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.

Who has been saying it's a good idea to just about get the gist of what's written?

No one that knows anything about reading CG

Oh the irony....

Whyever would a child suddenly not read from left to right just because they've been told there are some words that they don't know how to decode fully yet and they happen to be able to recognise a handful of them? If they don't recognise a word then they would try to decode it, not guess, why would they guess?

I don't see any contradiction between reading by word recognition and learning to read by phonics. Is automaticity just decoding really really fast then? With DS there was a sudden step change when he started reading words immediately and without sounding out instead of slowly with sounding out. I interpreted that as him recognising the words instead of decoding them, is that not right?

How am I even supposed to stop DS picking up sight words? I read to him. He puts together text and words. Some of the words use phonics he doesn't know yet. Some of them are common words he sees me read over and over again.

I don't doubt that the research says that phonics works better than look and say or mixed methods in the way it was taught when I was young (lots of flashcards). I am somewhat dubious that research does or could say that phonics works better and radically differently to phonics with the odd sight word. If that's so, could someone give me a reference?

No-one collum. It's just that depending on where this 20% figure has come from, that figure might be an underestimate of the actual number of children who have issues with reading. If we're assuming that all children reaching national expectations at 11 are good or at least adequate readers, it might be a problem if you can achieve that level if you can only ever read the gist of a text and not every word accurately.

I'm doing something completely unrelated to teaching now. It involves very careful and accurate reading of both words, instructions and numbers. People only being able to read the gist or substituting would explain quite a lot of the errors being made.

tell my why anyone would claim a child who reads strom as storm is a good reader.

You aren't meant to stop your child just not to activelt teach words as wholes so he doesn't get the message that it's an effective strategy fpr reading

Haven't got time to examine every post, so I'll take that as a nobody, then.

So good readers can read your last post, mrz.

I'm afraid phonics with the odd sight word is mixed methods catkind

I'd read strom as storm in most contexts, I'd assume it was a typo and auto-correct it. I don't think that makes anyone a bad reader.

well maybe not the typos CG

Then reading who as how is fine too?

That's why I asked if you have evidence about that particular brand of mixed methods mrz, rather than the sort I was taught with which I can well believe has worse results.

As soon as you introduce another less effective strategy you dilute the effectiveness catkind.

Reading who as how is only fine if by the context how is clearly what was meant.

Reading who as how is never fine just as reading storm for strom isn't fine

As soon as you introduce another less effective strategy you dilute the effectiveness catkind.
Is there evidence of that or is it just a guess?

Lots of evidence if you want to buy the research catkind

I have access to most research journals I think if you have a reference?

I'm afraid phonics with the odd sight word is mixed methods catkind

Well, OK. If that's your definition of mixed methods, then opening the morning post and setting the house alarm are both mixed methods. (Both involve non decodable words.) Arranging a doctor's appointment is a mixed method.

I'd read strom as storm in most contexts, I'd assume it was a typo and auto-correct it.

You're not an inexperienced 6 y old.

can I ask a question which is a bit tangential to the thread but clearly you guys know what you are talking about...

1st 100 frequently used words - score 67/100 for spelling - year 2 - is this okay?
similarly score 78/100 - same words, but year 5 child - is this okay?

Is automaticity just decoding really really fast then? With DS there was a sudden step change when he started reading words immediately and without sounding out instead of slowly with sounding out.

No, it is not. It is doing precisely what you describe, just reading words immediately without having to sound them out. But there is a neurological difference between 'learning' words as global wholes and 'learning' them through the decoding and blending route. It activates different neural pathways in the brain. 'Whole word' learning also, whatever you may believe, confuses a great many children.

I do not know why you are fighting this so hard. There is no educational disadvantage at all to any children taught these 'odd' words through the decoding and blending route. There is educational disadvantage to a very significant number of children who are actively taught that these words must be memorised as 'wholes'. As I recall, there are a couple of hundred words in Letters & Sounds which ignorant resistant teachers might try to teach as 'wholes'. That is a lot of words and a lot of confusion.

Haven't got time to examine every post, so I'll take that as a nobody, then.

A great many teachers will tell you 'meaning' is far more important than accurate reading and that errors don't matter if the meaning is preserved. What is more, a frightening number of teacher trainers will tell you the same thing. It was a key tenet of 'Whole Language', which was very influential from the mid 1970s onwards and its beliefs and practices still linger on today.

If the couple of hundred words aren't decodable at all, like Mr. and Mrs. or aren't fully decodable like yacht, one, the and eye, then good on the teachers who teach them as wholes. Saves everyone a lot of bother, except for a few people in fora who want to spend their lives arguing about it. The normal people just get on with more important stuff.