Peter and Jane books ...are they...

[winterfox78]

...any good for helping a 4 year old learn to read???

I was given a box set recently...

Im after recommendations of books you have bought that has helped your 4 year old learn to read.

Thanks

[Elisheva]

No. Peter and Jane are ‘look and say’ books, which is an outdated method for teaching reading.
Are they at school yet?

[winterfox78]

No they aren't at school yet.

They will go to pre school next year.

[takingmytimeonmyride]

It depends on the child. Lots of children learn through phonics. Some do learn through read and say. My friends son has recently learned to read with Peter and Jane books after just not getting on with phonics at all.

I have fond memories of Peter and Jane books from my school days, so I guess school just have used them then. I was always good at reading!

[MissyB1]

Is it sad that when I was a kid I wanted to be Jane? 😂

[Smidge001]

I loved Peter and Jane books when I was a child. And it's how we were taught to read! I don't understand the 'outdated technique' thing, I mean, a generation learnt to read that way. Maybe the new way is quicker, or works better for some, but clearly the old way worked too.

[QuebecBagnet]

School will teach phonics so I guess two different methods could confuse them?

saying that I used Glen Doman cards with Dd when she was a baby and moved onto Peter and Jane books. She could read books such as Famous Five on her own when she started reception so I don’t think they ever bothered with phonics for her …..they just used to let her read.

[Elisheva]

All children read using phonics, it’s how reading works. Children who are taught using the look and say method just work out the code for themselves, rather than being taught explicitly.
I wouldn’t focus on teaching a four year old to read, early readers don’t gain any advantage. There are other far more useful things to spend their time on.

[Infracat]

My son found these books really helpful, even whilst doing phonics at school. As did a friends.

[INeedNewShoes]

I wish DD hadn't taught herself to read early.

If they arrive at school knowing the sounds and how to read and spell they have a lot of sitting through learning stuff they already know which isn't great for enthusiasm.

[carefullycourageous]

@Smidge001

I loved Peter and Jane books when I was a child. And it's how we were taught to read! I don't understand the 'outdated technique' thing, I mean, a generation learnt to read that way. Maybe the new way is quicker, or works better for some, but clearly the old way worked too.

You 'don't understand' the term outdated technique? Or that things progress?

Things change because academics research and prove what works, then that gets rolled out. The older ways didn't work for many people - loads were illiterate.

It is sensible not to teach two parallel methods, as that confuses things.

[caringcarer]

When my dd was 3 I taught her the alphabet sounds and by 4 she was learning blends. She learned to read with Peter and Jane and flash cards. The scheme is built on repetition of most common words. By the time she started school at 5 she was reading Heidi and I was told her reading age was 8 years and 3 months. She still reads a lot as an adult. I taught my 2 sons with the same method and they too could read very well before starting school and had reading ages of 7 1/2years and 8 years. They try to still both read a lot as adults. I used to play games with them using the flash cards for words in the books. They all took to the books well.

[SwelegantParty]

I learnt to read with the Peter and Jane books nearly 50 years ago, before I started school. I went on to be an avid reader, devouring books from the library and any others I could get my hands on. They worked for me!

[winterfox78]

@caringcarer that's so interesting...what were on the flash cards?

After reading all these messages I'm glad I kept the Peter and Jane books now

[DecimatedDreams]

The Peter and Jane books are a perfectly legitimate way of teaching children to read. There is a massive overemphasis on phonics, driven largely by the fact Ruth Miskin was shacked up with the Head of Ofsted when she wrote RWFI.
In order to become a reader, one needs to want to read, which is something a rigid phonics system ignores. The more effective system incorporates phonics, books and a general literacy friendly approach.
Sadly,most early years classrooms have thrown out big books, do songs on the whiteboard, neglect speaking and listening and spend so fucking long on phonics lessons I'm dying of boredom as an adult observer.
TLDR: read anything, it's more interesting than early years phonics lessons.

[notgreatthanks]

Phonics books would be better, you can buy them online or get them from the library.

