Tuesday, September 01, 2015

Learning to read made éśé!

I have just read about and watched the latest in a long line of doomed attempts to solve the problem of the complexities of the English alphabetic code. It’s called ‘Learning To Read Made Easy’ and you can get a flavour of it here. Like its predecessors, it is doomed because the authors don’t understand how the English writing system (or any writing system, for that matter) works in relation to the sounds of the language.

I’ll take first the programme’s most seductive 'innovation' (to people who don’t know better): the introduction of diacritics or ‘glyphs’ for spellings that represent more than one sound. In doing so, the authors ignore or forget that accents in English vary from place to place. Setting in stone the pronunciation of a word according to one accent isn’t going to work for another. Take the word ‘book’ for example. In some parts of the country, the spelling oo is pronounced in the same way as the oul in ‘should’; on the other hand, many people say the word to rhyme with ‘moon’. The answer provided by LTRMA is to put a ‘glyph’ over the spelling oo to indicate that it doesn’t ‘make’ its ‘usual’ sound. As you can see, I’m problematising the words ‘make’ and ‘usual’ here because letters don’t make sounds and what is ‘usual’ depends on one’s accent of English.

This kind of approach was tried many years ago by the grandson of the inventor of shorthand Isaac Pitman, James Pitman. James Pitman, invented of a system of teaching children to read called i.t.a., which retained all the spellings in which one letter represented one sound and then invented other symbols to represent the remaining sounds. [Actually, even though it didn't work, it was a better idea than the one LTRMA have come up with and I wrote about it here.]

In Pitman’s system there were forty-four symbols to represent forty-four sounds in English. All of this sounds as if it might be a brilliant way of overcoming the undeniable complexity of the English code – except that, again, people around the country have different accents and Pitman’s system was fixed to represent one accent of English. The other problem was that, once having learned the system, the children had then to unlearn it and adapt to our accepted, orthodox spelling system. ‘Learning to read made easy’ fails on both of the same counts, as well as which it is never a good idea to teach something that has then to be unlearned.

Here’s how the English code works: 
  • Letters are symbols that represent sounds: ‘it is necessary for a writing system to represent the sounds of the language.’* 
  • A sound can be spelled with one, two, three or four letters: m a t, sh i p, l igh t, eigh
  • Sounds can be spelled in multiple ways. For example, we can spell the sound /oe/ as g o, c oa t, s l ow, th ough, t oe, h o m e and mould. This is what makes the English spelling system difficult to teach and learn unless there is a clear understanding of how it works  
  • Many spellings represent more than one sound. For example, the spelling o can represent the sound /o/ in hot, /oe/ in most, /oo/ in to and /u/ in monkey.

3    The authors of LTRMA understand none of this and yet these concepts are NOT hard to grasp and they should not present us with any difficulty as long as we teach the code from simple to complex, starting with one-to-ones (one spelling to one sound) and increasing the complexity as we go.

To demonstrate just how confusing LTRMA is, let’s take one of the words in their promotional video: ‘technique’. The first thing the authors do is to drop the so-called ‘silent’ h from the spelling ch. Making this move may appear to work, though why it’s necessary when there are so many words in which the sound /k/ is spelled ch (‘chemist’, choir, ‘mechanic’, etc.) is not explained. Tomorrow, I will explain why teaching ‘silent’ letters is confusing for children and why it doesn’t work.

The next revision the authors make to ‘technique’ is to place a ‘glyph’ over the spelling i. Now, the problem here (as in point 4 above) is that i can be /i/ in ‘sit’; it can be /ie/ in ‘kind’ and it can be /ee/ as in ‘ski’. Putting a glyph on it doesn’t indicate which of the two latter sounds it can be, taking it for granted that the authors assume that i represents the ‘usual’ sound /i/ in ‘sit’.

HMS Pandora - in this case an aptly named shipwreck!
The last modification to the word ‘technique’ they make is to drop the ue from the spelling que representing the sound /k/. But immediately we have a problem, a problem their ‘system’ is supposed to eliminate. They have already told us that the spelling c represents the sound /k/! Now, we have another spelling (q) for /k/! The trouble with attempts at spelling reform and with ill-thought out programmes like this is that they quickly founder on the rocks of the complexity of the English language – no sooner do they ‘solve’ one problem than another pops up elsewhere. 

