Peter and Jane - best way of using it

[EmGee]

Book 1a seems to have gone down well with DD1 (4.2) Have gone through the first half of the book and she likes the pictures and repeating the words.

My question is - just keep going through it and focusing on repeating the words until she can sight read them? Then on to the next book?

We live in France so she won't learn to read in French until she is in CP (aged 6) and I have heard that it can be easier for kids who have already learnt to read in their mother tongue.

I also got a Ruth Miskin set of books on The Book People but after a quick look, I feel a bit confused about phonics. Peter and Jane seemed much simpler to me!

[Swanbridge]

Peter and Jane is "look and say" so children learn to recognise the whole words. Yup, stick with 1a for now until she's happy with that and the words in them. The idea is that they learn all the words with 1a and then basically 1b they will be able to read straight through more or less the first time they see it.

What method of teaching do they use in France when she gets to that point? Certainly in the UK phonics is how she would be taught.

[CecilyP]

Just like to say that book 1B has exactly the same words in as 1A, so if she goes onto 1B she will actually be practising the those words.

[Swanbridge]

Yes same words, but they are not being repeated in quite the same hideously dull way. Eg in 1a they will introduce a new word and repeat it lots of times over the next page or two but then in 1b it is more likely to get used once on a page and then again a bit later on, so if you are relying on look and say to learn to read it's harder to use 1b because you're not seeing the word so often. Once you've got the words in your head from 1a then 1b is a breeze.

[EmGee]

Great - thanks for this info. We'll be sticking with 1a for a bit then I think!

Swanbridge - no idea how they learn to read here in France! I will have to look into it :)

[mrz]

Any reason you chose to use books from the 1960s?

[columngollum]

Reading hasn't changed since the 60s.

[mrz]

No but society has

[becko]

I have used peter and jane books with my reception dd. we are now on book 5a and of course doing her school books too. I have found them really good and dd likes them. I like the progression.

[columngollum]

The books I used with my daughter were published in the 50s and Beatrix Potter is considerably older than that.

[mrz]

I would use them to teach history but never to teach reading

[columngollum]

Victorian pigs didn't wear bonnets nor their foxes read newspapers. The history lessons wouldn't be upto much.

[BrandNewIggi]

If it's phonics at school and look and say at home, won't that be confusing?

[columngollum]

The OP's child is in France. L&S and phonics mix well anyway. Phonics children are taught abbreviations, tricky words and contractions by sight already.

[mrz]

Neither do Peter and Jane and they aren't Victorians columngollum ... and for a child born in the 21st Century the 1960s are history!

[mrz]

Phonics taught children are only taught tricky words by sight if the teacher is using mixed methods.

OP Bonsoir & Greythorne are also in France and could probably offer advice on reading instruction

[ChocolateWombat]

I did Peter and Jane with one of my children. We started at 3.5 and by the time he started reception (Sept birthday) was on level 6, which was pretty sophisticated.
Each day, we re read the page from the day before and he read a new page (this was once on level 3 where there are more words per page)

At the same time, I had the Jolly Phonics teacher book and worked on phonics rules.

By the time he started school, he was reading simple books.

We continued with Peter and Jane and finished just before he was 6. At a couple of points around L4 where he found it hard, we went back a stage.

It never seems to confuse him. He did phonics at school. They weren't using exclusive phonics though and he whizzed through the early stages of Biff and Chip. Never seemed to notice the o,d fashione pictures.

Child is now 9 and avid reader. I will aways be grateful to Peter and Jane
For the big help they gave us all.

[ChocolateWombat]

Oh and by the way, Im not saying bring it back in schools.
I was confident to use Peter and Jane and also Jolly Phonics. I guess it was the unpopular mixed learning approach. My son did not have any difficulties learning to read and the knowledge of words by sight, as well as being able to work out unknown words using phonetic words worked really well.

And then I later used a bit of 'Apples and Pears' to improve knowledge of spelling patterns whilst in infants. Lots of good stuff out there.

[ChocolateWombat]

I guess my children have read lots of 'dated' books as they have progressed with reading. Lots of Enid Blyton. Has required some explanations of cultural differences, but have been enjoyed enormously...and benefitted their reading. We have had 'what Katy did' set in the 1850s, 'the secret garden' set around 1900 and 'Milly Molly Mandy' from the 1920s. Lots of good recent stuff too, including. Micheal Morpurgo, Roald Dahl, David Walliams and others. Has all helped children develop their vocabulary and read fluently out loud and with understanding. We always talk about what we read to help
Understanding. And children always read lots to the,selves through choice too. I do trace much of it back to Peter and Jane.

Go for it OP. These books taught loads of children to read and can still be a useful tool amongst many.

[80sMum]

Both of my DCs learned to read with Peter and Jane combined with phonics. Both became avid readers and still love to read (they're in their 30s now).
However I found, even in the 1980s, the books to be a little old fashioned and, although I couldn't fault them as far as learning to read goes, I wasn't very keen on the sexist stereotyping in the illustrations and story lines.

[columngollum]

Alice in Wonderland, The Railway Children, Black Beauty, Lion Witch Wardrobe, Oliver Twist

[DustyBaubles]

We used Peter and Jane combined with Jolly Phonics too.

My eldest is 10, the youngest is 3, and it's been a doddle with all of them.

I love the Peter and Jane books, the pictures are amazing.

We have a load of old Ladybird books to move onto afterwards.

[teacherwith2kids]

Has childhood flashback to Reception in my first primary school. Peter and Jane book, picture of the two of them on the front, reading exactly the same peter and Jane book - and I remember the thrill of discovering infinity, the 'lightbulb' realisation that that series of tinier and tinier P&Js went on and on forever.

So if you don't use P&J to teach reading - and tbh, get Songbirds by Julia Donaldson instead for that, as they have the major advantage of being almost well-written, as well as phonic - you can always use them for teaching the concept of infinity....

[columngollum]

If children could both love the stories and find some historical significance in them then great. One of mine lectured me on which trains in Thomas the Tank Engine were steam trains and which ones were not the other day.

[mrz]

Strange but I would never include Peter & Jane in any list of great children's literature

[mrz]

although I quite like this version
www.kentishtowner.co.uk/2014/02/20/youll-crack-art-grew-1970s-80s/