonics among us. Why? Must I apologize for
stating facts?
But you aren't stating facts. That's why folks here disagree with you. Then there's your inability to correct yourself when errors are pointed out -- such as your persistence in confusing "whole word" with "whole language".
I went many years reading well above grade level, tested out of reading instruction in school (tested at grade 12+ level when in 2nd grade), and didn't learn to sound out words until I was in junior high school, when I needed a method to differentiate between similar-looking names in an archaeology book.
Both my children are sight-readers, as was my father. We are all self-taught, and all voracious readers. (And all three generations heard the same thing in school "You read too much, it'll hurt your eyes.")
Maybe someone who can only read by sound has no conception of the process of sight-reading.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Unschoolers and others,
There is a protest against phonics among us. Why? Must I apologize for
stating facts?
But you aren't stating facts. That's why folks here disagree with you. Then there's your inability to correct yourself when errors are pointed out -- such as your persistence in confusing "whole word" with "whole language".
I went many years reading well above grade level, tested out of reading instruction in school (tested at grade 12+ level when in 2nd grade), and didn't learn to sound out words until I was in junior high school, when I needed a method to differentiate between similar-looking names in an archaeology book.
Both my children are sight-readers, as was my father. We are all self-taught, and all voracious readers. (And all three generations heard the same thing in school "You read too much, it'll hurt your eyes.")
Maybe someone who can only read by sound has no conception of the process of sight-reading.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
zenmomma *
>>There is a protest against phonics among us. Why?>>Not a protest against phonics. Just a suggestion that phonics do not always
have to be the first step in helping a child learn to read. Way before
phonics and letters there are things a parent can be doing. And if a child
is not getting letter/sound association, they can still be reading. I've
seen it in my own child.
>>Must I apologize for stating facts?>>No. But they are the facts as you see them. I've seen those "facts" have a
very different effect on children when stated as the be all and end all of
reading. In fact, intensive phonics instruction has hurt many of our
children and hindered their reading progress.
>>My posts are not for everyone.>>Well they are publicly posted. That seems to mean they're open to everyone.
Some of us are simply disagreeing with the statement that the "best" or
maybe even only way to help a child to read is to start with phonics
instruction. We're simply stating the "fact" that some kids come to reading
through a back door and don't start that way at all.
>>Also, I'm not talking about particular children or your children who haveWow. Kind of a snarky comment on an unschooling list. I don't "teach" my
>>learned things seemingly by magic>>
kids lots of things. They learn. Fish swim, birds fly, people learn. I'm not
claiming magic. I'm also not telling other parents to use a phonics approach
to the exclusion of everything else that's being suggested here.
Life is good.
~Mary
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
[email protected]
In a message dated 8/1/2002 2:40:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
zenmomma@... writes:
of a lot of homeschooled and schooled children's learning-to-read experience
-- early and too-intensive phonics instruction hurts many children by making
reading a tedious chore and results in many children being labeled as having
reading disabilities when what they really needed was more time and freedom
from pressure.
--pamS
National Home Education Network
http://www.NHEN.org
Changing the Way the World Sees Homeschooling!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
zenmomma@... writes:
> In fact, intensive phonics instruction has hurt many of ourNot a "fact" <g> - but something I've observed over years of intensive study
> children and hindered their reading progress.
of a lot of homeschooled and schooled children's learning-to-read experience
-- early and too-intensive phonics instruction hurts many children by making
reading a tedious chore and results in many children being labeled as having
reading disabilities when what they really needed was more time and freedom
from pressure.