The truth is that ways of approaching the difficulties of teaching and learning to read and write in English are not well served by systems that attempt to dodge the complexities and then quickly dissolve into an incoherent mess.


*Daniels, P. T., and Bright, W., Eds, (1996), ‘The Study of Writing Systems’ on The World’s Writing Systems, OUP, Oxford.

Sunday, June 14, 2015

Teaching syllables or morphemes? Why Sandman-Hurley is mistaken

A couple of weeks ago I came across a piece by Kelli Sandman-Hurley in Edutopia entitled 'Teaching Syllables Can Mask Meaningful Morphemes'. In the article, which you can read here, Sandman-Hurley starts by asking how many times you’ve seen the word 'every' spelled as 'evry'.

This is indeed a close approximation of what we hear when we are speaking normally in conversation. On the assumption that you have seen this misspelt hundreds of times (which I have), what then, she asks, would you do to remedy the situation?

Clearly, there is often a mismatch between what we hear and what we spell/write and this is the kind of thing that is happening when writers spell 'every' as 'evry'. When speaking normally we would enunciate the word as two syllables, 'evry', instead of three. Sandman-Hurley states that her practice was to 'over-pronounce' the word, a practice she now believes is 'questionable at best and detrimental at worst'. Unfortunately, the reasoning behind the argument for why she now believes over-enunciated syllabification to be a wrong approach is seriously flawed.

She begins by stating – correctly  that ‘English is not a syllable-timed language. It is a stress-timed language’. But then she goes on to say that ‘this means that syllables bear little to no effect on our writing system’. In actual fact, the opposite is true for reasons I shall sketch out.

What ‘over-pronunciation’ or a 'spelling voice' does is it enables the writer to hear all the sounds in all the syllables in English words. This technique gets over two principal problems: the problem of the schwa in many words and the problem of elision. To take the last first, elision is what happens when we drop out or suppress a sound or syllable in pronunciation. Examples are 'government', in which almost all speakers elide the /n/, and 'chocolate', in which we elide the entire sound/syllable in the middle and produce 'choclut'. 

Then, there is the ubiquitous problem of the schwa, the most common vowel sound in the English language. If you define a schwa in functional terms - as 'a sound that isn’t spelt as it sounds' - once you’ve identified it in a word, the solution to spelling it correctly is solved by saying it precisely in a spelling voice.


So, how we can identify the schwa sounds in words. The answer lies in the fact that schwas are the most frequently occurring vowel sounds in the English language and they are always associated with weak syllables in polysyllabic words. For example, in English, we tend to lay stress (usually) on only one syllable in any polysyllabic word. Thus, in a word like 'chicken' (two syllables), the stress is on the first syllable 'chi'.

So far, so straightforward! The problem is that other syllables in a polysyllabic word may contain a syllable or syllables which are not stressed and it is these that often (though not always) contain a schwa, or weak vowel sound. So, in the word 'chicken', the unstressed syllable is the 'cken'. In the syllable 'cken', the spelling [e] represents the sound /i/ or /uh/, depending on accent, which is a weak vowel sound or schwa.

How does this impinge on writers when they are spelling a word? The answer is that, if they’ve never seen a particular word spelled before and it contains a schwa, they may not know how to spell it, especially if the vowel spelling is less frequently encountered. To compound the problem the weak vowel sound is spoken in different ways according to accent. For example, a person from the southern states of the United States may say 'chickun'; whereas, people from most parts of the UK will say 'chickin'. In each case, the weak vowel sound will be said slightly differently - as an /uh/ or as an /i/.

So, how we are able to teach pupils to recognise the weak vowel sounds in polysyllabic words. The answer to that is, well, child’s play. Anyone who is a mother-tongue (L1) speaker of English will place stress on one of the syllables in polysyllabic words. Try it with these words: 'chimney', 'magnet', 'cavalry', 'thermometer'. You should find that the underlined syllable in each word is the one you are stressing.

L1 speakers can also break words into syllables very easily. If you remain unconvinced, visit any nursery and watch children clap out syllables in words. It being the case that even young children can syllabify words naturally, by the time they get into Y1, we can make them explicitly aware of the strong syllable. When this is achieved, getting them to recognise the weak vowel sound in sub-dominant syllables is a piece of cake. I know because I’ve been teaching children this for years.

