To think its not my job to teach my child to read and write?

[2beornot]

I don't have the first idea in how to teach children to read and once my dd has started school I will support her learning. Teachers have spent time training and learning the best way for children to learn, shouldn't I let them go the job they're qualified for.

Until she had started school I am not going to try to get her to read. I believe that my job is to build her enthusiasm for learning, enjoying books etc. I'll point out letters and numbers, when we doodle I draw the first letter of her name and say 'Luh for Lexi' for example. But I don't think it's my job to go further than that.

Am I being unreasonable? Do schools expect that I will have taught her before she starts?

[mumblechum1]

I'm doing the Biff and Chip books with a little girl I'm helping via Barnardos but as it's years since I did them with DS, can anyone remind me who's who? Ie, Boy 1
Boy 2
Girl
I remember the dog is Floppy

[PandaNot]

BloodRed it's because being able to tell a story even without the words, knowing how to turn the pages, working front to back are important pre-reading skills. Not all children can do this when they come to school because not all children have parents who read with them like you obviously do.

[Brycie]

oh god Ginn 360 dire. Now they bored the children. They would read them and then look at me like this

[Miggsie]

DD wanted to read before school so I taught her and not only was she bored shitless in reception I got a really snotty letter from the school saying how parents teaching their children to read was hindering them and also, I'd used the wrong books.

DD was then forced to read the entire Oxford reading tree which we both hated.

As a parent I have to teach her how to be a decent human being, teachers are paid money to teach intellectual stuff and that is what they do.

However if DD asks me questions I answer. I don't think a parent should take the role of a teacher, what is the point? I haven't yet operated on her or pulled one of her teeth out, that is what doctors and dentists are for.

However, I did read a lot of books to DD when she was little, that is a thing for parents.

[BloodRedAlienReflux]

Thanks panda :)

[lljkk]

yanbu, although you stated OP badly hence the grief.
Hopefully school will explain what phonics system they use to help you best support.
I have a friend who bemoans how badly her y3 child reads, turns out that he rarely practices reading at home. I thought this thread was going to be about that sort of attitude.

Only online have I ever read about children reading before they even started school.

[BrainSurgeon]

Agree entirely with FolkGhoul

OP I think you are probably doing the right thing it's just the way you worded your first post, it comes across defensive and a bit... well.. wrong

If you feel unsure about what you should be doing and you are concerned to hear what other parents do, why not talk with the nursery and ask them.
Also, if you know what school your child is likely to go to - especially if it's in the area where you live - there is a chance the nursery teacher may be able to advise on what schools will expect and how to go about getting your child ready.
There is no shame is asking these open questions and looking for advice. Being defensive from the start may not be a good idea.

[Callmecordelia]

Everything FolkGhoul said.

Teaching them to listen, to have curiosity in the world around them (including books), about boundaries, respect for others, to go to the loo and wash their hands, and dress themselves is pretty much all a school needs at first.

Sackgirl - fine to disagree, although my Mum's been teaching more than 30 years and seen the sort of thing I describe many times. We've talked about it a lot. The key thing with school in the first few years is to be engaged with it - that engagement can last right the way to university and beyond. However, if it is lost in the first few years you can't really get it back easily. Just do what is right for your child - he/she might be better off learning to read. A lot of children won't though, and I don't think that my DD will be one of those who suits learning early, based on her development so far - and there is nothing backward or shameful about waiting a bit.

[2beornot]

WitchesTitWhistles I don't believe you read any of my subsequent posts. I have never said I'm not interested in her development. Never.

[2beornot]

alienreflux novice error! I have realised that now. I still stand by my general attitude though.

[2beornot]

I have to say I am a little surprised. Obviously I expected some alternative views otherwise why would I have bothered posting.

I am also not going to teach her how to solve quadratic equations. I am going to leave that to her secondary school teachers and then reinforce whichever method they use at home. Is that really so bad?

[GhostShip]

I think basic reading skills and quadratic equations are slightly different OP..

I think people over complicate things with this 'oh i don't know what method the school is using' etc

whatever method, the goal is the same. I don't think there's any harm in helping your child to learn to read at home too.

And I do think it's your job to educate your child, yes

[GossipWitch]

I'm pretty sure that if I didn't encourage and help my ds(10) to read he wouldn't be able to read as well as he does now, he reads far above his classmates and I am proud of the fact that I helped him to do so. Plus it will only be for a few years until they're confident enough to do these things independently. I think it's important for a parent to encourage children with what they are doing at school, before he started school I only read to him and taught him the alphabet and to recognise numbers up to twenty, although teaching him the alphabet was not good as he took ages to learn letters phonically.

