Reading Post 5 of 7: Charlotte Mason Reading Stage 3: Reading by Sight & Sound: Additional Principles

Here are some other points of Charlotte Mason’s philosophy behind Reading Lessons by Sight and Sound.  It’s important to go over these before we start an example of an actual reading lesson sequence, so you understand the “why” behind the lessons.  Sorry it's so long - unfortunately there is no helping it! 

Don’t forget - these “Reading by Sight and Sound” lessons are actually not the beginning of reading lessons.  They come after the introduction of the Alphabet & basic word building - see Post 1 Post 2 & Post 3.  Also make sure to read my 1st introduction containing overarching principles about Reading by Sight and Sound.  I personally prefer to work from one or two leading principles when homeschooling my children - and Charlotte Mason’s make a lot of sense!    

I've taken these quotes from Charlotte Mason's section on learning to read from Volume 1, pages 199-222.  Read it for yourself here:  http://www.amblesideonline.org/CM/1_5b.html.  

GENERAL PRINCIPLES:
1.  Learning to read can be difficult, and is not “natural” for most children.  
“We forget how contrary to Nature it is for a little child to occupy himself with dreary hieroglyphics––all so dreadfully alike!––when the world is teeming with interesting objects which he is agog to know...  It is quite necessary he should know how to read; and not only so––the discipline of the task is altogether wholesome for the little man...  Let us recognise that learning to read is to many children hard work, and let us do what we can to make the task easy and inviting.” (p. 214)
2.  Charlotte Mason does not claim to hold the perfect “recipe” for learning how to read.
-  “Let us bear in mind that reading is not a science nor an art” (p. 215)
-  “There are absolutely no right and necessary 'steps' to reading, each of which leads to the next; there is no true beginning, middle, or end.” (p. 215)
3.  Reading instruction should be personalized to each child.  
“The children must still be the first consideration with the educator.  
4.  The point of reading lessons is to learn the symbols for the spoken word;
-  “Learning to read is no more than picking up, how we can, a knowledge of certain arbitrary symbols for objects and ideas.” (p. 215)
5.  This is best accomplished using interesting whole words as the basis for the reading lessons (and secondly learning the phonetic components of those words for further instruction). 
- “What we want is a bridge between the child's natural interests and those arbitrary symbols with which he must become acquainted, and which, as we have seen, are words, and not (meaningless phonetic combinations of) letters.” (p. 216)
6.  Goal:  DELIGHT your child with the reading lessons, and your child is set for a long-term love of reading! 
-  "Reading is to him a delight henceforth, and it will require very bad management indeed to make him hate it." (p. 219)

CHARLOTTE MASON’S USE OF PHONETIC INSTRUCTION:
(Warning:  Charlotte Mason sounds very anti-phonics in her writing here.  Please don’t forget all of the phonetic groundwork she has laid which we have already discussed.  In truth, her approach to reading is a blended approach using both whole-word and phonetic instruction.  Since the whole-word vs. phonics debate has continued throughout this century, I’ve concluded personally that probably a blend is best - it takes some of both types of instruction for a child to truly learn to read.  If your child is weak in one area or the other, by all means, focus on the type of instruction which your child needs.)  

1.   Charlotte Mason does not agree in endless phonics instruction which is disconnected from words.  
“No meaningless combinations of letters, no cla, cle, cli, clo, clu, no ath, eth, ith, oth, uth, should be presented to him.” (p. 215)
2.  The next step in language learning (after speaking) is the recognition of the written symbol of the entire word.  Phonetic sounds are meaningless, and thus should not be the sole basis of reading instruction.  
-  “The child should be taught from the first to regard the printed word as he already regards the spoken word, as the symbol of fact or idea of full of interest.” (p. 215)   
-  “We forget that a group of letters is no more than the sign of a word, while a word is only the vocal sign of a thing or an act. This is how the child learns. First, he gets the notion of the table; he sees several tables; he finds they have legs, by which you can scramble up; very often covers which you may pull off; and on them many things lie, good and pleasant for a baby to enjoy; sometimes, too, you can pull these things off the table, and they go down with a bang, which is nice. The grown-up people call this pleasant thing, full of many interests, 'table,' and, by-and-by, baby says 'table' too; and the word 'table' comes to mean, in a vague way, all this to him. 'Around table,' 'on the table,' and so on, form part of the idea of 'table' to him. In the same way baby chimes in when his mother sings. She says, 'Baby, sing,' and, by-and-by, notions of 'sing,' 'kiss,' 'love,' dawn on his brain...  It's surprising how many words a child knows even before he can speak them; 'pussy,' 'dolly,' 'carriage,' soon convey interesting ideas to him...  Interest the child in the thing, and he soon learns the sound-sign for it––that is, its name. Now, I maintain that, when he is a little older, he should learn the form-sign––that is, the printed word––on the same principle. It is far easier for a child to read plum-pudding than to read 'to, to,' because 'plum-pudding' conveys a far more interesting idea." (p. 208-209)
-  “All this (the movement to spell words phonetically rather than historically) goes on the mistaken idea that in reading we look at the letters which compose a word, think of their sounds, combine these, and form the word. We do nothing of the kind; we accept a word, written or printed, simply as the symbol of a word we are accustomed to say. If the word is new to us we may try to make something of the letters, but we know so well that this is a shot in the dark, that we are careful not to say the new word until we have heard someone else say it." (p. 210)
-   “First, as last, they (children) learn to know a word by the look of it, and the more striking it looks the easier it is to recognise; provided always that the printed word is one which they already know very well by sound and by sense.” (p. 211, emphasis mine)