Unfortunately, instead of 'misrepresenting how the written word works', as Sandman-Hurley’s claims, by over-enunciating, we are matching exactly what is written to what we hear. You will also notice if you read her piece that Sanderman-Hurley’s understanding of what a schwa is is incorrect. She describes the second syllable in ‘trusted’ as a schwa, when, in fact, it is only the vowel [e] that is a schwa.

If pupils are properly instructed in how to segment and blend sounds in words into syllables, starting with simple words, such as 'bedbug' and 'desktop', moving on to words with a more complex structure, such as 'groundsheet' and 'earthquake'. From there, it is easy to build on to ever more complex words containing three, four, five and six syllables.

Of course, teaching pupils about morphemes is useful to them – if teachers are able to explain what exactly they are and what they mean. Unfortunately, this isn't always the case. In a recent study, Herrington and Macken-Horarik (2015) found that in a group of twelve teachers, not a single one could ‘identify the correct definition of a morpheme’.

So, going back to Sandman-Hurley’s example, how would I teach ‘every’? The division is best taught as /e/ | /v/ /e/ | /r/ /ee/. Here, the schwa is the [e] in the middle syllable. A spelling voice, enunciating the spelling of the schwa [e] as /e/ overcomes the problem. If this is followed up by asking pupils to write the word as three separate syllables and to say the sounds as they write, the practice greatly helps them to remember it.

As a teacher, one would also make absolutely clear to pupils that we are not trying to get them to speak in this way in everyday conversation, and that we would only employ these techniques when faced with a word that contains schwas or in which we elide a sound or syllable. 

Ignoring syllables to focus on morphemes is putting the cart before the horse. My advice is to teach pupils to read and spell efficiently before you embark on teaching the first steps in morphology.

Friday, May 29, 2015

Scripps Spelling Bee 2015

I haven’t posted on the Scripps Spelling Bee event for some time now - since 2011 in fact. As in so many previous competitions, this was a nail-biter to the end and finished in a tie. It's the second tied win in two consecutive years. Prior to 2014, there hadn’t been a tie for fifty-two years. In the end, the two demon spellers were Gokul Venkatachalam from Missouri and Vanya Shivashankar from Kansas, beating off 283 other, determined competitors from the length and breadth of the USA. 
Thanks to FallingFifth.com
for 'The Alphaphones'

As soon as I looked at the names of this year’s winners, I thought there was something familiar about Vanya’s family name. And there was! Her sister Kavya won the event in 2009 with the word 'laodicean', about which I wrote at the time here.

At the end of 2015’s gruelling competition, Shivashankar correctly spelled ‘scherenschnitte’ meaning ‘scissor cuts’. Easy if you happen to speak German! Venkatachalam sealed his place on the winner’s rostrum with ‘nunatak’, an Inuit word meaning an exposed, rocky part of a ridge surrounded by glacial ice. 

If you’re wondering how the Spelling Bee could end up in a draw, here’s how Scripps explained it last year:
Once there are three spellers left in a round, the next round begins with a 25-word list. Ordinarily, a winner is declared if one speller misspells and the remaining speller correctly spells two words in a row. If no winner is declared before the list has been exhausted—or there are not enough words left for two consecutive spellings—co-champions are announced.

These days the spellings are unquestionably tougher than when an eleven-year-old Frank Neuhauser, the son of a Kentucky stone mason, won the competition in 1925 with the word ‘gladiolus’. In those days the prize was $500 in gold, a bicycle and a visit to the White House to meet the then president Calvin Coolidge. Today’s champions each take home an enormous trophy and $35,000 in cash. And, while I don’t expect this year’s winners will get the ticker tape reception and the enthusiastic crowds bearing bouquets of gladioli that Frank received, it’s certain that there is no lessening in the intensity of interest many people in the United States feel for this annual, fascinating encounter.

Thursday, May 21, 2015

Our wonderful testimonial from Jan Hilary of St George's C of E Primary School

Sounds-Write is very proud to be able to make public this testimonial from Mrs Janet Hilary, headteacher of St George's Church of England Primary School in London.

I recommend Sounds-Write to every teacher and school leader I meet. At St. George’s, where deprivation levels are extremely high, we achieve consistently outstanding results in all phases. Our Phonics Screening Check has been 96%+ every year.
Sounds-Write is a brilliant phonics programme for all pupils from Nursery but it also enables us to teach pupils with no English, or with specific learning difficulties so that no gaps exist in performance within year groups. It is a superb scheme for teaching polysyllabic spelling right through to Year 6.
The training is top quality and all staff use consistent methods to teach phonics, reading and spelling effectively. Skills are taught explicitly and pupils demonstrate confidence and success from the outset. Progress is rapid and the quality of writing from Reception onwards astonishes visitors from other schools. 