--pamS
National Home Education Network
http://www.NHEN.org
Changing the Way the World Sees Homeschooling!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 8/1/2002 2:40:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
zenmomma@... writes:
provided with some sort of systematic phonics instruction, when kids DO learn
in their own idiosyncratic ways without any direct phonics instruction at all
- it can seem like magic even to their parents. Almost all of us are taking a
little (or big) leap of faith by NOT using a "program" (at least with our
first child <G>) and it is exciting and amazing to us - just like magic -
when the kids not only learn to read, they LOVE to read. AND - another
magical wonderful thing is that learning to read WITHOUT having been taught -
they'll always have that experience to draw upon - they'll always feel full
ownership of their own learning, not ever feel like they have to rely on
someone else for it.
pamS
National Home Education Network
http://www.NHEN.org
Changing the Way the World Sees Homeschooling!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
zenmomma@... writes:
> >>Also, I'm not talking about particular children or your children who haveIt can "seem" like magic, of course, to those who think kids have to be
> >>learned things seemingly by magic>>
>
> Wow. Kind of a snarky comment on an unschooling list. I don't "teach" my
> kids lots of things. They learn. Fish swim, birds fly, people learn. I'm
> not
> claiming magic. I'm also not telling other parents to use a phonics
> approach
> to the exclusion of everything else that's being suggested here.
provided with some sort of systematic phonics instruction, when kids DO learn
in their own idiosyncratic ways without any direct phonics instruction at all
- it can seem like magic even to their parents. Almost all of us are taking a
little (or big) leap of faith by NOT using a "program" (at least with our
first child <G>) and it is exciting and amazing to us - just like magic -
when the kids not only learn to read, they LOVE to read. AND - another
magical wonderful thing is that learning to read WITHOUT having been taught -
they'll always have that experience to draw upon - they'll always feel full
ownership of their own learning, not ever feel like they have to rely on
someone else for it.
pamS
National Home Education Network
http://www.NHEN.org
Changing the Way the World Sees Homeschooling!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Tim Landreth
<I guess I must be an illiterate ignoramus. I have absolutely no idea of what
the *phonic rules* are.>
Same here. After 35 years, I don't remember *how* I learned how to read
but, I do remember reading the insipid Dick and Jane.
In my ongoing journey to unschooling, I've taken some steps off the
beaten path and have tried to teach my now 9 yr old by intensive phonics
instruction. (I apologize publicly now and I have to her also.) :-) I
used the Writing Road to Reading and I've never been so confused in my
life! How could I have been fluently reading (and spelling) all of
these years without it? I promptly sold the book with a good luck/buyer
beware warning.
I do find phonics rules interesting now at age 40, but only because *I*
want to learn more about them and also because I'm fascinated at how I
learned to read, spell, and write without them.
I do have three boys 14, 13, 12 who can read. And I'd have to say
almost magically as I don't know how it happened. My 14 yr old read at
3.5 and was spelling things in mirror image with magnetic letters on the
fridge at 4. The other two learned around 6. My 9 yr old is just now
reading some and she's known the sounds for years. My 6 yr old da knows
the basic letter sounds and has no idea how to put them together. I'm
in no hurry and she doesn't appear to be either. But this *peace* on my
part has been long coming. I guess I'm just slow on the learning curve.
Suzy
the *phonic rules* are.>
Same here. After 35 years, I don't remember *how* I learned how to read
but, I do remember reading the insipid Dick and Jane.
In my ongoing journey to unschooling, I've taken some steps off the
beaten path and have tried to teach my now 9 yr old by intensive phonics
instruction. (I apologize publicly now and I have to her also.) :-) I
used the Writing Road to Reading and I've never been so confused in my
life! How could I have been fluently reading (and spelling) all of
these years without it? I promptly sold the book with a good luck/buyer
beware warning.
I do find phonics rules interesting now at age 40, but only because *I*
want to learn more about them and also because I'm fascinated at how I
learned to read, spell, and write without them.
I do have three boys 14, 13, 12 who can read. And I'd have to say
almost magically as I don't know how it happened. My 14 yr old read at
3.5 and was spelling things in mirror image with magnetic letters on the
fridge at 4. The other two learned around 6. My 9 yr old is just now
reading some and she's known the sounds for years. My 6 yr old da knows
the basic letter sounds and has no idea how to put them together. I'm
in no hurry and she doesn't appear to be either. But this *peace* on my
part has been long coming. I guess I'm just slow on the learning curve.
