Oh pls just explain the ORT to me??!(30 Posts)
I dont get it?? seems we go up a level, same colour then different level different colour, then the bird name changes?/
\I dont get it?
i also know it doesnt matter a jot . Ds happy, school happy, me happy!
Im interested really.
We are now red, level 4 sparrow but last week were blue level 4/1 also sparrow and books seem the same so i dont get what, if anything has changed?
are colour, number and bird all separate indicators? must be blooming confusing for the teachers if thats so!
No idea about Sparrows, but we have colours
Some level 4 are in one colour and some in another as it depends on length and language
There are some oxford reading tree guide things on their website somewhere.
Have found www.oup.com/oxed/primary/oxfordreadingtree/chart_2 010/this but am sure there used to be one that was more of a tree.
I think that as they keep updating it, the older books don't get included in their charts although schools obviously still have them. DS and DD's school seems to have got lots of the newer ones (at least in DD's reception class) although I am sure there are older ones being used to. There is also at least one book that I have seen being in both level 3 (blue) and level 4 (red).
Not sure how much help this is
Looking at the one I have linked to, I am confused now anyway as DS has one on Stage 10, and that might be white level (on the age 4-7 page) or it might be brown level (on the age 7-11 page). At least he has slightly more interesting ones now (although DD has been having some good non-fiction ones too).
Oh gawd - Biff, Chip and Kipper are getting older. Not sure I can cope with such things
Who knows. I think the school secretary throws them up into the air and then goes through randomly applying colours. DT1 went from a 10 page book to a 40 page without moving colour bands. That was the longest hour of my life!
Noah, that's surprisingly disturbing -- more so than watching the Harry Potter kids grow up over the last decade, I think. They've been stuck at their original ages for years and years, and now they are flung forward in time.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
The problem is that the original Kipper books were written before the emphasis on phonics and are a Look and Say system, so much of the vocabulary doesn't follow the phonics systems schools now use. The books were then "shoe-horned" into the phonics book level colours depending on the difficulty of the phonic language rather than the Look and Say language. This means that some books in the same ORT stage are in different colour bands when assessed phonically and the same book band colour can also have ORT books from different stages, it is very complicated! A child can stay on the same colour book band but change stages, or change book band levels but stay on the same stage! Schools spent many a happy hour colour banding all their old ORT books into the new colour bands when they were introduced ( although this doesn't really work as the vocabulary is still the same!)
The new "Floppy's Phonics " books are based on their phonics level and come ready book banded
The book banding colour system was introduced to make some link in "progression/difficulty" between different reading schemes and "real" books. The first system was introduced by Cliff Moon followed by the coloured book bands widely used now.
book bands cross ref
because ORT was published before this system levels overlap
book bands linked to reading ages
The most up to date ORT information
Now that OUP have done the right thing and produced a reading programme properly aligned with phonics teaching, perhaps it is time they ditched the early, 'look and say' Biff & friends books!
Having a bored sunday so reading random threads and followed the links.My six year old is on white(summer born year 2) - I simply cannot believe that she has a reading age of an eight year old! She is a fairly good reader but not really unusually so, I wouldn't have thought
Are these links to reading ages very old and based on previous generations' reading ages?
I'm a bit about those reading ages and NC levels too.
Mrz, what do the links to the NC levels actually mean? Presumably the NC reading levels are assessed on more than just the book band/reading level that children are on?
magicmummy1 the department for education provided the table as a guide for teachers on a day to day basis when hearing readers obviously more stringent assessments take place throughout the school year. The assessments would indicate which book bands a child should be able to read (decoding text and comprehension) rather than the books indicating a NC level.
Thank you, mrz - that makes a bit more sense. In your professional opinion, do you think those "reading ages" are accurate?
Reading ages are notoriously variable depending on the test used but as a general guide they seem "accurate"
This gives the impression that books all the way to lime are for 6 to 7 year olds so that contradicts their other reading age info.
Not sure it contradicts? In any group, there will be readers 'above' the average reading age as well as below, so they have to provide suitable 6-7 yr old material even if its 'older' than 6-7 in difficulty, I suppose.
FWIW, I'd say half of dd's Y2 class are on or near to being on White Level this term.
And, off topic, the few Lime level books the school have are so boring/inappropriate for 6yr olds that no one wants to read them - they beg to stay on White (unless they happen to be partial to Horrid Henry).
Elibean - that's what I mean really. DD at 6 and 3 months and being on white level doesn't seem very advanced to me and so these reading ages that say it is equivalent to 8 1/2 seem far too high to me.
If I had an 8 1/2 year old reading at that level that would seem a low level to me.
It is confusing. But I don't think an 8 year old reading at that level would be a problem at all, really...tbh, I take most of the 'age level' stuff with a pinch of salt. Mostly because I once had a boyfriend who learnt to read aged 7, and went straight to Lord of the Rings that very year! Whereas me, I started reading aged 3 and have spectacularly underachieved ever since
With regard to the 'reading ages' quoted by OUP, it would be useful to know whether they have been worked out according to standardised tests (where the tests are developed by testing a large sample of children and 'norming' them on the words most of the children can read; which is a fairly reliable, scientific method) or, whether they have been assigned to various 'ages' by criteria such as number of high frequency words, number of polysyllabic words, words thought to be within a child's spoken vocabulary and individual's subjective judgement. The 'non-scientific' method!
I was once shown a book (rep was trying to sell me 'low reading age, high interest' books) which was supposedly RA 6y and had the words Lamborghini and Porsche in it
(I hope I've spelled them correctly..)
ort - i once(11yrs ago-eek) came across a poster showing all the then current titles of ort. they are all listed on a picture of a tree. there are 6 trunk stories in each stage plus branches with, if i can remember more stories at a similar level and then there are 2 branches off the main branch with other books that are either harder(sparrows?) and a lot easier(wrens?)i think stage 3 wrens are easier than ordinary stage 2. i was working with stage 2 and 3 so don't know what was going on further up but think that they had more bird names. der not very enlightening sorry
Wow, half the class on / nearly on white. That's very impressive. We've just moved back from Australia and generally kids the same age are reading at a much lower level. Even though they start full time school a few months later it still doesn't account for the massive difference. Does this mean that the average child is really coming out with level 3 at the end of the year. I do love the fact that all the children seem to be given good skills enabling them to learn to read over here
Join the discussion
Please login first.