3.  Charlotte Mason believes there is a “moral strain” in teaching reading lessons from a purely phonetic basis, and also that it is too laborious a task for young children.  
“For the arbitrary symbols we must know in order to read are not letters, but words. By way of illustration, consider the delicate differences of sound represented by the letter 'o' in the last sentence; to analyse and classify the sounds of 'o' in 'for,' 'symbols,' 'know,' 'order,' 'to,' 'not,' and 'words,' is a curious, not especially useful, study for a philologist, but a laborious and inappropriate one for a child. It is time we faced the fact that the letters which compose an English word are full of philological interest, and that their study will be a valuable part of education by-and-by; but meantime, sound and letter-sign are so loosely wedded in English, that to base the teaching of reading on the sounds of the letters only, is to lay up for the child much analytic labour, much mental confusion, due to the irregularities of the language; and some little moral strain in making the sound of a letter in a given word fall under any of the 'sounds' he has been taught.” (p. 215)
-  “We could, if we liked, break up a word into its sounds, or put certain sounds together to make a word. But these are efforts beyond the range of children.” (p. 210-211)

4.  Charlotte Mason focused on phonics for pre-reading lessons (see Post 1 Post 2 Post 3) and will continue to do so in her “Word-Building” or “Spelling” lessons.  The difference between these & a purely phonetic approach is that she derives her phonetic instruction from the words of the reading lesson, rather than teaching phonetic sounds and then basing words off of those.  
-  “Definitely, what is it we propose in teaching a child to read? (a) that he shall know at sight, say, some thousand words; (b) That he shall be able to build up new words with the elements of these.” (p. 216)
-  “For the second, and less important, part of our task, the child must know the sounds of the letters, and acquire power to throw given sounds into new combinations.” (p. 216)
-  “Though many of our English words are each a law unto itself, others offer a key to a whole group, as arrow gives us sp arrow, m arrow, h arrow; but we have alternate days––one for reading, the other for word-building––and that is one way to secure variety, and, so, the joyous interest which is the real secret of success." (p. 214)


THE PRACTICAL SIDE:  WHEN & HOW LONG?  
1.  Age:  Whenever a child is ready.  Make sure you have covered this ground first (see Post 1 Post 2  Post 3).  An average child will probably be ready around age 6 (the age reading lessons are scheduled on Charlotte Mason’s PNEU school schedules).  Some gifted children will be ready earlier, or may even teach themselves; some late bloomers will be ready later.  No need to push - anywhere from age 3 to 8 is considered “normal” from a developmental perspective (this from my personal studies, not Charlotte Mason).    
-  “Time of Teaching to Read, an Open Question.––Reading presents itself first amongst the lessons to be used as instruments of education, although it is open to discussion whether the child should acquire the art unconsciously, from his infancy upwards, or whether the effort should be deferred until he is, say, six or seven, and then made with vigour.” (p. 199)

2.  Attitude:  As a special privilege.  
-  “I think it's rather a good idea to begin a new study with a child on his birthday, or some great day; he begins by thinking the new study a privilege.”
-  "His reading lesson is a delight, of which he is deprived when he comes to his lesson in a lazy, drawling mood." (p. 222)

3.  How long will it take to teach my child how to read?:   
-  “Let him learn ten new words a day, and in twenty weeks he will be to some extent able to read, without any question as to the number of letters in a word.” (pages 215-216)
-  “Every day increases the number of words he is able to read at sight, and the more words he knows already, the longer his reading lesson becomes in order to afford the ten or dozen new words which he should master every day.
A Year's Work.––'But what a snail's progress!' you are inclined to say. Not so slow, after all: a child will thus learn, without appreciable labour, from two to three thousand words in the course of a year; in other words, he will learn to read, for the mastery of this number of words will carry him with comfort through most of the books that fall in his way.” (p. 206)
-  Not all children will learn 10 words a day; some will learn fewer, some more.  So it may take more or less than a year for an individual child.  