Suzy
[email protected]
When we talk about math here, many people have said and shown that when a
child needs to know something, he can learn it. Until it has a real
application, or until the very moment has come that 5% or 10% won't do it,
they need to know 6.8%, then it's not the time that that learning will seem
meaningful.
And we've talked about reading in the same way.
Kids learn in various ways, in starts and fits, with spurts and lulls, and
"teaching" them something like a silent "e" at the end of "like" makes a long
"i" is like showing someone how to set up a division "problem" without
actually having any reason to divide.
My kids figured out multiplication by "skip counting" and goofing around with
pennies and stuff, and by me giving them a blank multiplication table for
them to fill in if they wanted to, as a puzzle. I didn't give them
terminology or time limits or reasons. It was fun for its own sake. And
they discovered the cool patterns of fives and nines and twos and threes all
on their own.
When kids learn to read in the "whatever/however" way, they discover the
differences between hat, fat and rat and hate, fate and rate on their own.
It doesn't take long, it's not rocket science, and it doesn't have to be
called "phonics."
And it did not help ONE BIT when I was a kid and reading comic books and
trying to pronounce in my head "Yosemite Sam." Turns out, I discovered after
a couple of years, that he name was NOT "Yoze-might" Sam.
Sandra
child needs to know something, he can learn it. Until it has a real
application, or until the very moment has come that 5% or 10% won't do it,
they need to know 6.8%, then it's not the time that that learning will seem
meaningful.
And we've talked about reading in the same way.
Kids learn in various ways, in starts and fits, with spurts and lulls, and
"teaching" them something like a silent "e" at the end of "like" makes a long
"i" is like showing someone how to set up a division "problem" without
actually having any reason to divide.
My kids figured out multiplication by "skip counting" and goofing around with
pennies and stuff, and by me giving them a blank multiplication table for
them to fill in if they wanted to, as a puzzle. I didn't give them
terminology or time limits or reasons. It was fun for its own sake. And
they discovered the cool patterns of fives and nines and twos and threes all
on their own.
When kids learn to read in the "whatever/however" way, they discover the
differences between hat, fat and rat and hate, fate and rate on their own.
It doesn't take long, it's not rocket science, and it doesn't have to be
called "phonics."
And it did not help ONE BIT when I was a kid and reading comic books and
trying to pronounce in my head "Yosemite Sam." Turns out, I discovered after
a couple of years, that he name was NOT "Yoze-might" Sam.
Sandra
Susan A
When I was little, my parents and older siblings read to me, following the
words with a finger as they did. By the time I was three, I was reading to
them. I did so by recognizing repeating patterns of letters. Gradually, I
learned to read more and more complex words, without ever realizing that
there was any direct connection between the letters on the page and the
sounds they made.
In second and third grades, they taught us to read, using phonics. I
distinctly remember the day that I realized that the individual letters
represented sounds rather than being part of an abstract pattern that
represented both the sound and the meaning of a word. It was quite an
epiphany, and the start of a lifelong fascination with the mechanics and
evolution of language.
Am I a better reader for having learned phonics? Perhaps. Has it enhanced my
enjoyment of reading? Definitely. Was it essential in learning to read? Heck
no--by the time I learned phonics, I'd been reading for years.
BTW, I watched my son go through a similar process when he taught himself to
read at about the same age.
Susan
"Ask a question and you're a fool for three minutes; do not ask a question
and you're a fool for the rest of your life." --Chinese Proverb
_________________________________________________________________
Join the world�s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
words with a finger as they did. By the time I was three, I was reading to
them. I did so by recognizing repeating patterns of letters. Gradually, I
learned to read more and more complex words, without ever realizing that
there was any direct connection between the letters on the page and the
sounds they made.
In second and third grades, they taught us to read, using phonics. I
distinctly remember the day that I realized that the individual letters
represented sounds rather than being part of an abstract pattern that
represented both the sound and the meaning of a word. It was quite an
epiphany, and the start of a lifelong fascination with the mechanics and
evolution of language.
Am I a better reader for having learned phonics? Perhaps. Has it enhanced my
enjoyment of reading? Definitely. Was it essential in learning to read? Heck
no--by the time I learned phonics, I'd been reading for years.