[Zapx]

Definitely useful. They go for the approach of repetition, imo this can be really helpful for children and can build confidence quite quickly as the same word will appear in the book multiple times. Definitely won’t “confuse” your child, I’d just use them alongside. Personally I think it’s a really useful method, I’d love to see them updated and republished though

[Morph22010]

I learnt to read using Peter and jane in the 70s. It wasn’t look and say as we did used to sound out words, obviously not the words Peter and jane but I clearly remember sounding ‘dog’ and ‘pat’ and being taught how to do this. When we first started at school we were given the key words on little bits of card in a tobacco tin (imagine a teacher giving a kid a tobacco tin now they’d be struck off) then moved onto the books. I think the look and say where you didn’t sound out at all came after Peter and jane were widely used. That said I think the best thing when they are young is just to have books that the kids like so they have a chance they might develop a love of books and reading. Throw a few phonics books in, a few Peter and jane and anything else you have or can pick up cheap so you have a good variety. Not sure I’d go out and buy Peter and jane full price specifically to teach to read but if you have them then does not harm for child to look at. I remember when my son was nursery age there seemed to be a strong presence on mumsnet about not giving books to children that weren’t phonics based, so glad I didn’t do this

[Orangesare]

My son is enjoying reading the Peter and Jane stories. He’s coming to the end of his reception year and has learnt to read via phonics and now he can read a bit he likes a book he can read himself.

[notgreatthanks]

@DecimatedDreams

The Peter and Jane books are a perfectly legitimate way of teaching children to read. There is a massive overemphasis on phonics, driven largely by the fact Ruth Miskin was shacked up with the Head of Ofsted when she wrote RWFI.
In order to become a reader, one needs to want to read, which is something a rigid phonics system ignores. The more effective system incorporates phonics, books and a general literacy friendly approach.
Sadly,most early years classrooms have thrown out big books, do songs on the whiteboard, neglect speaking and listening and spend so fucking long on phonics lessons I'm dying of boredom as an adult observer.
TLDR: read anything, it's more interesting than early years phonics lessons.

Phonics is a fantastic way for children to learn to read and write. My sons reading and writing levels are much higher than my daughter who did not learn phonics. Whilst it's obviously fine to read all types of books if the purpose is for learning to read it would be better to start with phonics as that's what will be done at school.

[MagpiePi]

It seems daft to ban certain books because they don't fit with the current learning method. To read some posts here, it's amazing that generations of people learned to read without phonics!

What if Peter and Jane are the books that instil an enthusiasm for reading in a child?

[110APiccadilly]

I learnt to read on them. I still love reading and read loads.

Like a PP I did also do phonics. I'm slightly confused by the modern insistence that one must do one or the other. Surely most people do in fact read using a combination (word recognition for most words; phonics for unfamiliar words)?

[MrsOwainGlyndŵr]

I taught my DD to read before she started school using Dr Seuss books. She was always, and still is now that she's older, a very good/keen reader.

[WarriorN]

What decimateddreams said. I'm a send teacher.

My only word of caution is only do it if the child is interested. Ds1 needs to be taught at school or learn by himself. If I push too much he withdraws, unless he really wants to.

Ds 2 is entirely different and is hoovering up spotting letters and words at just 4. He enjoys it. I'm debating whether to try some with him, starts in sept. I don't want to turn him off it though.

In every class you get a couple of children who simply can't do phonics. There are many different approaches, repetitive patterns, picture cues, grammatical context and the 'shape of words' sometimes works better for some children.

Phonics is actually more effective for spelling in my experience. (Interestingly spelling supports reading.)

[WarriorN]

(My experience being 15 years in send so the children I teach have a lot of differences in visual and auditory processing.)

[Willhewonthe67]

In order to become a reader, one needs to want to read

Absolutely. And for me that is why the best thing that parents can do is to read TO/WITH their children and instill a love of books and literature. They should carry on doing this as children get older as many 7/8 year olds want to read quite complicated books and are frustrated that they can not yet do it on their own.

I always think it is interesting that children in the Uk are taught to read when they are 4 or so. But their European counterparts do not start until they are 7+. By the age of 8/9 there is no difference between the two groups in reading ability but the Europeans seem to avoid a lot of the frustration that younger UK children feel.