GENERAL “HOW TO”

1.  Use high quality literature.  Prose primarily, poetry secondarily.  
“At this stage, his reading lessons must advance so slowly that he may just as well learn his reading exercises, both prose and poetry, as recitation lessons. Little poems suitable to be learned in this way will suggest themselves at once; but perhaps prose is better, on the whole, as offering more of the words in everyday use, of Saxon origin, and of anomalous spelling. Short fables, and such graceful, simple prose as we have in Mrs Gatty's Parables from Nature, and, still better, in Mrs Barbauld's prose poems, are very suitable. Even for their earliest reading lessons, it is unnecessary to put twaddle into the hands of children” (p. 204-205)
-  Note:  I personally am thrilled with the Treadwell Primer and subsequent Readers.  I suggest purchasing a hard copy (as opposed to e-reader) because it will get a lot of use!  I like that the stories are high quality classics, yet use a limited number of interesting words to begin with.  Subsequent stories add to the store of words, but not too many at a time.  The Primer is all prose.  Poems are added to The First Reader.  These are public domain, so any reading lessons we create based on these books can be shared for free with other homeschooling families.  They are fun & interesting classics, definitely not Twaddle.  Case in point:  my son likes to go back and reread the stories he has already learned just for fun.  
-  When you’re done with the Treadwell Primer, you could learn some easy readers for fun, if you wish.  Little Bear, Frog & Toad, Sydney Hoff books, Henry & Mudge are all high quality, though definitely not required.  

2.  At this point, you may teach your child very long words.  Don’t stick with “easy” one- or two- syllable words.  (But make sure to cover this ground first!  see Post 1 Post 2 & Post 3)  
-  Here is a fictional conversation between a mother & Charlotte Mason (pages 208-209):
MOM:  "But the reading! I can't get over three syllables in the first lesson. Why, it's like teaching a twelve-months old child to waltz."
CM:  "You say that because we forget that a group of letters is no more than the sign of a word, while a word is only the vocal sign of a thing or an act. This is how the child learns. First, he gets the notion of the table; he sees several tables; he finds they have legs, by which you can scramble up; very often covers which you may pull off; and on them many things lie, good and pleasant for a baby to enjoy; sometimes, too, you can pull these things off the table, and they go down with a bang, which is nice. The grown-up people call this pleasant thing, full of many interests, 'table,' and, by-and-by, baby says 'table' too; and the word 'table' comes to mean, in a vague way, all this to him. 'Around table,' 'on the table,' and so on, form part of the idea of 'table' to him. In the same way baby chimes in when his mother sings. She says, 'Baby, sing,' and, by-and-by, notions of 'sing,' 'kiss,' 'love,' dawn on his brain."
MOM:  "Yes, the darlings! and it's surprising how many words a child knows even before he can speak them; 'pussy,' 'dolly,' 'carriage,' soon convey interesting ideas to him."
CM:  "That's just it. Interest the child in the thing, and he soon learns the sound-sign for it––that is, its name. Now, I maintain that, when he is a little older, he should learn the form-sign––that is, the printed word––on the same principle. It is far easier for a child to read plum-pudding than to read 'to, to,' because 'plum-pudding' conveys a far more interesting idea."
MOM:  "That may be, but when he gets into words of three or four syllables; but what would you do while he's in words of one syllable––indeed, of two or three letters?"
CM:  "I should never put him into words of one syllable at all. The bigger the word, the more striking the look of it, and, therefore, the easier it is to read, provided always that the idea it conveys is interesting to a child. It is sad to see an intelligent child toiling over a reading lesson infinitely below his capacity––ath, eth, ith, oth, uth––or, at the very best, 'The cat sat on the mat.' How should we like to begin to read German, for example, by toiling over all conceivable combinations of letters, arranged on no principle but similarity of sound; or, worse still, that our readings should be graduated according to the number of letters each word contains? We should be lost in a hopeless fog before a page of words of three letters all drearily like one another, with no distinctive features for the eye to seize upon; but the child? 'oh, well––children are different; no doubt it is good for the child to grind in this mill!' But this is only one of many ways in which children are needlessly and cruelly oppressed!"
MOM:  “You are taking high moral ground!”

