Does anyone think phonics teaching has any harmful effects?

[housework]

I am happy to be persuaded either way but would be and would be interested to hear all views. Am thinking about dd and whether phonics has worked for her.
DD is 7, reads very well and comprehends what she is reading on the whole. She passed the Y1 phonics test getting the magic 32 so many children got. However, she's a poor speller to the extent that an Ed Psych has suggested testing for dyslexia. I'd like to do some more spelling work with her over the summer holidays. Today I did a bit of the Alpha to Omega placement test with her. She spelt crash as 'Krash' and chip as 'thip.' I let her do the next words 'splash' and 'thrush'. She spelt these correctly. With chip, I think she knew there were 'th', 'sh' and 'ch' to choose from and just picked one of them.
The above and other incidences make me wonder. Does phonics stop a child trusting their instincts? In her case, I think she is not considering how a word looks to help her spell it. She will always fall back on a phonetic spelling unless she already knows the spelling. If school had focussed more on rote learning, regular and rigorous spelling tests, would she spell better. At the moment they're all still ploughing through phonics because the failures have to re-take this year. But there are no expectations re spelling, barely any spelling tests, no words given to learn. And dd is the type that will only do the work if school have set it.
I'm just wondering where to go from here. Thanks for reading.

'Malenky - ps are you sure the quote you attributed to me, copied below, is mine?'

rabbit, I think you probably mean 'quotation'. Quote is part of the verb.

I quoted you at 09.07 on the 22nd (that was my first quotation). I think quoted you from your post on the 20th at 10.25. Then, I quoted daftdame who posted at 17.24 on the 22nd. As you might notice, I left a gap here and didn't claim to quote you, but asked what you meant.

Did you mean, you didn't intend to agree with the other poster you were agreeing with, or do you not know how to interpret spatialization, as well as not understanding the difference between 'quote' and 'quotation'?

Perhaps you need to check that dictionary again?

Or did you mean to imply, you've suddenly started to disagree with someone else because you realize your arguments sound silly? That sounds plausible too.

mrz - when I read it, I thought she agreed with daftdame. My impression was that several posters on this thread agreed. I've already been ticked off my one of these posters when I explained I was interested in what math said - apparently, they assume it's unacceptable for me not to respond to all of them, so I assume they speak together.

Malenky - clearly the dyslexic brain does indeed think very differently.

I don't honestly believe there's such a thing as 'the dyslexic brain'. I've never heard of such an idea from researchers, either. What do you imagine 'the dyslexic brain' is?

No, I do not agree with everything daftdame says. Don't try to justify yourself by pretending everyone was ganging up against you.

You know, it helps to read the pretty words, rabbit.

You've made up that little story about 'ganging up', haven't you?

Many posters including math have been perfectly capable of polite and sane replies.

It's really not been a case of anyone 'ganging up'. However, sterotyping about 'the dyslexic brain' sounds awfully like the kind of 'ganging up' most of us call 'disablist bigotry'. I'm sure you didn't intend that?

You could always try looking up "dyslexic brain" on google. There's quite a lot about research into neurological deficits, but also about some possible advantages (presumably not shared by all dyslexics).

Yes, I said that. Was trying to explain how I sounded out words when I was small. Although I used the initial phonic alphabet, my mother taught me, to label letters, I would think in terms of composite sounds in a word, when thinking how to spell. Not knowing the proper letter names very well was not important to me at that age.

I think anecdotal evidence can be useful, although it probably varies in accuracy, depending on how well one can remember. I do like hearing anecdotes, as you get a sense of what is possible.

Malenky - you specifically said to mrz that you assume we all speak together. In what way is that not ganging up? Why would we all be speaking together?

" Myth: This is the BIG one; dyslexia is a specific brain defect; an incurable, genetically-based, neurological difficulty with phonemic awareness (PA) and processing skills (the ability to consciously detect and manipulate the smallest perceptible speech sounds).