[Chopstheduck]

I've not read the whole thread, but I didn't want to teach my children to read, nor do I want to teach them quadratic equations. They can do that at school, and they supplement that at home only where absolutely necessary.

When it comes to actively teaching them, I have enough things I want to share with them at home which they can't get at school. Yesterday I showed the dts how to make proper custard, and dt1 moved on to playing two new notes on the recorder. Dt2 spent the summer dismantling electric circuits and digging for garlic. Then at bedtime they both read their new books they ordered from amazon yesterday. But life is not all about phonics!

[moonbells]

I've had to bite my tongue a lot this past year on this one. I was a very early self-taught reader and my mum got called into school on my second day and lectured about how she shouldn't have taught me etc etc (when she hadn't). I have a DS in reception and part of me has wanted him to read at the same age I did (3.5) and the other half of me has been trying to let him learn social/play/world stuff. He hasn't been that interested in reading, though he'd let me read to him for hours!

Halfway through the summer, he suddenly got it and it was like reining in a bolting carthorse. Couldn't get enough jolly phonics (which they did at nursery school). We are now Alphablocks experts . Since starting reception he has raced through learning letters and key/memory words (with daily home help, as requested by school) and is now onto first books. I am delighted, and now I can finally let loose my desire to help, as he's ready.

I think that it is blatantly obvious when they are ready to read, and it's counter-productive to try if they're not. But helping once they are starting to read is wonderful.

[Chopstheduck]

shoudl read i supplement

[worldgonecrazy]

I really don't understand the argument that children who can read before they go to school will be bored and therefore set off on a bad footing.

Surely in a class of 30 pupils, if all are taught to read at the same time, there will be those who pick it up quickly and are away within the week, and those who struggle more and pick it up more slowly. Are those quick learners going to get bored and become restless or do schools not have mechanisms in place to cope with children of all abilities? Do they really just cater to the lowest-common denominator or, just teach children to be average?

I know we have decided to opt out of the state sector, but I am truly shocked by some of the responses I've read in this thread.

[Brycie]

I've heard of a lot of (usually first-borners) getting bored and reckless after learning to read before school, and worse than that - losing interest.

Parents should have to do little more than read a bedtime story and offer up books. Teachers and schools should be able to ensure children read efficiently without input from the parents - what the parents then input is a love of reading and books. Unfortunately as a parent you will be relied on to do a lot more than that.

[Brycie]

Reckless? Restless!

[GhostShip]

I was a first borner and I certainly wasn't bored, I could read and write before I went to school.

I think its a bit daft to basically say 'lets not teach them something early because they'll get bored'
For every child that gets bored, there'll be one that will thrive.

[Brycie]

So do I but it happens. I said firstborners because they are the ones that get the time and attention the most!

[claraschu]

It's fun teaching a child to read. I have very happy memories of my oldest son learning to read. My next child was more interested in football and music; that was fun too.

[Callmecordelia]

worldgonecrazy - yes the mechanisms are there to differentiate, and it is controlled because the teacher assesses their progress and knows the teaching methods used. The quick learners will be stretched and slow ones supported. However, in a class of 30 children during whole class teaching, a child who can read will inevitably go over ground that they might already know, or even worse, think they know but actually haven't got. If they switch off then, the danger is that they switch off in more lessons. An attitude can start that leads them to think they don't have to try because not all children are little darlings.

In the private sector, with ten to a class it probably wouldn't be as much of a problem. You've decided that is the way for you, and I'm sure your child will thrive. The sort of personalised teaching that you can get there is just not available in the state sector, and it isn't really that shocking when you do the maths for ratios of teacher:pupil.

[Woozley]

We didn't teach DD1 to read as I had no idea about phonemes and all that, and didn't want to do something which might be contradictory to the school system. We did, however, read to her every night, and as she showed an interest in forming letters bought her a couple of phonics books so she could practise. By the time she was 4.5 and starting school she could recognise and write her name and knew the alphabet, but couldn't read or break down words into sounds. What I was a bit worried about though was that she couldn't hold her pen properly, indeed she refused to do so. But as soon as she started school and the teacher told her how to hold her pen, that was different, she changed it overnight. Also she was about to read simple books like Level 1 Biff & Chip within a few weeks.

With DD2 though (3.5) she has been really trying to write for months now and now really wants to read the OLT books herself, so I bought her the Jolly Phonics workbooks and some flashcards with phonemes - have much more of a clue how to fit this in with school learning now, and know that if she can read at whatever level next September, they will be able to cater for her.

[Woozley]

I started school at 5 (Sept birthday) and had been reading since I was 3. Even 30 years ago they were able to give me more challenging things to do- I was put on Tim and the Hidden People scheme instead of Pirates, for example.