All my research convinces me that phonics is the best way to teach children to read. But what is the best way to teach phonics?
There seem to be about a dozen good programs on the market (see “42: Reading Resources” for a list). Just as there are many ways to teach a language or a musical instrument, there may be many successful paths to phonics. (Indeed, highly verbal children hardly seem to need any instruction at all; see FOOTNOTE 1 for further discussion of this point.)
I’m happy to report that innovation is not dead, and a new approach to phonics has just been introduced. It is called “An Ant--Learn To Read” and is deliberately aimed at the youngest readers, ages 3, 4, or 5. The emphasis is on simplicity, a slow pace, and attractive artwork.
Kallie Woods, creator of “An Ant,” reports that, “I began working on this program 18 years ago when my daughter decided to home-school her three children. I accompanied her to a curriculum fair, attended lectures and helped her to sort through the various phonics offerings, but none really stood out for me. Some did not start at the beginning with the alphabet and short vowel sounds. Others offered a series of books, but did not take care to ensure that each new book in the series picked up where the last one left off. Many were black and white with rudimentary drawings. Most proceeded too quickly, not giving young learners enough time to practice new skills before the entire alphabet and 100-plus phonics rules were dumped on them. I wanted to come up with something better. Over the years I took out the project from time-to-time and dabbled with it, but it was not until 2010 that I really got serious and put in the time required to complete the project.”
“An Ant – Learn to Read, Book 1, Home School Version,” 146 pages, is available at Amazon.com. Or visit Broaden Books.com for more information.
Kallie Woods tells an interesting story about her own learning-to-read days: “My teacher must have been a fervent believer in phonics instruction, as she managed to teach us phonics while enduring the considerable handicap of teaching from the district’s Dick and Jane books. Dick and Jane books did not teach phonics, but rather required children to memorize common words like, ‘Look, look! Go go! See Dick go! See Sally go!’”
Many anecdotes have convinced me that this experience is far more common than most people realize. A lot of adults think they learned to read with “sight-words” but what really happened is best described as “guerrilla teaching.” Many a wise and determined teacher, once the door was shut, made sure their students got the correct message. As it is, an obtuse Education Establishment created 50 million functional illiterates in this country. The number would be much higher, I believe, were it not for smart, independent teachers doing what was best for the students.
Kallie Woods reports that her research suggests that kindergarten teachers are basically stuck with whatever curriculum their district has purchased; but they are often able to supplement with outside materials. She is hopeful that “An Ant” may be useful in many situations.
Similarly, the burden is also on parents to make sure their young children learn to read, so they can’t be the victims of public schools still using sight-words.
Asked about the origin of the name, Woods replied: “The name ‘An Ant’ derives from the first story in Book 1, where Ann meets an ant. I started my lessons with only six common letters: A, N, T, S, D and H. From this frugal starting point we can build such words as Ann, Dan, an, ant, has, hat, and sat. Kids like the ant characters, and they continue throughout the series.”
------------------------
FOOTNOTE 1: For those still wrestling with the basic question of the reading wars (phonics vs. Whole Word), I want to mention a new book titled “Uncovering the Logic of English” by Denise Eide, which is basically a primer on phonics. I have a long review of the book on Amazon, where I discuss the startling phenomenon that many highly verbal children hardly seem to need any instruction at all. So I present the idea in my review that the real choice is not between sight-words and phonics, the real decision is between intensive, prescriptive phonics, as recommended by most phonics experts, and a looser, more literary approach, which seems to be enough for the very verbal kids.
The important conclusion here is that it’s the slower, less verbal kids who absolutely need structure and rules. Without the rules known as phonics, these children feel lost and disoriented. It’s these children who become functional illiterates. That’s what we have to stop.
This review is titled “Memo to Teachers: Come Back to Real Reading” and is at this date the fourth review of Eide’s book.
Bottom line: There may be many valid ways to learn phonics and reading. That's why it's good to see new ideas coming into the market. What is not good is that many schools keep sight-words and Dolch words hanging around. The Education Establishment does not want to confess, "Yeah, we really made a mess of things." So to cover their tracks, they continually use the jargon of a discredited methodology. Beware good words about sight-words.
No comments:
Post a Comment