DD failed her phonics screening - any advice?

[formerdiva]

I know there's another big thread on the screening, but it mostly seems to be debate about whether the test is worthwhile or not. I just wanted a bit of advice about what my strategy should be? To give some context:

I trust the school - the teaching staff seem good, and the other children don't seem to have an issue
They've told me that DD is immature (she's an August baby, but to be fair her friends who are summer babies don't seem to have issues)
She doesn't concentrate or focus very well at all
We do her homework every day and read to/with her every day

I feel really anxious for her. Any advice about what our next steps should be?

Yes and all that is excellent.

However, generations of children did learn to read before phonics teaching was formalised in this way, but obviously some didn't learn to read. I think it is true to say that most able children will learn to read anyway and what phonics teaching should do is reduce the proportion who have difficulties.

And sorry, but I don't think my personal reading ability or that of most adults i know, has been limited by not learning phonics.

Believe me: I am totally in favour of teaching phonics and, in fact, taught my two older children phonics as their schools didn't, but I think it is slightly extreme, the way some people are evangelizing about it on this thread.

Sorry, that was to NiceViper.
Flexy, I agree.

I think it is true to say that most able children will learn to read anyway

Sorry, not true. I work with a number of 'able' children who are far from competent readers. The ability to learn letter/sound correspondences and automatic decoding and blending is not dependent on intelligence at all.

Um, before the "new" teaching methods which gained currency in about 1970s, children learned to read by sounding out ie phonics and had been doing so for centuries.

I don't think people are evangelising on this thread, They are pointing out that the traditional phonics method has been demonstrated time and time again (by modern research, including into brain function) and by classroom outcomes to be way better than the other methods which has been briefly in use in the late twentieth century, and which consistently left around 20% of children struggling.

I suppose it really boils down to whether you want schools to use methods which teach children the best.

ViewOfTheHills - there is no relationship between intelligence and ability to read.

Everyone with an IQ above 70, ie everone in a mainstream school has the ability to learn to read.

Most children learn to read. Some don't. But you will find no correlation between intelligence and ability to read.

Sorry, but that's just cherry picking what you want intelligence to mean. There is an obvious link between "intelligence" and the ability to pick up the skill of reading quickly and without intensive tuition. It requires all sorts of areas of your brain to work well and in co-ordination with each other and to make full and accurate use of the information received from your senses. It doesn't mean you are automatically able at everything, though, nor does it mean that if you do not find learning to read comes easily to you that you cannot become competent at it with the right tuition and practice, nor does it mean that if you do not have the sort of brain wiring, or intelligence, to pick up reading easily that you do not have great natural ability, or intelligence, in other areas of your life. Being gifted in one area does not stop you being disabled in another, nor should it permit you to downgrade other peoples' abilities, just because you don't happen to possess them.

I meant intelligence as in IQ or cognitive ability as it is now normally called.

There is no link between cognitive ability (or IQ) and ability to read.

I don't really agree with that, either, since IQ tests these days measure things like processing speed and memory, and auditory processing and visual processing skills are also considered to be an aspect of your intelligence which IQ tests ought to look for. If you have problems with any of these aspects of your intelligence, you are likely to have problems with picking up reading. The point of an IQ test should be to look for your areas of strength and weakness so that you can have a better understanding of how your intelligence works. An overall IQ "score" means nothing much of any use to anyone.

IndigoBell - there is a very strong link between IQ and ability to read across the population. However, it is perfectly possible to have a very high IQ and a disability that impacts ability to read. Having difficulties with reading may be an indication of a low IQ, but it may also be an indication of a disability.

Isn't having a low IQ a disability, then?

You might find this interesting

dyslexiauntied.blogspot.co.uk/2009/12/dyslexia-defined-divergence-in-iq-and.html

My understanding was that what is mythical is the idea that a Discrepancy between IQ and reading ability was a sign of dyslexia, it is not a problem just of brighter kids.
I read a detailed interview with Shaywitz( following a link by MRZ) in which she seemed to say that 5-8 percent of he population have real problems and the one fifth figure in the article includes those poorly taught.

Amused that an article about dyslexia states, "these children are highly intelligent, despite there learning disorder."

why is that amusing rabbitstew?

Now, talking of reading.... I intially read, "dyslexiauntied" as dyslexi auntied. Was wondering who the auntie was who was auntie-ing everything. Clearly my subconscious fixated on the au combination in the middle.

I would have thought it would be correct to write "their learning disorder" not "there learning disorder."

It shows I wasn't reading the words accurately

Problems with 'picking up' reading are not related to the common understanding of the term 'ability' (which is usually used as a synonym for 'intelligence' though there is clearly a problem here with defining 'intelligence')

IQ is a very questionable concept in itself as it is a cultural construct.

Children of any perceived 'ability' or 'IQ' can have difficulties with learning to read which are not connected in any way with a 'disability'. They just haven't been well taught. I have worked with a few pupils who were completely written off at primary but who learned with no difficulty at all.

I would agree that there can be neurological problems, I've worked with a few of them, too, but I don't think they are as common as people believe.