BTW, I watched my son go through a similar process when he taught himself to
read at about the same age.
Susan
"Ask a question and you're a fool for three minutes; do not ask a question
and you're a fool for the rest of your life." --Chinese Proverb
_________________________________________________________________
Join the world�s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
[email protected]
In a message dated 8/2/2002 10:26:09 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:
someone use it in context and realized it was the same word she'd always
assumed had a long "a" sound. Yes - we often do use phonics rules that we've
figured out usually work - to sound out words we don't know - but it isn't
good enough, by itself, and doesn't have to be taught - it is an ability that
can just be picked up along the way.
My daughter said: "So the ONLY way to know how to pronounce that word is to
ask someone who knows (looking in the dictionary is just a way asking the
person who wrote it in there <G>)? It is just "passed on" from person to
person?"
Yep. That's right.
--pamS
http://www.NHEN.org
Changing the Way the World Sees Homeschooling!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
SandraDodd@... writes:
> When kids learn to read in the "whatever/however" way, they discover theYesterday one of the kids asked me how to pronounce "caste." She'd just heard
> differences between hat, fat and rat and hate, fate and rate on their own.
>
> It doesn't take long, it's not rocket science, and it doesn't have to be
> called "phonics."
>
someone use it in context and realized it was the same word she'd always
assumed had a long "a" sound. Yes - we often do use phonics rules that we've
figured out usually work - to sound out words we don't know - but it isn't
good enough, by itself, and doesn't have to be taught - it is an ability that
can just be picked up along the way.
My daughter said: "So the ONLY way to know how to pronounce that word is to
ask someone who knows (looking in the dictionary is just a way asking the
person who wrote it in there <G>)? It is just "passed on" from person to
person?"
Yep. That's right.
--pamS
> And it did not help ONE BIT when I was a kid and reading comic books andNational Home Education Network
> trying to pronounce in my head "Yosemite Sam." Turns out, I discovered
> after
> a couple of years, that he name was NOT "Yoze-might" Sam.
>
http://www.NHEN.org
Changing the Way the World Sees Homeschooling!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Tia Leschke
>My favourite one like that is when Noah was at a restaurant with his dad
>And it did not help ONE BIT when I was a kid and reading comic books and
>trying to pronounce in my head "Yosemite Sam." Turns out, I discovered after
>a couple of years, that he name was NOT "Yoze-might" Sam.
and asked him what beaver eggs were. Then he pointed to the word beverages.
Tia
No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.
Eleanor Roosevelt
*********************************************
Tia Leschke
leschke@...
On Vancouver Island
Karen
>>And it did not help ONE BIT when I was a kid and reading comic books andtrying to pronounce in my head "Yosemite Sam." Turns out, I discovered
after
a couple of years, that he name was NOT "Yoze-might" Sam.<<
Yep, he was Yo-zuh-mite for most of my childhood. The magazine entitled
"Integrity" that my dad received? "In-tuh-gritty." And just a few years ago,
I was walking with my mom and saw a sign for a parking space reserved for
the President Emeritus. I read it and pronounced it "Emer-i-tus," to rhyme
with arthritis. She laughed and said you mean "em-air-utus" and I made a
joke out of it, of course I did, ha ha. I was mortified. What other words
are skulking out there that I still can't pronounce after seven years of
college? Geez...
Karen
kayb85
So what would you do with a 5 year old who is asking to learn how to
read? Would you teach him phonics?
Sheila
read? Would you teach him phonics?
Sheila
Lisa M. C. Bentley
> So what would you do with a 5 year old who is asking to learn how toHow do you know he wants to read? What specific questions is he
> read? Would you teach him phonics?
asking? Answer those questions. Then, he'll probably have more and you
should answer them, too. Next thing you know, he'll be reading quite
fluently.
-Lisa
kayb85
--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., "Lisa M. C. Bentley"
<cottrellbentley@c...> wrote:
sister). Will you teach me how to read?