Janet Hilary, Headteacher and National Leader of Education

St George in her new incarnation


Wednesday, May 20, 2015

Sound to print: the appliance of science

‘Phonics,’ wrote Diane McGuinness, in her superb book Early Reading Instruction  ‘is a problematic word.’ Never was there a truer thing said! Why? Because ‘phonics’ is an umbrella term for all kinds of approaches, some good and some-fair-to-middling-grim.  According to McGuinness, the ‘classification is unsatisfactory because it does not identify the critical difference in logic between programs that teach the code backward from print to sound, and those that teach it forward from sound to print (linguistic phonics)’.

In McGuinness’s summation, the problem is deeply embedded in the orientation of the particular programme: is its orientation from print to sound, or from sound to print? In the former, the orientation is primarily visual; in the latter it is phonemic.

In this post I want to point to a fundamental, logical inconsistency in the approaches used by many specialists in the teaching of literacy here in the United Kingdom, in Australia and in the USA. The inconsistency is this: many teach some version of ‘traditional phonics’, which is to say that their orientation is ultimately graphemic or visual.

What is meant here by 'graphemic’ is that teaching goes from print to sound, rather than sound to print, as it does in linguistic phonics approaches. Why, you may wonder, is this an important issue? The simple answer is that, if our alphabet code were as straightforward and simple as it is with, say, languages such as Spanish or Italian, it wouldn’t be important at all.

Simple codes are relatively unambiguous: sounds are mostly represented by single-letter spellings and spellings represent one sound. So, teaching simple codes is easy and with languages like Spanish and Italian, which have such transparent codes, it matters much less if the orientation of the teaching is graphemic or phonemic. In other words, it’s hard to get the teaching wrong! However, in cases in which the code is much more complex, as is the case in English, it matters a lot!

Now, here’s the rub! Most phonic programmes start by teaching the simple one-letter spellings to one sound. This often masks whether they are truly phonic or merely graphemic because, at this early stage of teaching, it doesn’t make too much difference which way round the code is taught. The crunch comes when the complexities of the code are introduced. It is at this point that graphemic programmes suddenly become caught up in their own contradictions and have to resort to all sorts of nonsensical and, frankly, illogical explanations.

Here’s a perfect example of addled thinking. Don’t get me wrong, in almost everything I read by the man, I think Daniel Willingham is superb, but, when it comes to the teaching of phonic decoding, he is no teacher. The example is from his latest book Raising Kids Who Read. On page 10, he writes the following: ‘When gh appears at the start of a word, it’s pronounced as hard g (e.g. GHASTLY, GHOST).’ Okay, so far, so good!  But then, he writes, ‘In the middle of a word, it’s silent (e.g. DAUGHTER, TAUGHT)…’

What this tells us is that: a) that Willingham can’t segment words into sounds and then link the sounds to the spellings. [There are four sounds in ‘daughter’, /d/ /or/ (or /o/ in US English) /t/ /schwa/; and, three in ‘taught’.] b) he doesn’t 'get' that spellings are representations of sounds, or that spellings can be represented by one, two, three or four letters. As I've stated many times before on this blog, letters don’t ‘make’ or ‘say’ sounds. We do! There are no silent letters because ALL letters (I prefer ‘spellings’ a much more accurate term!) are silent. The only constant in the spelling system is the sounds.

This is extremely important precisely because as soon as the code moves from simple to more complex, unless teaching is anchored in the sounds of the language, confusion can (and does) quickly set in. For example, if the single-letter spelling o can be /o/ in ‘hot’, /oe/ in ‘go’, /oo/ in ‘do’ as well as /u/ in ‘mother’ and a teacher tells a young child, who is likely take such things very literally, that the letter o can ‘say’/’make’/o/, but then it can also ‘make’/oe/, and /oo/ and /u/, the child is almost certainly going to wonder whether, if it can ‘say’ or ‘make’ these sounds, it can ‘say’ or ‘make’ any sound. A ‘magical’ code that appears to operate like this is not a code and is unworkable.