3.  Opportunity to teach careful pronunciation:
-  “Careful Pronunciation.––The little people will probably have to be pulled up on the score of pronunciation. They must render 'high,' sky,' 'like,' 'world,' with delicate precision; 'diamond,' they will no doubt wish to hurry over, and say as 'di'mond,' just as they will reduce 'history' to 'hist'ry.' But here is another advantage of slow and steady progress––the saying of each word receives due attention, and the child is trained in the habit of careful enunciation.” (p. 206)

4.  Check your child’s comprehension.  
-  This is a step Charlotte Mason does not dictate in her three examples only because she assumes it will not be a problem.
-  “As for understanding what they read, the children will be full of bright, intelligent remarks and questions, and will take this part of the lesson into their own hands; indeed, the teacher will have to be on her guard not to let them carry her away from the subject.”
-  Do double check that your child is understanding what they are reading to catch any problems early.  

5.  Goal of Reading at Sight lessons:  To know each word thoroughly.  
-  “And he is to know those nine words so well that he will be able to read them wherever they may occur henceforth and for evermore.”
-  You’ll see how this works in Charlotte Mason’s 3 examples.  

6.  Length of Reading at Sight lessons:  About 20 minutes max.  Stop before your child’s interest runs out, while he’s still wanting more.  
"The first lesson must have been long?"
"I'm sorry to say it lasted half an hour. The child's interest tempted me to do more than I should."  (p. 213)
-  I've personally found that my younger readers have a shorter attention span.  Don't be afraid to stop after 5 or 10 minutes.  20 is the normal attention span of a 6 year old early in the day.  

7.  Other Materials:
-  Alphabet letters (as described in previous posts)
-  Blackboard & chalk
-  Possibly word manipulatives from the reading material (more about these later)
-  Word notebook.  Your child should write all the new words he learns in here daily.  
“By this time he has eighteen new words on the blackboard of which to make sentences with the nine loose words of 'pussy’... Tommy's new words are written in his 'note-book' in print hand, so that he can take stock of his possessions in the way of words.” (p. 221)
(Note:  A very young child may not be capable of keeping a word notebook.  Please don’t start this unless your child is at least 6.  The fine motor skill requirement here may cause more harm than good before then.  Focus on air writing the new words if you have a younger child.)  
-  Phonics resources.  I suggest printing out Florence Akin's 1913 Word Mastery from Don’ Potter’s website and purchasing either The ABCs and All their Tricks or Handy English Encoder Decoder.  Also see Post 3 for more phonics resources. 
 

What Charlotte Mason is reacting against:
1.  Ugly reading & mistakes in pronunciation due to purely sounding out new words.  
“Ordinary Method.––Now, compare the steady progress and constant interest and liveliness of such lessons with the deadly weariness of the ordinary reading lesson. The child blunders through a page or two in a dreary monotone without expression, with imperfect enunciation. He comes to a word he does not know, and he spells it; that throws no light on the subject, and he is told the word: he repeats it, but as he has made no mental effort to secure the word, the next time he meets with it the same process is gone through. The reading lesson for that day comes to an end. The pupil has been miserably bored, and has not acquired one new word. Eventually, he learns to read, somehow, by mere dint of repetition; but consider what an abuse of his intelligence is a system of teaching which makes him undergo daily labour with little or no result, and gives him a distaste for books before he has learned to use them.” (p. 206-207)

2.  Boredom through endless pure-phonetic instruction (“spellers” of the olden days - take a look at an old Webster speller for an example - there are some at www.donpotter.net).  
“It is sad to see an intelligent child toiling over a reading lesson infinitely below his capacity––ath, eth, ith, oth, uth––or, at the very best, 'The cat sat on the mat.' How should we like to begin to read German, for example, by toiling over all conceivable combinations of letters, arranged on no principle but similarity of sound; or, worse still, that our readings should be graduated according to the number of letters each word contains? We should be lost in a hopeless fog before a page of words of three letters all drearily like one another, with no distinctive features for the eye to seize upon; but the child? 'oh, well––children are different; no doubt it is good for the child to grind in this mill!' But this is only one of many ways in which children are needlessly and cruelly oppressed!"

Next post:  Actual Reading-At-Sight lessons! 

Please feel free to leave comments, especially if I've interpreted any of Charlotte Mason's suggestions incorrectly!