Sheila
<cottrellbentley@c...> wrote:
> > So what would you do with a 5 year old who is asking to learn howto
> > read? Would you teach him phonics?Specifically, he says, "Mommy, I wish I could read like (his
>
> How do you know he wants to read? What specific questions is he
> asking?
sister). Will you teach me how to read?
Sheila
Liza Sabater
>So what would you do with a 5 year old who is asking to learn how toHas anyone mentioned this book? Hey! I'm reading! by Betty Miles.
>read? Would you teach him phonics?
>Sheila
>
Here is some information I got from Barnes & Noble (http://bn.com)
>ABOUT THIS ITEMSheila, I think it is fabulous. As the last paragraph suggests, it is
>
>Annotation
>Preschool to Grade Two. Bestselling children's author Betty Miles
>reveals the secrets behind reading, one of life's most important and
>enjoyable skills, in a "how to" book for children who are just
>getting ready to learn how. Armed with confidence and aided by
>exuberant, colorful illustrations, children will delight in
>discovering that they are actually reading. The opening two sections
>are about the process. The last section gives 19 selections to read
>such as poems, knock-knock jokes, an alphabet of names, and a
>double-page spread of a school scene with labels, dialogue balloons,
>and a chalkboard message.
>
>From the Publisher
>Best-selling children's author Betty Miles reveals the secrets
>behind one of life's most important and enjoyable skills in the
>first-ever "how to" book for children who are just getting ready to
>read-and for the parents, relatives, teachers, and friends who want
>to help them.
>
> From the Critics
>From School Library Journal
>Sylvie Wickstrom's pictures are delightful. In a style somewhat
>reminiscent of Janet and Allan Ahlberg's work, she populates the
>pages with appealing multi-ethnic children and clearly rendered
>animals and objects that illustrate verbal concepts.
>
>From Joanne Schott - Quill & Quire
>It has taken a long time for a book to appear that addresses pre-
>and beginning readers directly, letting them know what reading is
>all about. This one, from an educator and former editor of the Bank
>Street Readers, does just that in a friendly, conversational way. .
>. . The book is not designed to teach reading but to reassure and
>encourage pre-readers and beginning readers by giving them
>confidence. The text addresses the new reader directly and
>personally. Sensible and unpretentious, it should be a real help in
>demystifying reading. -- Quill & Quire
not a how-to book, but a book about boosting reading confidence for
both child and parent. Evan actually loved the book because it is
about what he already knows and not about what he is lacking in
knowledge; for example:
>"When you talk, you say words. When you read, you read words [...]That's the first part. The second part talks about the SIX WAYS (Ned,
>You already know most of the words you're going to read."
are you counting) we learn to read and one of them is (Yes, Ned) by
'sounding out words'. The third part has poems, jokes and mini
stories like 'The Mad Story' (You did it! I did not!).
Check out the book with him and see where it takes you.
Best,
Liza
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 8/3/2002 7:00:34 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
it was "Owls in the Family") the father in the story said, "You'll have to
educate him." I asked my mom what "ed-i-kate" meant, and she told me it was
the author's way of writing the character's speech to show how he talked, and
gave me the word "dialect." (I didn't SHOW her the word.)
So I impressed the teacher in my book report, talking about how the author
used dialect to illustrate the character. She obviously hadn't read the book.
When I discovered soon after that the word Educate was really spelled that
way and did NOT have a G or J, I was mortified. (I am amused that I must
have been young enough (I was an early reader) to not recognize the spelling
of Educate, but able to use my mother's discussion of dialect in a book
report.)
Phonics can haunt our dreams.
Kathryn
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected] writes:
> >>And it did not help ONE BIT when I was a kid and reading comic books andWhen I was very young and reading a book for a school book report, (I think
> trying to pronounce in my head "Yosemite Sam." Turns out, I discovered
> after
> a couple of years, that he name was NOT "Yoze-might" Sam.<<
>
>
it was "Owls in the Family") the father in the story said, "You'll have to
educate him." I asked my mom what "ed-i-kate" meant, and she told me it was
the author's way of writing the character's speech to show how he talked, and
gave me the word "dialect." (I didn't SHOW her the word.)