If someone struggles to read we don't know whether that is because of dyslexia (which isn't even defined properly) or poor teaching or lack of teaching.

But we do know it's not due to low ability. Because children with low cognitive ability can and do learn to read absolutely fine.

DD was one of those who did not meet the expected standard: she scored 25/40. I had the result sheet home with her school report today. (School report says she is polite and courteous and a pleasure to teach.) Her report also said that she was working towards pairing numbers within 20. This is so much nonsense, I'd like to scream. She is faultless at number bonds up to 100. It makes me wonder if she's is a bit scared of the teacher and a bit reticent?

This evening I tested DD's phonics with some fairly complex words and she sounded them all out and blended them faultlessly. So I don't know what to think really.

Her teacher (who is absolutely lovely) has handwritten a note on the result sheet, asking me to contact her if I want to discuss it. Do you think it's reasonable to ask her what percentage of the cohort met the expected standard? I don't know whether to be worried or not.

We know it's not always due to low ability. And I still think it is a very peculiar view of cognition, or intelligence, to state that something like dyslexia or dyspraxia is not related in any way to intelligence or cognitive ability, rather than that it is only one tiny aspect of someone's intelligence or cognitive ability which can in some people pale into insignificance as a result of their compensating abilities. I would view conditions like dyslexia and dyspraxia as specific cognitive impairments, regardless of the fact that such a person may have abilities which more than compensate for their disabilities and result in a person with much more to contribute to society one way or another than someone who has an even-but-relatively-unimpressive-in-all-areas sort of profile. You cannot, after all, say that it is clever not to be able to read very well, or not to be able to plan your movements very well, or not to be able to keep your attention focused on the task at hand when absolutely necessary to do so - these are impairments, whether you like it or not. Thankfully, there is no such thing as a superhuman who is outstanding at absolutely everything - we all have areas of relative impairment and relative ability. There is such a thing as a person whose talents are not nurtured or recognised, though, and who has to fit in with a norm that limits and defines them in an unfair way. This doesn't mean their disability is not linked to their intelligence, though, it means their intelligence is affected by their disability.

Do you think it's reasonable to ask her what percentage of the cohort met the expected standard?

You could ask, but she might not tell you; schools are only required to tell parents their own child's results.

It would be reasonable to ask where your child apparently struggled.

It is possible that the school overemphasised the 'test' and the children got a bit nervous. Or that your reading of the situation is correct; that your dd is not so confident with her teacher and doesn't display the full extent of her knowledge. Or that the school places undue stress on 'reading for meaning' and your dd was fased by the pseudo words. Or she was having an off day. Or she does need some reinforcement with some aspects of phonics.

Definitely talk to her teacher if you are worried.

rabbitstew,

The big problem here is with the very elastic use of the term 'dyslexia'. The British Psychological Society definition (which is the one EPs work to) merely says that that dyslexia is present when a child has difficulty with learning to read and spell, despite adequate instruction. The last part is really significant because there is no definition of 'adequate instruction'.

All the accretions such as poor organisational skills are add ons promoted by the dsylexia organisations.

It was very telling that during an Evidence check carried out by the Science & Technology Select Committee the dyslexia 'experts' failed to adequately pinpoint any significant difference between 'dyslexics' and common or garden 'struggling readers'. Science & Technology Select Committee Evidence Check: Evidence Look for Shirley Cramer's evidence

I do not for one moment deny that some children have significant difficulties which make it harder for them to learn to read and spell, but this probably only affects some 3 - 5% of children. The term 'dyslexic' is commonly applied to a far greater percentage of children than that.

And I still think it is a very peculiar view of cognition, or intelligence, to state that something like dyslexia or dyspraxia is not related in any way to intelligence or cognitive ability - Well your view differs significantly from Educational Psychologists.

EP reports often state a child's cognitive ability, and my DD is far from alone in having a very high cognitive ability (according to an EP) and very severe dyslexia.

Her dyslexia does not affect her intelligence. It affects her in an awful lot of ways, but not her intelligence.

And DS2s dyspraxia does not affect his intelligence either. It affects his ability to sit. To run and swim and ride a bike. To make and keep friends. But not his intelligence.

I don't think the elastic use of the term dyslexia results in the conclusion that dyslexia has nothing to do with cognitive function. Some children need active tuition in order to learn to read, some need an awful lot of intensive, active tuition of a very specific type in order to learn to read, and others learn by sitting on their parents' laps and looking at the books they are being read. That points not just to environmental differences, but to differences in cognitive function. That there may be myriad different reasons for these differences doesn't mean the differences don't exist - people do not become identical just because you are incapable of categorising their differences and giving them labels. And unless 100% of children can and do indeed learn to read fluently using synthetic phonics before the end of primary school (not 95-97%), the danger of claiming that this is the one and only way to get all children capable of reading to a point where they can indeed read fluently is that those still left out of the loop will be written off as truly incapable of ever learning to read, because they've not managed to in accordance with the supposedly foolproof method and therefore can legitimately be given up on. In reality, it may be that they are the minority for whom it is thought to be too expensive and time consuming to work out how to teach them.