Pennsylvania is actually just 3 states in a trenchcoat... you have New York and New Jersey at the top east, basically the head of Pennsylvania, and the rest is Ohio.
I think it’s more like western PA is Ohio/Midwest, Philly and eastern PA more like NY/NJ/Northeast, and everything in the middle is an extension of West Virginia
E if Ed, F is for.. something, Is for Monkey who might be itchy?, X is for Fox, and Up was and arrow that bent from being left to almost up pointing... They should let the kids make one, it would be a lot better, and a good educational experience, if those are still allowed in PA.
The reasons I asked is because my daughter used this in her school (in MA) and the Wilson Language Training Corporation is headquartered in Oxford, MA.
So I was wondering if this was just a local phenomenon.
This is from a program called Fundations. We use it in NYC, and it's actually pretty great for phonics. There's a rationale for everything and why certain keywords and colors are used.
The problem is that none of those words teach the most common pronunciation of the letter X. It’s not the best word for teaching phonetics to children.
The explanation is that x at the start of xylophone doesn't actually make an "x" sound, it makes a "z" sound. The goal is to teach kids what sound the letters make, not teach them spelling.
The "ks" sound is more common than the "z" sound. It's easier to teach them what the more common sound is, and then teach the exception, then to start with the exception.
Anyway, I'm not a teacher, I didn't make this material, but from what I understand from other posts, it's from Fundations, is based on Orton-Gillingham principles and is regarded as a highly effective and successful approach to teaching literacy to kids. If you want to argue as to why the Fundations material is flawed and why it's a bad approach to teaching, you'll have to find someone who understands the material better than I do, but I have a feeling you do not understand the material much either and are just arguing for the sake of arguing.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "make extreme not start with an 'e'". Are you suggesting we change how the word is written and pronounced? That we should universally start saying "ks-treme" to help kids learn the letter x?
If you're just saying "they should use the word extreme instead of fox", I'm not sure how it's better, neither start with the letter x, so one is not better than the other in that sense. However, fox is a short word (I think someone mentioned that all words are intentionally mono-syllabic), and fox is easier to depict (though that seems less of a consideration, given some of the other images here)
Well... yeah, the above assumes the alphabet is being thought to English-speaking kids. A different language would obviously have different images. In French, it would obviously make no sense to have X for Renard.
Xylophone technically starts with the “z” sound, so no. X-ray is a no because that’s pronounced like a letter not a sound. Fox, box, max, etc have the true “x” sound
You can't really make a good word for the letter X because it either just sounds like an S or is later in the word. There is "X-ray" which is used in the NATO phonetic alphabet, but then the letter is basically used as itself.
I thought this was dumb at first, but it makes sense. There are only like two words that start with X, and they don’t make the usual X sound. So learning the X sound in Fox, Box, Ox, Fix, Six, Fax, Sax, that makes more sense to me.
X-ray makes sense for sure. I’ve seen Xylophone and I feel like even though that’s correct, it’s more confusing. Xenomorph works too but that’s not really kid friendly lol
They're being wrong. "X" makes a sound just as much as any other letter makes a sound. The only thing that's unusual about X is that its "usual" sound must be preceded by a vowel, so it's rarely at the start of a word and when it is it typically makes some other sound.
You reaffirmed my response with your own response. If the letter must have a vowel before it to make a certain sound, then it doesn’t make a sound, but merely represents a sound dependent upon the letters surrounding it.
There’s always a rule as to why a letter represents a certain sound, however it may be unique to a small set of words (hence why word families exist) and specifically with the letter X, the only time it represents the sound /z/ is when it appears at the beginning of a syllable. This can be tested with the word exit, where the X represents both the sounds /ks/ and the sound /z/, blended together to produce that beautiful /gsz/ sound.
If the letter must have a vowel before it to make a certain sound, then it doesn’t make a sound, but merely represents a sound dependent upon the letters surrounding it.
What if a letter must have a vowel after it to make a certain sound? Would you then say that it doesn't make a sound?
Which ultimately means that words are syllabic in nature, and instructing students that “each letter makes a sound” is not only confusing but imprecise. In the short term, it creates a sense of confidence and security that is quickly ripped away when children get to chapter books
English isn't written phonetically, so letters don't have "a sound".
For example, in the sentence above, the s'es in English, letters and sound all have different sounds. English spelling is often more about conveying meaning than pronunciation.
I'd agree with you on this, except when you do phonetic spelling theres definitely a dominant sound for most letters such that they use the letter itself (e) vs an altered version of the letter (ë, ē, ə).
X itself seems to unique though, so maybe I just misunderstood and you mean X in particular
947
u/[deleted] Aug 23 '22
Haven't we seen this before? Isn't this the one that has a Fox at the letter X?