Phonics testing. Why not sight words as well?

[proudmama72]

Just that really. There's was extra effort put into phonics data collection. Would it not also to be beneficial to test knowledge of sight words. They seemed to impact my kids reading development.

Phonics is important, but just wondering why all the extra resources and emphasis solely on phonics.

They will know words such as go, do and so etc and apply the correct phonic code to the word naturally

I can't speak for masha, but having a word in your vocabulary isn't the same thing as knowing how to read it.

What on earth are you going on about CG

It's a simple enough statement. Just read it literally.

They will know words such as go, do and so etc and apply the correct phonic code to the word naturally
So the decode the bits you know then guess approach? I thought that was derided by all camps upthread.

No catkind the apply what you know already approach ie if a child knows that the letter in go is /oa/ they can apply it in other words - then they meet do where it doesn't work so the teacher supplies the knowledge they need in order to decode the word correctly.

That makes no sense, catkind -applying phonic knowledge is nothing to do with guessing.

Its not guessing, because they are applying the rules they know and use the one that applies correctly.
Cg
Again what are you going on about. We are talking about children who are being taught to read not ones that have never learnt.

There is guessing involved in phonics

if a letter or digraph has several sounds and the person reading the word doesn't know which one applies then the person reading the word has to guess which one is correct.

Phonics gives the confounded reader a list of possible options. But it does not tell her which of those options is correct.

Phonics teaches children to apply what they know already catkind no need for guessing. It's an apprenticeship model where the apprentice (child) is supported by the expert (adult) until they become proficient.

Ah I misunderstood you bruffin. You mean after they know the full code, I thought you meant before.

And when the child is reading at home (or at school) with any adult who is not a phonics expert?

No catkind they don't need to know the full code

Has anyone answered my question from earlier about whether it's expected/okay for children to forget the extra bits of phonic code once they can sight read the words (e-schwa for example once they have automaticity on "the")? I'm trying to reconcile what Letters and Sounds says about them knowing only x list of phonics at y stage and them actually being expected to know all the extra phonics they need for the tricky words.

There's a government doc here, catkind, which talks about creating extra bits of code to cover irregular words www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/239784/English_Appendix_1_-_Spelling.pdf

Where?

No it isn't OK to forget the phonics code because they need that knowledge for other words they will meet in the future. Schwa is the most common vowel sound found in English so it would be a huge problem for the child.

Nowhere feanie

It's not in there.

When children are being shown how the alphabetic code works in these common exception words they are being taught this new bit of code specifically to be able to read those particular words.

www.phonicsblog.co.uk/#/blog/4565770755/Common-Exception-Words-and-the-Muddle-over-Tricky-Words/7631625

I would recommend Mike's book to anyone interested or confused by the debate

The same principle applies to the teaching of these words. Children should be taught how the sound-spelling system works in these words so that they can decode them when they meet them in their reading. These words are not to be taught as ‘sight words’, they are words that can be ‘sounded out’ just like any other words once children have been taught the additional phonic knowledge needed for these words. At this stage the phonic knowledge is being taught for word-specific application, but later on (probably in Year 1) they will encounter the same piece of phonic knowledge and see how it is used more widely in other words.

The widespread confusion amongst teachers about tricky words is actually a symptom of something else - a widespread lack of understanding of how the sound-spelling system works in English

and will the sounds in

one
eye
two
sword
yacht
Mr.
and
Mrs.

be used more widely in other words later on?

Either they know the correspondences or they don't know them. How can you teach a correspondence for a word-specific application? If they know they're in the specific word for the sound then they've already read it. Also contradicts someone's earlier assertion that they never teach a rule with only one example.