to believe that kid's should read to their teacher/TA everyday?

[sparklyjewlz]

given today's news that 1 in 10 boys leave primary school with the reading age of a 7 yo.
When DS1 was in primary this happened. He's now 18, so that was a while ago. By the time DD (now 13) was in primary this had dropped to once or twice a week. Not sure why. Squeezed out by other government initiatives probably. DS's reading came on in leaps and bounds.
This seems a simple, basic, achievable target.

Started a long reply but have now deleted it all, I am too depressed that you genuinely think this is a) workable and b) good news for children, who wont be being taught because the teacher is 'hearing readers'

I think literacy levels in some secondaries (including mine) are a massive problem and seriously affect the ability of many children to access the secondary curriculum (and not just the children who can't read - there is a big knock on effect). I'm not sure 10 minutes a day for every child is necessarily the best way to sort the problem out (but I'm not an expert on teaching reading), and I can't see how it would work logistically. Targetting the support must be the way to go, surely? My DC don't need to be listened to individually, although they still do group reading. Some of their friends do (and are).

KateF - I appreciate there are factors contributing to poor literacy, but it still needs to be addressed as effectively as possible. It is a massive issue.

And I completely agree about the volunteering. Our sixth formers do paired reading with our students, but to have some parents too would be absolutely fantastic.

I am twenty eight and twenty years ago when I was in school I didnt read every day. Still had a reading age of twice my age at seven. It is about parent support - how on earth could they get round all the kids. My school have a great system of parent readers who really help but it still takes up too much time - what about maths, and general education. YABU.

bb99 - "the National Curriculum has been introduced since the 1970's .... there is a lot more centralised control of what should be taught so teachers cen't just spend the day reading - unless they're VERY brave"

You hit the nail on the head. I started school in 1968 and my youngest sister in 1974. We fell each side of the divide on when the National Curriculum was introduced.

As a result, our individual experiences of Primary school are dramatically different even though we both went to the same school.

I firmly believe the National Curriculum has been a disaster. It embedded 1960s teaching theory, borne of misguided left wing ideology, in schools. The damage to basic numeracy and literacy is immense.

Look at the story today in the news of 15% of 11 yr olds who are 4 years behind their age in reading ability in some parts of the country.

I used to read to my teacher every day at primary school, at least until I was seven I'm sure.

We moved my son from his state primary mid year one. This was a school where he read to a parent helper once every three weeks. It was typically a parent helper with English as a second language, who I'm sure however well meaning and lovely she was, was unable to pick up nuances in his reading. This happened throughout reception and the first half of year one. When he left the school I was given his reading assessments, which it transpired had been carried out and scored (inexpertly!) by an LSA. His class teacher had no idea of his level of ability - either in reading, or in other academic areas. I'm fully prepared to accept that this won't be everybody's experience of state education - but the depressing reality for our child was that provision in our area is pretty rubbish.

He's at an independent school now - 20 mins drive away from us, and at a cost of £6000 per year. We have scraped to afford this. The school is great - main result of small class sizes, quality teachers, and children taught as individuals, not herded through a stipulated curriculum. No other bells and whistles - I think this is what a good small village primary school used to be like.

My son reads to a member of staff for about 5 mins every morning - as does every other child in the school up to age 11. They get through this fairly efficiently every morning before assembly. They obviously manage all this, and turn some kind of profit for the £6000 per year fee. My understanding is that children in the state system are funded £4000 per year by the state. There must be potential for significant economies of scale across the state system, and of course they only need to break even not turn a profit. There is something seriously wrong with a state education system with so many children leaving it without basic literacy.

I think support needs to be targetted more as well. Potential difficulties in reading are visible very young in most cases, and need to be dealt with quickly, before disillusionment sets in. Many children read well with only weekly hearings. Not only should parent's hear children read, but they need to read to them. Also, many teenagers are aghast at the idea of reading for pleasure. Seeing parents reading for enjoyment also matters.

Of course there is a difference MrsMellowDrummer, you said it yourself, class sizes.

As a 'resting' teacher, I can tell you that it would be night on impossible to read with every child, every day.

This is where the parents come in surely. You can read with your child every day, thus supporting what they are doing at school.

or even 'nigh on impossible'

Oh, I give up... ;)

actally there is a large amopunt of research (don't ask me to find it) that suggests reading habits are formed at home - exposure to print, reading for a purpose, seeing parents read, going to the library, being read to are just, if not more so, beneficial than being heard reading everyday

also most KS1 classes so 15 mins phonics daily which feeds into reading

In my day we used to do guided reading every day. Surely guided reading is better than no reading.

In my experience so far the best way to get boys reading is give them interesting books to read.
Ds1s teacher was understanding when I told her there was no way I was reading the reading scheme with him and that both he and I found it boring. He reads books well above his age for pleasure now at age seven.

DS2s teacher has not been quite so good. He is very good at reading but says he hates it. I've found that reading fun books with him, Dr Seuss and the like catches his attention but the word reading makes him on edge. I've tried the same tactic with his teacher and even send in a book which he will happily read but they still insist he reads the most boring books from their scheme that are also way below the level of the books he reads with me.

Make reading more fun for everyone and maybe it would be better all round.

I also think we need to be very careful about turning off children off books by the use of reading scheme books etc

MrsMellowDrummer - I teach in a private school and have 18 in my class and I struggle to hear all the read once a week, but then I like to give them quality reading time plus once I have trained the parents they can do the reading of reading books and I can do the skills of reading

Cazzybabs, I think at my son's school, every single member of staff is involved in the morning reading, not just the class teachers. He only reads a page or so of whatever he's reading (at the moment, Harry Potter - it doesn't have to be a reading scheme book), and they are also expected to read for at least 20 mins at night (he's 8 yrs old), with parents either listening or supervising.

He's a fluent reader, but the daily practise of reading aloud and with expression is invaluable. The message that reading is an important skill, and a pleasure, is so important.

Lovelyopaque - yes of course class size is a major factor. That's partly what I was trying to say. My point was that my son's school manage this with a budget of £6000 per year per pupil. Why can't the state system do as well, or even nearly as well?

TBH I am not sure it is the hearing the children read that will make a difference.
I worry we are turning children, especially boys, off by forcing them to read to early - lets make them feel like failures at 5 and also it is what happens at home.

I think that is why so many people on here have children who are good readers because we all value reading (so we can read MN :) )

Of course it's a good thing for parents to help their children with literacy GiddyPickle, but surely the education system in this country should be taking responsibility for making sure that every child has the basic skill of being able to read fluently by the time they leave primary school?

What do you suggest for children whose parents either do not have the skills to help them, or who don't see it as important enough?

Once a day is excessive. I do however, think it should be more frequently than termly. Which happens in dd's school.

the question is is reading important enough to prioritize it over everything else?

I would have thought the fact that there are so many children failing to learn to read properly would suggest that yes, reading SHOULD be given more priority.

Is there evidence that the subjects that are being taught at the expense of reading are more valuable to the children's education?

Well, how can you learn anything independently if you can't read?

Apart from by watching TV...

If you don't prioritise reading you are setting them up for underachievement later on in all curriculum areas (not to mention outside of school). I am a science teacher, and literecy is hugely important in success in my subject.

Yikes at own typo there