So I impressed the teacher in my book report, talking about how the author
used dialect to illustrate the character. She obviously hadn't read the book.
When I discovered soon after that the word Educate was really spelled that
way and did NOT have a G or J, I was mortified. (I am amused that I must
have been young enough (I was an early reader) to not recognize the spelling
of Educate, but able to use my mother's discussion of dialect in a book
report.)
Phonics can haunt our dreams.
Kathryn
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
kayb85
> Has anyone mentioned this book? Hey! I'm reading! by Betty Miles.Thanks! I'll check it out.
> Here is some information I got from Barnes & Noble (http://bn.com)
Sheila
[email protected]
In a message dated 8/3/02 7:16:45 PM, sheran@... writes:
<< > How do you know he wants to read? What specific questions is he
sister). Will you teach me how to read? -=-
I would say reading has a thousand parts and that I'd show him two right now.
If he's having fun, keep playing with it. As soon as he's frustrated
reassure him that he will pick up 900 of those parts all by himself and
you'll be glad to help him if he ever finds anything that seems hard. If you
talk about it as a longterm but fun thing, each little clue adds to the
picture.
When I'm aware and careful, if my kids are frustrated about other kids being
able to do something they can't I try to remain really calm and share with
them some of that calmness instead of matching their frustration and
nervousness. And I'll work into the conversation naturally a question like
"Do you think Joey's sometimes sad because you can roller blade better than
he can?" or "When you're playing a game and your friends can't play it as
well, do you help them out? Remember when Kirby used to help you?" And I
remind them that there is a progression in any learning, and the best things
to have are compassion (even for themselves) and faith and patience.
Sandra
<< > How do you know he wants to read? What specific questions is he
> asking?-=-Specifically, he says, "Mommy, I wish I could read like (his
sister). Will you teach me how to read? -=-
I would say reading has a thousand parts and that I'd show him two right now.
If he's having fun, keep playing with it. As soon as he's frustrated
reassure him that he will pick up 900 of those parts all by himself and
you'll be glad to help him if he ever finds anything that seems hard. If you
talk about it as a longterm but fun thing, each little clue adds to the
picture.
When I'm aware and careful, if my kids are frustrated about other kids being
able to do something they can't I try to remain really calm and share with
them some of that calmness instead of matching their frustration and
nervousness. And I'll work into the conversation naturally a question like
"Do you think Joey's sometimes sad because you can roller blade better than
he can?" or "When you're playing a game and your friends can't play it as
well, do you help them out? Remember when Kirby used to help you?" And I
remind them that there is a progression in any learning, and the best things
to have are compassion (even for themselves) and faith and patience.
Sandra
Gina Loree Marks
Hey, does anyone remember the grocery store, "Grand
Onion"? (grand Union)...LOL. That was one of mine.
Gina
-
"As for me, I know of nothing else but miracles."-- Walt Whitman
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com
Onion"? (grand Union)...LOL. That was one of mine.
Gina
-
> Yep, he was Yo-zuh-mite for most of my childhood.=====
> The magazine entitled
> "Integrity" that my dad received? "In-tuh-gritty."
"As for me, I know of nothing else but miracles."-- Walt Whitman
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com
[email protected]
In a message dated 8/3/2002 6:16:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time, sheran@...
writes:
carried away and assume that he wants some sort of ongoing "lessons." I
certainly wouldn't go out and buy a lesson book or reading program. I'd find
a number of ways to approach it.
Games for Reading by Peggy Kaye. LOTS of great ideas in there. Have fun, play
games, he'll be learning to read - if he is ready he'll soak it up and it'll
happen. If he isn't ready (and it isn't terribly uncommon for younger
brothers to want to read like older sisters and yet not be developmentally
ready), you'll need to find ways to let him feel good about being on the road
to reading.
Ask what words he wants to read - write them on an index card, let him draw a
picture on the other side, if he wants to. Keep "HIS SPECIAL WORDS" in an
envelope somewhere where he can take them out and read anytime he wants. He
can write sentences or phrases, too, but often kids are happy with just
special words. My daughters all did this and loved to take out their words
and would "read" them aloud to anybody who would listen - over and over.
