Can reception children read?

[ReadingGeniuses]

I went to DS' nativity this morning (he's in reception). There were 2 girls narrating the play, they were reading it off a script. I was quite confused. Can some children already read this fluently at that age? They hadn't memorised it, they were just reading. Are they geniuses? Or is this way more common than I realise?

When posters are saying their children could read fluently in reception, at what level are they talking? Could the child read an article from the Telegraph?

It's a bit like walking. At the time, it feels like such a big thing but when you think about it, all kids will learn to walk at some point and you don't look at adults thinking: bet he/she started walking young.

I think it really depends. Some children are great at pattern recognising. So once they get the hang of reading words, they sure can read an article from the Telegraph in reception. My ds was that kind of kid, who can read anything in front of him out loud. But that doesn't mean he was able to comprehend.
So, reading fluently doesn't always equal to good understanding, or how well the child do in the future, imo.
Most important thing at this age is to love reading, and enjoy reading. It isn't a race who can read more fluently, imo.

Yep do agree with this. Despite my earlier post saying that I could read fluently before starting school, I'm no Einstein. My DD who could not read at all before starting school is now in the G&T group at secondary. My DS who really struggled with reading through reception and year one is now a good reader and really enjoys reading! I did say in one if my PPs, children are all different. And as @ThanksItHasPockets said, early years teachers really are amazing at getting children doing all those things that, if you're anything like me, have you banging your head against the wall.

Wow. My ds is 4 next week and he's no where near reading. He doesn't start reception until September. He's still learning things like it's 'd' (phonetic sound) for 'dog' and he's picking it up well, he's getting through most of the alphabet like that without help. He recognises most letters and can read two letter words like 'ra' or 'grr'. He has always loved me reading to him since he was a baby, we haven't pushed it but we have nurtured it. I haven't put much effort into teaching him as I assumed school would help me (I don't really know how to tech a child to read?!). Now I'm wondering if it's something I should be doing with him. I just assumed he'd start reading by 5 and read fluently by 8-10 tbh. Perhaps my expectations are too low!

Age 6, preferably 7 is the best age to start teaching children to read. If it's self taught before then that is fine.

@Lulooo honestly, read your post back to yourself.

I learned to read before starting Reception. My mum tells me there was myself and one other girl who could, so it was possible but not common.

Out of my DCs, one could read well and was a narrator in the Reception nativity. Other DC could read individual words and very simple sentences but not long or varied sentences (by December in Reception). They were summer born though whereas other DC was autumn born, so older by the same point. It just depends on the child.

Not the Telegraph/adult type literature (although some would give it a good go at sounding it out) but more that they could read "Read It Yourself" type books ie children's storybooks, and fluently.

Lots of DCs might be able to read but have no clue as to the real message or content. Comprehension and context is important, so asking some simple questions ie "What happened at the start? What did Jim lose?" etc at the end is really helpful. I also read lots of books, but if I fixated on one favourite book for a couple of weeks I was allowed to do that too, which is helpful in its own right to really understand the story stages and structure (ie beginning, middle, end).

I read fluently early BUT it caused nothing but issues, especially because I read fast. Honestly it's been one of the most annoying things through my life and mum lost friends because of it

Parents didn't teach me but mum was a big reader and always had books about and alphabet letters up in my room etc
It's like breathing to me - I was always reading even when I didn't notice it, cereal box, signs, road names, anything I could

I could read by about 3 and reading chapter books at 4. I was average at everything else, and below average with numbers, probably. Words just stuck easily with me - they still do, I'm an editor now

Yes Imagineit, like you I’ve had whole classes of reception some years who can’t read on entry into school. With exception of SEN they were reading within a couple of months.
Honestly, don’t worry. I would say it’s far more important that 4 year olds can socially interact, follow simple requests, go to the toilet, put their coats on .
My own 3 could read before because I was on maternity leave from reception teaching! I was obviously missing my job too much. Child number 3 learned by listening in to child 1 and child 2!

