Quote:
Originally Posted by 1&onlybillyshears
^ Phonics may improve the speed of learning basic reading but it kills long term reading for pleasure (perhaps this is the point). It is a major negative overall. Compulsory national phonics tests for children aged 6 and 7, they shouldn't even be formally learning anything at this age. Most people with a thinking mind and children around this age will say the same I expect.
These are some of the 'nonsense/pseudo words', this is the technical term, children are expected to "learn":
Stroft
Terg
Blurst
Voo
Steck
Hild
Quemp
Geck
Not only are words removed from their contexts, which is what gives words meaning, entirely new words which have no possible context at all are invented. They are then tested on this horse manure which is used to judge the quality of what is being delivered.
I think the idea is that children don't "learn" those specific words (which would be different every time anyway), they learn the principles by which we as British adults know exactly how to pronounce the above. However, I don't agree with the testing method, it seems designed to test that a particular teaching method is being used rather than to test the level of reading - if that teaching method genuinely is the best then it should naturally get the best results on a test with real words too.
On the subject of whether kids should learn to read at that age or not, I tend to agree that learning later is fine or better, but once they are learning then "here are the letters and the sounds that combinations thereof make" seems easier and also more pleasurable than "memorise 2000 words by sight". However if the second method is genuinely better then presumably that should be mandated instead. In no other professions would we allow something of such importance to be down to the personal style of the professional you happen to get assigned.