On the other hand, if the child is taught to understand that the sounds s/he utters in words and sentences all the time are written/spelt by the spellings we introduce from the start, the code is always anchored in the forty-four sounds in speech. It is also makes perfect sense psychologically. Then, we don’t need ‘curly k’ and ‘kicking k’, ‘hard gee' or 'soft gee’, ‘short vowel sounds and long vowel sounds’. All of this becomes completely redundant. In fact, young, literal-minded children often have no idea what ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ sounds are. Nor indeed do they understand a lot of the completely gratuitous verbiage that goes with much of the teaching they get.

As for rules, I have never met a teacher in my life who knows what the rules are in their entirety, never mind the exceptions to the rules. In Early Reading Instruction, McGuinness explains why they are superfluous, but that’s the subject of another posting.


Saturday, May 16, 2015

Why doesn’t The Literacy Blog advocate the use of flash cards?

There are a number of reasons why I think that phonic programmes that advocate the use of flash cards are barking up the wrong tree. The use of flash cards is a legacy of old fashioned phonics programmes, which emphasise the visual/graphemic at the expense of the aural.

Presenting children with flash cards, which are by the very way in which they are presented, decontextualised, will 'work' only to a certain extent for some children, particularly those with some prior learning and for those with strong visual memories. For these children, some would, as the number of new words increases, reach the limits of their visual memories fairly quickly and go on to struggle; others would begin to connect spellings and sounds implicitly and go on to teach themselves to read. But for all children, I would argue, flash cards are a waste of time and even send children down the wrong path, especially when, as I believe, there’s a better way of teaching reading and spelling.


Both John Hattie and Daniel Willingham argue that learning is much more effective if it is contextualised. Not only are flash cards decontextualised in that they are not presented in the context of words, they are, and more importantly, also decontextualised in terms of how they function. In other words, they are not linked to where in relation to other sound-spelling correspondences they appear in words.

What are these dependencies?
Ø  Is the spelling comprised of more than one letter?
Ø  Are there alternative ways of spelling a particular sound?
Ø  Can a particular spelling represent more than one sound? For example, if the single letter spelling a is presented to children, it will invariably be presented as /a/. Although it is sensible to present it as /a/ to begin with, whether it is /a/ or not will be heavily dependent on what precedes and what follows it: if the spelling a is preceded by the sound /w/, spelt as w or u, the chances are it will represent the sound /o/, as is ‘swan’ or ‘squash’. In other words, context is vital.

The idea that a spelling can represent more than one sound is not best taught by rote activities such as flash cards. It is taught through a combination of carefully structured and presented activities that teach conceptual understanding of how the writing system works in relation to the sounds of the language, the precise correspondences in context (!), and the skills needed to be able to use this understanding and factual knowledge fluently. In other words, the fundamental flaw in the idea behind using flash cards is that there is no coherent, conceptual backbone to the approach.

Spellings, which are being presented on flash cards, are very often not grouped according to whether they represent single letter spellings, or two-, or three-, or four-letter spellings of sounds [sh i p, l igh t, eigh t). They aren’t grouped to be anchored in individual sounds so that it is made clear that there are different ways to spell the target sounds [sh e, s ea, m ee t, k ey, h a pp y, f ie l d]. Moreover, the fact that many spellings represent more than one sound is more often than not completely ignored [h o t, g o, d o, m o th er].

Another problem with the use of flash cards is that the approach relies heavily on paired-associate learning: associating one thing with another. Associating random isolated sounds with random isolated spellings is very hard to remember. Try it with an invented, symbolic alphabet. It is extremely difficult! And, if adults find it hard, how much harder is it for young children?

Linguistic phonics programmes, such as Sounds-Write, present a completely different alternative and one that is underpinned by a clear and coherent rationale supported by cognitive psychology. We begin with word building. Word building introduces sound-spelling correspondences in the context of whole words right from the start and it anchors them in what all children learn naturally: the sounds of their own language.

Advocates of linguistic phonics make absolutely explicit that the squiggles on the page we call spellings (comprised of letters of the alphabet) stand for the sounds in words. Even if, intellectually, young children don’t grasp this idea immediately, they begin to ‘cotton on’ very quickly as they operate the procedures of blending, segmenting and phoneme manipulation.

Our methodological approach also presents new information in small steps and from simple to gradually more complex. In other words, we build into the minds of the children a schema for sounds and spellings! It is this that helps children to remember.

