To think that schools should teach reading properly

[Reallytired]

My son has been really lucky, he has had an excellent reception teacher and has been taught how to read properly by synthetic phonics. His teacher followed Jolly phonics logically with great results.

He has a little friend who is at a different school. She is 6 months younger than my son and has had only 2 terms of school. This girl has been taught to read by sight words and a reading ladder. Because she started after christmas she got taught the letter sound "ch" before being taught "s", "a", "t", "p", "i", "n".

The result is that this poor little girl is still on Oxford Reading Tree level one and hates reading. Her mother is convinced that her daughter is dyslexic because the little girl is extremely bright in other areas of the reception curriculum. I think the reason the little girl can't read is that the teaching she has recieved has been a mess.

The problem is that different schools have different definitions of what teaching phonics is. Some schools teach phonics more systematically than others.

There are also different definitions of what phonics is.

Reallytired - I read that article this morning - you have to wonder how much money they invested in that particular area. The article talks about one-to-one attention for children who are failing. If the government invested that kind of money into every school - if class sizes were smaller and there was daily one-to-one intervention, then I am sure that the problem in England would be smaller. They had a whole family approach - reading was tackled in the community and not just in schools (hence showing the importance of encouraging reading at home - one of those things you should make time for). More space was made in the curriculum for reading - there is so much that we are supposed to fit into a school day - when we had ofsted in we had to make sure that we were doing the right percentages of maths, English, science, history, geography, PE, art, D&T, ICT, citzenship, RE. When they left we went back to squeezing as much literacy in as possible.

There is a lot the government could do to increase literacy levels - unfortunately most of that involves more funding. I don't think it is fair to make sweeping generalisations about schools and teachers when they have to work within the system.

I think that you're preaching to the choir with regards to synthetic phonics - I think they're brilliant and the most valuable way of teaching reading but I also believe that other strategies have their place. I haven't watched the Jolly Phonics video - but speak as I have found

Also, dd1's nursery have been doing the intial sounds from Jolly Phonics all year and haven't progressed onto the long vowel sounds yet - there are still some who haven't got it. When I taught reception there were some children who hadn't learnt all their initial sounds by the end of reception. Perhaps my area is more deprived than yours but getting onto long vowel sounds in the first time seems like a very fast progression.

Sorry term not time.

Well, that's certainly the recommendation given by the JP people - introduce 4 sounds a week, with a recap on Fridays, meaning that all 44 can supposedly be done in a term.

Schools also need to drop teaching the searchlights stragery for working out new words. (Or as known guessing unknown words from pictures and the rest of the story)

Ah. Ds's preferred option

What happens if they don't get it then? Four a week seems a very large amount with no room for consolidation or differentiation of any kind. I am sure my dd could cope with that but I am equally sure that many of her classmates couldn't. If I were using Jolly Phonics then I would adjust their guidance to suit my class - there may be some on that level but I would imagine that a large number wouldn't be. What about that 20% who are still struggling by the age of 11?

I am not sure that children should be learning phonics in nursery. Surely they should be playing at three years old. Why not do all the letter sounds in the first term of reception as my son's school did?

Oh I agree wholeheartedly - nursery should be about having fun and my dd shouldn't be bringing a book home every night, but the nursery is attached to a school in a very deprived area and no doubt they feel that they have to produce results in their reading to answer all the parents who think that schools aren't teaching reading properly. In their defence - it is all very child led and low key.

Actually that article that you linked says that a "robust early intervention programme from nursery onwards reduced the number of children experiencing reading failure". I would imagine that this involved some kind of teaching of reading skills.

"Actually that article that you linked says that a "robust early intervention programme from nursery onwards reduced the number of children experiencing reading failure". I would imagine that this involved some kind of teaching of reading skills.

I imagine it might be things like improving general language skills and speech. For example if a child has major speech problems getting them referred to SALT can help considerally.

just adding that my dd has had amazing teaching in reception

she started in jan so has had two terms and is reading very well - i am amazed to be honest

so well done to her reception teachers!