To wonder why my Year 8 DS has to spend a whole hour reading his book in class

[thelandslidebroughtmedown]

Does your DC's secondary school do this?

Four English lessons a week - each lasting 60 mins. One of these lessons is devoted to quietly reading a book brought in from home. Apparently, the teacher listens to a few of them read individually to her but doesn't ask any questions or discuss the text.

They're top set so shouldn't have any problems reading. Is this common in secondary schools or a waste of time?

DS had this in yr7 supervised by the librarian. I think it is a good idea. Gets them into the library. Reinforces that reading is a valuable use of time. Easy to forget on here some children do not have access to books at home.

CarefullyDrawnMap
posters can try to be funny without being a twat. That's what I meant if my previous post wasn't clear.

My last school did this as part of a tutor time each week,and sometimes we'd have a 'drop everything and read' session built into the odd random day. Teachers were expected to read as well,definitely no marking, and the books were not supposed to be (overtly )subject related.

Even in this highly academic school I had to cajole a couple of students in my 6th form tutor group to take part-'I don't like reading' being the stock excuse. But they would eventually settle and even grudgingly admit it hadn't been so bad.

It was blissfully quiet and most of them appreciated a calm start to the day,aside from whatever pleasure the book gave them.

I did not force them to read though as I don’t think that’s the best way to get someone to read for pleasure

I agree with you, but I try to do it a bit more subtly. If there's no tv or computer of any kind during the day, if you don't provide any internet access on holiday but just leave a pile of reading material lying around, I found that they tend to read more.

And it is a bit depressing to see that so many parents regard it as a waste of their children’s time.

I was more taken back it was needing to be done in school - to extent that an hour teaching is lost which can't be replicated at home.

It's so alien to my families’ experience that reading and books aren't part of home life for so many of DD1 classmates.

It will improve a child’s vocabulary but I doubt it will turn many reluctant readers into bookworms.

It's taken years of work at home to get DD1 from not reading to actually reading and I agree reading at school for an hour wouldn't have done this.

She loved books and stories just not reading till last few years - but her vocabulary was still good thanks to audio books, TV documentaries and other sources.

Noone is saying it is a waste of their childrens time to read, my dd reads all the time at home. At school however for the one hour per week she is made to read she cant actually get any reading done because
-she is sat near the teachers desk who types loudly at her computer the whole time
-the chair and desk is too uncomfortable to properly relax and read for such a long time
-30 other children fidgeting around her
-And shes sometimes told she cant read the book she is halway through reading at home anyway if its 'inappropriate'
If kids who actually enjoy reading are unable to read during this time I think its very unlikely that children who dont like reading are going to be reading rather than daydreaming, doodling, fidegting, texting etc.
In some schools it could be useful and managed properly but as this thread shows that is not happening very often

I did a placement at a school that had 10 -15mins reading at the start of most lessons, the pupils had to have a book on them as part of their equipment.

It increases vocabulary, is a quiet time and really settled the class down.

Have wander over to the education boards and see how much parents thin their children are being too stressed in Yr 10 and 11.

I mainly teach FE, you would be amazed at the lack of general knowledge, limited vocabulary of many school leavers.

This sounds like a good idea. The number of children who actually read books at home is very small, and the process of analysing bits of text is just one more meaningless bit of exam-prep (the opposite of education) if they never read whole books.
I got into a row with my daughter's English teacher a few years ago. They were working on A Christmas Carol and I said during a parents' evening that as it's such a short book she would be able to read the whole thing in two hours (she's a much quicker reader than I am). The teacher said that they didn't have to read the whole book: just the excerpts for the exam practice activities (aka "lessons"). I was appalled that he was actively discouraging her from reading the book. She never did read it all the way through.
I'm not sure what it is that people think their kids are not being "taught" during this time. "Teaching" someone about a book she/he hasn't read is a perfect summary of our bad joke of a school system that had no connection whatsoever with education.

I think it's perfectly reasonable and normal for them to spend time reading. However, I would expect the teacher to be monitoring what they are reading, rather than just letting them read anything they bring from home. Either they have a list of books to choose from, or they keep a list of what they've read so that the teacher can check it's suitable, or there's a shelf in the library to pick from, or whatever.

At the school where I teach, students (up to year 10, I think) start every English lesson with 10-15 minutes' reading. It adds up to about an hour over the week, but I prefer it this way because it avoids a lot of the fidgeting/daydreaming which other posters are talking about.

I also think you're likely to forget where you were in a book if you only read it once a week, compared to reading 4-5 days.

just the excerpts for the exam practice activities (aka "lessons"). I was appalled that he was actively discouraging her from reading the book. She never did read it all the way through.

I had that with my GCSE English teacher overe 20 years ago. I’d always hated extracts and spent ages tracking down books they came from.

At some secondary fair she was manning a book stall and I’d picked up Pride and Prejudice which we’d read opening page of in English class. It wasn't part of GCSE syllabus it was being used to illustrate something about language.

My Dad was always keen to buy me books wanted to buy it for me and she stood there arguing with him about it not being necessary . He still bought it for me.

bridgetreilly

That dosnt work though, my dd's been told the book shes halfway through reading at home is not suitable and benn given something else to be read by the teacher for an hour which is then taken away and being put back ont he shelf at the end of the lesson. Thats not fair on the children who actually already enjoy reading, she's 10 and not going to try and read a book she dosnt like when shes halfway through a book she does like.
How is that going to encourage children to read for pleasure when their choice in books has to be policed and chosen for them?

Mine is in year 7 at a grammar school (so theoretically they are all top 20 per cent academically) and they have an hour reading instead of assembly once a week. She reads constantly at home so it does seem a bit pointless but presumably they think a lot of the kids don't read much. However as others here have said, if a kid doesn't like reading then putting a book on their hands will not necessarily make them read.

It's never a waste of time to read and, as a very experienced English teacher, I certainly don't think it's a waste of my time to oversee private reading sessions.
A huge number of kids don't read at home. Jolly well done to you and yours, but for many youngsters the 'enforced' reading at least gives them the chance to a) have a sustained and regular period of reading b) see others modelling how to read. Might seem ridiculous, but the reality is lots of kids don't experience people reading. School reading sessions help to 'normalised the process of reading for ENJOYMENT (rather than tearing the area out of a piece of text with microscopic analysis...)
In addition, reading undoubtedly improves pupils' writing, and allows them to nurture and develop their imagination.
In short (😁) the sessions your son is 'forced' to endure will do him far more good than harm.

OP, this is a valid form of 'teaching and learning' technique called Extensive Reading and there has been much research into it and why it provides positive outcomes as a whole, for students.

Have a read of this short article that also includes examples of research having been carried out and further material in case you are interested.

www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/extensive-reading-why-it-good-our-students%E2%80%A6-us

The assumption that all lessons have to have an all singing and all dancing teacher performing at the front of the room, can be quite damaging. As with any teaching and learning technique, too much of anything is a bad idea but 1 hour a week of reading is not only common in schools (or at least a variant on that (such as 10-15 minutes at the start of every English lesson) but most certainly, a valid use of a student's time.

I'm not being a twat.

In pre-exam years, we had 10 min silent reading at the start of each lesson, but not a whole one...!

I don't see the problem. We used to have this in first year at a grammar school, I liked reading but you had to read a book from the school library which didn't have much that I liked.