Admittedly, as acknowledged by experts such as Hattie, the formation of schemata is a long process and it requires extended feedback and practice from those who know how the writing system is structured. We know that getting information into long-term memory is highly dependent on how we present the information. With adequate practice – more for some children, less for some others – it is possible to build a wholly integrated schema for all the major complexities of the alphabet code over the three years (KS1) we believe it takes to teach children to read and spell to a very high level of proficiency.

We don't need to drill children by rote. Reinforcement comes with consistent exposure in the activities of reading and writing in context.

Thursday, May 14, 2015

i.t.a: a great idea but a dismal failure

Talk to anyone today who was taught to read through i.t.a. (Initial Teaching Alphabet) and they will almost invariably tell you how they’ve never been able to spell correctly since. 
As i.t.a. was more or less abandoned in the sixties/early seventies (though it did cling on for much longer in some places), many of today’s generation of teachers will never even have heard of it except from their parents or grandparents! So why write a blog posting about it?

I’m writing about it because it did, at first sight, appear to be a great idea. At the same time, as the title of the post suggests, it was a disaster – because so many children were left floundering it its wake.

Starting with the ‘great idea’ bit, it was conceived by James Pitman, grandson of Isaac Pitman, developer of the famous shorthand system of note-taking still in use today. What James Pitman thought was not dissimilar from the ideas of Stephen Linstead, Chair of the English Spelling Society Spelling reform. Pitman thought that if he could produce a single symbol for every one of the forty-four sounds in English, children would have a simplified and very easy system to learn. Doing so would give us a writing code not unlike Italian or Spanish.

Most of the single letter spellings, the one-to-ones remained the same. So, the spelling in ‘bat’ remained the same as in our accepted orthography. Where the system differed was in many of the two-letter consonant and vowel spellings. Thus, Here’s an example: /th/ (unvoiced) in the word ‘thin’ was spelt q; /th/ (voiced) in the word ‘this’ was spelt d; the sound /ae/ as in ‘gate’ was spelt æ; and, the sound /oe/ in ‘goat’ was spelt œ.


If we had a system for spelling the forty-four sounds in English (forty-five in some accents) with one symbol, learning to read and spell would be easy. For example, the sentence ‘I have a goat’ would be written: ‘I hav a gœt’. At the time, Ladybird produced books to support the approach. To give you an idea of what they looked like, here is an example from a book called The Fisherman: 

The most obvious problem with such a system is that, at some point, the transition to our accepted orthography must be made . In the sentence 'I hav a goet.' above, the spelling of /v/ in ‘have’ is commonly spelt ve at the ends of words and the spelling of the sound /oe/ in ‘goat’ is oa. For children to make the transition, the teacher has to make explicit to children that, in English:
·      we spell sounds with one, two three or four letters
·      sounds can be spelt in multiple ways
·      many spellings represent more than one sound

The teacher also has to teach all the various common ways of spelling sounds for reading and spelling, and they need to know how to teach that many spellings represent different sounds and the skills to enable them to use this knowledge when reading and writing.

Because hardly any teachers knew how the transition to accepted orthography should be taught, many children were left struggling to work out the logic of the alphabet code. Teachers in (the then) junior schools (KS2) found themselves confronted with children writing what seemed to them like gobbledegook.

The next problem with i.t.a. was that it presented the spellings for the sounds of someone with a Received Pronunciation (RP) accent, which is not the accent of many speakers of English. So, it didn’t make sense to speakers of other varieties of English. In addition, aside from also violating the principle that it is never a good idea to teach what later needs to ‘un-taught’, no-one for a moment believed that all existing written materials should be re-written in i.t.a. This meant that after learning to read and write i.t.a., children had to be taught how the code works.

Today’s would-be spelling reformers peddle what is essentially the same line: simplify spelling and learning to read and write English will be much easier. As I’ve pointed out here, the idea is a pipe dream. Many previous attempts have been made and they all founder on the rocks of different accents of English and on establishing an agreed system of spelling the forty-four sounds in the language, including the most common vowel sound, the schwa.

There is one reason and only one reason for the spelling reformers’ confusion – instead of starting with the sounds of the language and teaching children the different ways of spelling those sounds, they start from spellings. Spellings, they seem to think, ‘make’ or ‘say’ sounds. They don’t. We are dealing with a symbolic system: spellings are symbols for sounds. Once this becomes your starting point, you have an anchor for all your subsequent teaching.

Below is the i.t.a. chart, which you'll also find on Wikipedia here.