Phonics at home, Sight words at school

[Dirt Grinder]

Originally Posted by saibot

Well, you don't know that, because you never did it and apparently don't know much about it...you are being not only smug but ignorant by insisting that "your way" is the "best way."

"My way" was certainly the "best way" for my child and me. We're both excellent at pattern recognition exercises, so why wouldn't we excel at "sight" reading? (And how else would a second grader be able to read books inverted?) We were also able to spend the time required to "unlearn" fonix and move-on to advanced math skills.

I stand by what I said previously - "Fonix isn't for everyone." As for me being ignorant, BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

[nana053]

One note: Both my son and my granddaughter have horrible spelling. They spell phonetically the way they hear the words. It does not work very well. I spell very well and never sounded anything out. Sometimes, though, a word does not sound the same way it is spelled. I mispronounce quinoa (it's actually pronounced keen wa which I would never have known if my daughter had not told me about it).

Now, most schools do not use pure phonics or pure *look see* nowadays. They use a combination. Most of the words on the sight lists are words that are not ones you can sound out or small words like a, an, the, etc. Knowing the distinction between for and four or they're, there and their cannot come from phonics.

[AnotherTouchOfWhimsy]

In general, kids who are read to will eventually learn to read, barring learning disabilities. That's just the way it is. It really doesn't matter if you use phonics or look-see. Adults and children who are fluent readers have memorized words; they don't read each one or sound them out, unless it's a word that you almost never see. Phonics/not phonics is only an issue for young children who are still decoding and sounding out. Arguing over what worked for one particular child who was read to is just silly; any kid who gets one-on-one reading instruction or who is read to a lot will read just fine.

[saibot]

Originally Posted by AnotherTouchOfWhimsy

In general, kids who are read to will eventually learn to read, barring learning disabilities. That's just the way it is.

I agree with you, and the key word is eventually. Kids who are read to and who see others around them reading and writing will eventually learn how to do it without much instruction. However, it is totally normal for this to be not until they are 7 or 8 or even older. One of my homeschooling friends has a son who didn't read until age 9. She never pushed him. Once he finally started reading, he had no trouble. He's now 27 and a college graduate who loves to read, married, with a great job, so late reading clearly did not handicap him.

Our educational system is not set up to allow for this kind of individual learning difference. It does more harm than good by insisting that all children learn specific skills at younger and younger ages. When I was a child, reading was for first graders. Then it was pushed back to kindergarten. Now, most parents want their child to get a "head start" by reading in preschool! With rare exceptions, the time that is taken up teaching 3-year-olds sight words would be a lot better spent reading to them.

On the other hand, I do feel that instruction is not at all harmful for most 5 and 6-year-olds. If the goal is for 5-year-olds to be reading at a certain level, as a generalization they need some instruction to get there. The majority will not just pick it up by age 5, but they can be taught without too much trouble (by any one of a number of methods).

If you are committed to letting your child learn to read naturally (eventually) on his/her own, and this hasn't happened by age 5 or 6, you had better homeschool. This is not considered normal or acceptable in the school system.