Yes of course they can.
Some DC have hyperlexia/ where they read early due to Sen / austim etc.
Some just read ... Michael morppogo said one day the words just made sense and that also happens to me.
No blending or de coding!

Neither of mine could read in reception . One took off end of year 1 and just flew very fast onto in depth books. The other was still struggling by year 3 so we ditched phonics with great success and got her reading the old fashioned way. Her brain is very fast and phonics was too slow.

Don't worry op, but definitely keep an eye on reading.

Yes I did. My dad, an avid reader himself, taught me to read before I started school.

It's absolutely normal for there to be a wide range.

My older brother knew his letters before I was born (we are 25 months apart in age), and was reading before his third birthday. He was very early.

I didn't read until I was nearly 8. I really struggled with it.

My younger brother didn't read fluently until he was ten - he could sound out a few words before that, but not more.

As adults we are all perfectly competent readers and we all did 'well' educationally - we all have good A Levels and postgraduate degrees. Oddly enough, it is my older brother, who was the one who was precocious, who struggled the most with English and reading later on. I was late to read, but I ended up as an academic in English Lit.

You really can't predict outcomes from what children do at a young age, and it isn't worth worrying about at all.

Just a tiny point, but phonics is the old-fashioned way! People have been using phonics to teach reading since the Middle Ages. Look and Say works well for some children, though.

Oops! Thanks Sarah!
I meant old fashioned as in more sight reading.
Lots of DC don't need teaching the sound's first they instinctively get it .
For many DC with dyslexia the sounds are a barrier to simply learning to read. School should be flexible not harnessing all DC into phonics. .

This.
My daughter could, and usually a few in each reception class I taught. My son is bang on track (not mumsnet stealth boast track) in that he knew no sounds before starting school, picked them up well as they were taught throughout reception and now a term into year 1 the penny is suddenly dropping. It's so joyful when it does, don't compare them to others just encourage and read to them loads.

° that we did in 80s.

I'm only being a pedant! Sorry!

I'm dyslexic as are most of my family, and for us look-and-say was a terrible strategy - that's one reason it went out of fashion, because it tends not to work well for dyslexics. But, of course, some children (including some dyslexic children) really just want to learn words by sight to start with. In the end we all need a mix, but I agree, any inflexible approach is doomed from the start.

My eldest was blending when he entered reception and was fluent by the December. Kids development at the age varies massively. For him reading just clicked.

I don't know what look and say is.
We used flash cards and repetition and some other strategies.
Phonics is very specific and we all learn in different ways and school should have many strategies up their sleeves to see what works.

I've heard the exact opposite for people with dsylexia.

Ah, sorry. 'Look and say' is the name I know for the strategy where a child is meant to recognise a word by looking at it as a whole. Sight recognition, basically. It is really good for building confidence (for children who have decent/good visual memories), because if you can remember a word by sight, you can very quickly learn a lot of words. The issue is, no one would ever learn to read English purely by memorising each word in turn. If you tried to do that, you'd run out of memory (most people can only memorise about 2k words as pictures), and you'd be unable to decode new words you'd never seen. A fluent reader who sees a new word can decode it - so, if you see a news report announcing the discovery of a new planet named Shliptor, you know how to say the word, even if it's entirely unknown to you.

OTOH, phonics is simply a form of blending sounds, which has been around for centuries. It's not specific at all. Research on reading indicates that fluent readers use phonic decoding and visual memory at the same time - we rely on both strategies. It's phonics (ie., the sounds of letters) that allows us to read a new word and guess how to say it.

Synthetic phonics is what most children have learned at school in the past few years, and that is specific. But, it's only a tiny subset of phonics. I agree schools ought to adapt to the needs of pupils.

zevite, state schools in UK have to teach phonics as the “ way” to learn to read. They have very little flexibility.
Unfortunately.