Sounding out, whole word and phonics question

[Shattereddreams]

My dd is doing well with her reading. Y1.
At home we read more extensively than school books so I am aware there is an element of pushing her above her school ability so to speak. But her school books are not particularly challenging ORT Level 7.

When she approaches a long unknown word, she basically panics. Small words if unknown don't cause problems, just long ones.

If phonetic, I ask her to sound out. But she can't. I think she reads in a whole word way, and she tries to make a word that she does know without really looking at the word.
Eg
Tethered she wanted to read as teacher.

She has a lazy supply teacher this year so hasn't made much progress in school, plenty at home though.

Is this fear normal progression?

I wondered about the phonics test because if she can't sound out unknown words then this could be a problem.

I'm easy. We could just agree that the children who need phonics need phonics and the ones who don't don't.

Or we could just bother to find out how it happens in schools where all children learn to read, and take it from there?

It's not about all children. It's about the ones who don't need phonics. They need something else, (and the way the fanatics are going) they need anything else.

But that is a very tiny number learnandsay. Whilst I am sure they welcome you as their advocate, it is not really relevant to 99%.

But my concern would be that the children who supposedly do learn to read by look and say do ok at first with reading when they are younger but then struggle as they get older mainly with spelling/ writing and then it is too late in some cases...

DD's homework this week was to write out the story of The Enormous Turnip in her own words, very few words were spelt correctly but were phonetically correct iyswim ie "caim" for came and "cood" for could but it shows to me that despite her not sounding words out when she reads at all, her phonics knowledge is good and yes the words are spelt incorrectly but at least she is giving it a go and it can be read and understood which may not happen if she was just remembering the words as a whole as there are only so many words they can remember....

That's great. Let the 99% have phonics, if they can benefit from it, and let the other 1% learn as they please.

Absolutely. (Why not?)

and how do you identify that 1% learnandsay. At age 3,4,5,6,7,8,9 I would have said my son was that 1% he could read far above his chronological age, never met a word in any text that he could not read first time without help ... I wish I could turn back the clock and insist his school had taught him phonics with his peers.

I'm not identifying the 1%; their mothers are identifying them by posting on mumsnet asking for alternatives to phonics because they've tried their best with phonics for years and haven't got anywhere. It's a terrible doctor which says to a suffering patient, yes, I know penicillin has made your symptoms worse. But even though you struggle I'm going to tie you to this table and force some more down your throat. Because it might be killing you, but it does wonders for everybody else. That's not a doctor that's a criminal.

and I'm a mother who knows that it isn't possible to correctly identify a child who will never need phonics knowledge

or conversely learnandsay "I know this chemotherapy treatment will help in the long term although at first you may feel worse."

But how long is the suffering supposed to go on for, years and years? If a child is suffering badly when trying to use phonics but flying with whole words then let them fly. This I'm going to force you to suffer with phonics because I like it isn't education it's fanatical sadism.

But the parents/carers might not be identifying this hypothetical 1% very accurately.....

Some friends of mine spent over 2 years having meetings, discussions, assessments with their dd1s school about her academic progress, particularly her reading. She was on a IEP and the school eventually suggested that she just wasn't very bright.

Her parents thought through every possible reason for this and concluded that she just didn't get on with phonics. They took their dd for an independent assessment and the assessor realised within a hour that their dd hadn't been taught phonics correctly, and certainly not thoroughly enough for her to read independently and confidently. She was relying on memorising whole words. This had obviously been going on since reception, and it was only in Y2 that the gaps in her knowledge and between her and some of the other children who had picked things up, became obvious.

They've been fortunate enough to be able to move their daughter to another school but are still very angry and upset at the damage that poor phonics teaching and being fobbed off by the school had on their dd intellectually, psychologically and socially (it's not nice to think that you're thick).

FGS, teaching phonics isn't fanatical sadism. It's not, it's just not.

No, teaching phonics isn't fanatical sadism, but forcing children who can't acquire phonics skills to learn phonics because the teacher loves phonics is fanatical sadism.

lands, you are the only person on this thread talking about 'forcing' children to do anything.

Are children who phonics don't benefit at all? I've never seen any research to substantiate this.

Teachers use phonics because its the most effective ways of teaching children to read (is it a national requirement?) not because they 'love' it.

This isn't about research. This is about posters on mumsnet who have asked for alternatives to phonics.

But the OP on this thread isn't asking for alternative to phonics.

Indeed, she or he is concerned that her or his dd's knowledge of phonics isn't through or automatic enough to help her read long words independently, and that she is unhelpfully relying on whole word recognition.

There is a neighbouring thread where the poster is asking for an alternative to phonics. The discussion about the principle of sounding out is taking place here though.

There isn't really an 'alternative' to phonics.

Phonics is learning about how letters make sounds, either singularly or in different combinations and how these sounds can be blended to make words.

IMVHE, it's usually poor phonics teaching rather than good phonics teaching that leads to children 'not getting on with phonics'.

You seem to find it hard to take on board experience and advice from people much more experienced in teaching children to read than yourself, especially those who have seem the whole process through. (I don't include myself in this - I supported the school in teaching my 5 year old to read and indeed she can very well indeed).

As others say, lots of 4/5/6 year olds can learn whole words, but this strategy has a limited time span of usefulness. Good phonics teaching helps children learn through the whole process. I don't know why you're choosing to back yourself into a corner about this one, but you seem very intent on doing so.

I don't care how experienced people are. I'm sure the Jesuits were very good priests but that doesn't excuse the inquisition. Just because you're an experienced teacher that doesn't give you the right to be a fanatical sadist.

Would you dismiss teaching all skills just because at this point in time you don't need that particular skill in the hope there never comes a time where you might find in useful or even essential learnandsay?

in it

I'm not dismissing the skill or penicillin. I'm just making the point that it's wrong to force either of them on people who need not to have them.

I don't care how experienced people are

Really? Wow, I do. I'm really glad that my children are being taught to read - amongst other things - by someone experienced in doing so.