Facts : The basic unit of speech perception and production is the syllable. Humans are not biologically 'wired' to be consciously aware of the phoneme level of speech. Furthermore, PA is 'not an outcome of cognitive maturation or exposure to language' (Rice/Brooks p54), PA is only necessary when learning to read and spell involves using an alphabet code. This is confirmed by research which found that people who read and write using non-alphabetic writing systems lack phonemic awareness (Kerr p103-4); studies, 'show the strong impact of the type of writing system and type of instruction on the development of phonemic awareness -an environmental effect, and restates the point that you do not acquire this aptitude unless you need it' (D.McGuinness WCCR p135). Whilst a tiny minority do acquire a good level of PA seemingly effortlessly, intuiting the alphabetic principle and the code through a lucky combination of nature and nurture, most students need to receive direct and discrete, systematic synthetic phonics instruction (i.e. working with sounds and letters at the level of the phoneme) in order to become fully proficient in this area. 'Phoneme analysis sufficient to be able to decode is acquired much more rapidly in the context of print than in isolation' (D.McGuinness. Response to Hulme). As a consequence of normal genetic variation (D.McGuinness WCCR p151), early hearing problems or faulty initial teaching of reading (either of the former in combination with the latter can result in a strongly visual reading reflex) some students find learning to recognise and manipulate phonemes rather more difficult than the majority of the population. The opaque English alphabet code exacerbates their lack of aptitude, as does on-going mixed methods teaching. Fortunately, modern synthetic phonics whole-class and intervention programmes have been specially designed to render the English alphabet code transparent for initial teaching. "

www.dyslexics.org.uk/dyslexia_myths.htm

rabbit - well, dear, you see, it's a difference between my interpretation of what a group of people do, and your perception. It's to do with the meaning of the pretty words. You actually have to understand what they mean, you see.

Come back when you have learned that, and you will understand better.

I will agree with math, btw, that most people don't use google for research. I'm sure it helps with letter names, though.

www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Dyslexia/Pages/Causes.aspx

MRZ -- in response to my comment about the absurdity of "holding up this "shape" - C - and calling it "curling cuh", you said "which is why we don't do it, but it is less absurd to hold up the letter and say this is "see" and then the child writes I can c the c".

Could you please explain how you refer to "C" in your classroom? It seems it's neither called /k/ nor /s/ nor "see". Is it called anything? Or do you just point to it and make whichever of the various associated sounds you're trying to teach?

Malenky - don't be so patronising. I think I understand words perfectly well, pretty or otherwise. What makes you think you have the superior ability, there? Because you find it easier to understand yourself than to understand me?... Has it not crossed your mind that the same applies the other way around and if there is any misunderstanding here, it is just as much your fault as mine???

malenky I don't understand what has happened, has it really all kicked off because you questioned the importance of letter names? Or have I got this wrong? I do get things wrong sometimes...

I teach children that this is the way we write the sound /k/ in the word cat and the sound /s/ in the word ceiling and the sound /ch/ in the word cello juststartingtothink ... in context!

mrz - how do you teach children how to write the letter k? Is that also always attached to a word, in context?

mrz I get it, you give examples, I would expect that.

I didn't intend to be patronizing.

I was responding to being told I shouldn't comment on this thread because of my dyslexia. I found though difficult to take, especially when other posters were being quite incoherent in what they said, but seemed keen to tell me I was wrong as soon as I asked a simple question.

Btw, rabbit, as I have said repeatedly, I am well aware I have dyslexia. I don't think that excuses you being rude or trying to pull the wool. If you're incapable of understanding or responding to a simple post, that is your problem. Not mine.

But I didn't tell you you couldn't comment on this thread. I didn't tell you you were wrong to ask a simple question. So why so incredibly angry towards me and conflating me with everyone else?

I was being rude to you, because you were being rude to me. But there you go again, telling me I'M rude, as though you aren't being hugely and deliberately offensive.

I'm conflating you with others who say the same because you say the same.

I'm angry because you're being dismissive.

HTH/