You can write action words on cards -- "JUMP" and "STOP" and "RUN" and "HOP"
and so on --- then you flash the card and he does the action -- use only a
set of words that all start with a different letter, at first. Or write them
in different colors. This is a fun "reading game" -- that might be satisfying
to him.
Patty Wolcott's books are GREAT for kids to really read big words fairly
quickly. They are not controlled-vocabulary books - and they are fun to read,
have a bit of rhythm/sound to them that makes them pleasant to read over and
over. And that's what you do with them - read them over and over -- there is
so much repetition that the kids memorize lots of the pages and begin to
recognize the words -- even big words like "marvelous." They start to look at
the words carefully to see what the differences are between them - so that
they can distinguish them. They usually first recognize them by the first
letter sound and then the context -- pictures and repeated sentences. The
Marvelous Mudwashing Machine and The Cake Story were our favorites. They're
out of print -- but available used and in libraries.
The Bob Books and other little sets of controlled vocabulary books are good
if your child enjoys them - not as a reading program - just to have a play
with. Somebody gave us the first set and my youngest daughter carried them
around in a little lunch pail for months - with a set of colored pencils --
she used them as coloring books (they are simple black and white line
drawings). I read them to her, she memorized them and read them to herself.
She was happy with that. She wasn't REALLY reading -- she didn't recognize
the words in the Bob books in other contexts for a couple of years after
that. But it set the stage and she was satisfied. Trying to give her direct
phonics instruction was a wasted and frustrating effort - even as casually
and informally as I did it. She did not retain even the most simple
letter-sound connections - until she'd accumulated a LOT of sight words in
her reading vocabulary and began to sort out the phonics patterns herself.
National Home Education Network
http://www.NHEN.org
Changing the Way the World Sees Homeschooling!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
writes:
> Specifically, he says, "Mommy, I wish I could read like (hisIf he's asking for direct help, I'd give some to him - but I wouldn't get
> sister). Will you teach me how to read?
carried away and assume that he wants some sort of ongoing "lessons." I
certainly wouldn't go out and buy a lesson book or reading program. I'd find
a number of ways to approach it.
Games for Reading by Peggy Kaye. LOTS of great ideas in there. Have fun, play
games, he'll be learning to read - if he is ready he'll soak it up and it'll
happen. If he isn't ready (and it isn't terribly uncommon for younger
brothers to want to read like older sisters and yet not be developmentally
ready), you'll need to find ways to let him feel good about being on the road
to reading.
Ask what words he wants to read - write them on an index card, let him draw a
picture on the other side, if he wants to. Keep "HIS SPECIAL WORDS" in an
envelope somewhere where he can take them out and read anytime he wants. He
can write sentences or phrases, too, but often kids are happy with just
special words. My daughters all did this and loved to take out their words
and would "read" them aloud to anybody who would listen - over and over.
You can write action words on cards -- "JUMP" and "STOP" and "RUN" and "HOP"
and so on --- then you flash the card and he does the action -- use only a
set of words that all start with a different letter, at first. Or write them
in different colors. This is a fun "reading game" -- that might be satisfying
to him.
Patty Wolcott's books are GREAT for kids to really read big words fairly
quickly. They are not controlled-vocabulary books - and they are fun to read,
have a bit of rhythm/sound to them that makes them pleasant to read over and
over. And that's what you do with them - read them over and over -- there is
so much repetition that the kids memorize lots of the pages and begin to
recognize the words -- even big words like "marvelous." They start to look at
the words carefully to see what the differences are between them - so that
they can distinguish them. They usually first recognize them by the first
letter sound and then the context -- pictures and repeated sentences. The
Marvelous Mudwashing Machine and The Cake Story were our favorites. They're
out of print -- but available used and in libraries.
The Bob Books and other little sets of controlled vocabulary books are good
if your child enjoys them - not as a reading program - just to have a play
with. Somebody gave us the first set and my youngest daughter carried them
around in a little lunch pail for months - with a set of colored pencils --
she used them as coloring books (they are simple black and white line
drawings). I read them to her, she memorized them and read them to herself.
She was happy with that. She wasn't REALLY reading -- she didn't recognize
the words in the Bob books in other contexts for a couple of years after
that. But it set the stage and she was satisfied. Trying to give her direct
phonics instruction was a wasted and frustrating effort - even as casually
and informally as I did it. She did not retain even the most simple
letter-sound connections - until she'd accumulated a LOT of sight words in
her reading vocabulary and began to sort out the phonics patterns herself.
National Home Education Network
http://www.NHEN.org
Changing the Way the World Sees Homeschooling!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 8/3/2002 7:51:44 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
liza@... writes:
find this book -- trying to remember the title and author. Searched on google
forever for books with titles that were ALMOST but not quite that one.... I
was starting to think I'd completely imagined it.
This is a great book!!!! It is cheap - and filled with great ideas and is so
very respectful of kids being in charge of their own learning!!!!
--pamS
National Home Education Network
http://www.NHEN.org
Changing the Way the World Sees Homeschooling!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
liza@... writes:
> Hey! I'm reading! by Betty Miles.THANK YOU for saving my sanity. I spent almost an HOUR yesterday trying to
>
find this book -- trying to remember the title and author. Searched on google
forever for books with titles that were ALMOST but not quite that one.... I
was starting to think I'd completely imagined it.
This is a great book!!!! It is cheap - and filled with great ideas and is so
very respectful of kids being in charge of their own learning!!!!
--pamS
National Home Education Network
http://www.NHEN.org
Changing the Way the World Sees Homeschooling!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
KT
>And I'd show him the logo on a McDonald's cup or a Wal-Mart bag and ask
>
>
>-=-Specifically, he says, "Mommy, I wish I could read like (his
>sister). Will you teach me how to read? -=-
>
>I would say reading has a thousand parts and that I'd show him two right now.
> If he's having fun, keep playing with it. As soon as he's frustrated
>reassure him that he will pick up 900 of those parts all by himself and
>you'll be glad to help him if he ever finds anything that seems hard. If you
>talk about it as a longterm but fun thing, each little clue adds to the
>picture.
>
him what it was. When he says, "McDonald's" or "Wal-Mart", then I'd
say, "YOU CAN READ!" And at that point I'd either let it go, or if he
was interested, explain to him that, like learning baseball (in our
case--you should use something else he's has experience with), he's not
going to learn all of it at once, or be perfect at it right away, that
recognizing McDonald's and Wal-Mart (or what have you) is just one of
the first things he knows how to read...which ties right in to the
explanation Sandra gave above.
No lie, Will could recognize and tell other people letters when he was
18 months old. He could read the word "Exit" when he was about that
age, too. His very tall dad used carry him around on his shoulders, and
point out exit signs in stores. He got to where he could read it when
we wrote it down. Once a friend of ours was carrying him around a car
dealership. Will was very little, less than 2. Our friend pointed out
a huge letter painted on the window and said "what's that?" and Will
said, "H" and it was. Our friend was amazed and astounded and thought
Will was a baby genius. But really, H was just one of the letters that
was easy for him to recognize (because it looks like a tie-fighter).
All his verbal life we've been affirming for him that he could read some
things, and that he could and would learn others as time went on. We
didn't do flash cards or 100 easy lessons or anything. But we did spend
a lot of time in doctor's waiting rooms, or car dealerships or church or
wherever, and capitalized on the fact that there's rarely much else to
do in those places except read or point out letters. Eventually, all
those experiences added up to reading for him, at age 7, when he got
"Green Eggs and Ham" for Christmas. Read it through that very night.
He's not a late reader by any stretch, but he is an unschooled reader,
all the way. Learned from living life.
Tuck
zenmomma *
>>He's not a late reader by any stretch, but he is an unschooled reader, allOh I like this! :o) Will's story sounds so similar to Casey's BTW.
>>the way. Learned from living life.>>
Life is good.
~Mary
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com