Biff and Chip !

[Whizzz]

What sort of names are those ?
What's wrong with Janet and John ??

How are those books supposed to work then?

DS has his first book from school about pancakes. I would have thought they would have started with basic sounds not words like frying pan ?? [puzzled emoticon]

DD1 uses ORT as her reading 'book' but they also do Jolly Phonics in fact JPs form the basis of their worksheets and writing practice. They have made it through the first six letters and finished for half-term on 'n' I think.

Whilst I, clearly, don't understand the theory behind either method (being an accountant as opposed to a teacher) they seem to be working well together and she is making good progress.

As with all things should we not try to exploit all methods/approaches?

I think argument only really works if the approaches are equally good and the less good one doesn't undermine the better one.

But surely what is good for one child will be not as good for the next and if there is more than one approach avaible the teacher can find a balance?

The thing is I read Catflap's posts, and realise we did it all wrong.
Did we introduce sounds using JP? NO
Did we use picture books? YES
Did we use phonic readers? RARELY
Did we use Letterland? YES
Did we encourage the boys to guess at words they didn't know, often by looking at the pictures? YES
Did we encourage them to learn key words by sight? YES
etc.

So - albeit as ill-informed parents rather than professionals - we did it all wrong. But somehow, against the odds, they managed to learn to read - early and fluently.

So how come, despite all the obstacles we allegedly put in their way, they are by far and away the best readers I have come across? Surely these inadequacies on our part would have put them at some disadvantage, and however bright they are (and I admit they are bright), they should have struggled in some way. To give you an idea ds1 read the Hobbit when he was 6, Lord of the Rings when he was 7, and had a measured reading age (whatever that means) of 14 before he was 7.5.

They read incessantly now. And - more importantly IMO - they love books.
I actually think as far as developing lifelong readers we have "got it more right" than anyone I know!

So there you go Catflap, I'm afraid all your posts don't make me feel a failure on the subject, even though apparently I did it all wrong

i dont GET it with reading and the parental parnaoia

i mean they learn to read eventually adn thats it
its not liek you are an a level reader is it?

I don't think they all do thou' Cod that's the problem.

yes few may take longer but VERY few kids dont read at all byt he age of 12

Actually no Cod, some kids don't learn to read properly and go into secondary school at a huge disadvantage. My brother was one of them and it is more and more common now.

I am sure this will run.

I am away to watch more fingers being chopped off and dead people being woken.

Statistics to prove its 'more and more common now'?

I don't think it is. I think it's less common. Most primary schools do pick up on non-readers fairly early, and secondary schools have booster sessions too.

Another thought:

English is a crap language with lots of exceptions. JP teaches the rules, the straight forward bog standard words, ORT (or it's equivalent) allows you to take a punt at those (many) English works that don't follow the rules.

E.g - please try reading this one sentence phonetically?

Roisin but that is the same as any argument against the general with the specific!

I can read a study that tells me that breastmilk is better for my child, but know plenty people who have bottle fed and who are not unhealthy!

I can read a study telling me that my children are less well developed because a nanny and not I look after them, but they are extremely able.

I can read a study telling me that McDonalds is bad for you and will make you fat, yet can see some skinny children who live on MacDonalds.

I can read a study that tells me smoking will kill you before your time, yet recall my grandfather a 40 a day smoker living until he was 96!

Looking at one isolated case, or even a few isolated cases, doesn't negate the whole!!

My DS whilst extremely bright has struggled with his reading (as we were told he would do due to speech difficulties) it holds back his access to all areas of learning - his high ability at maths slowed down by not being able to read the instructions on the maths sheet. His wonderful imagination and story telling abilities not fourishing because he can't write them down!

Jolly phonics has transformed his ability to read - really! And with it comes a fighting chance that he can enjoy school rather than see it as that bewildering place where they can all understand the goblidigook that is writing, and he can't!!!

Right I am away to watch crap telly now.

Ok, just looked it up, perhaqps it isn;t as common as when my brother went through school but according to OFSTED thousands of 12 year olds are still unable to read or write properly.

www.tes.co.uk/2139278

Besides, why shouldn;t parents want their children to do as well as they can. I loved reading as a child, it opened up a whole world to me, I want that for my kids too.

Gomez, there are actually very few English words that dont' work phonetically - that's exactly what is so revelatory about synethetic phonics. I thought the same and had no idea how to help ds puzzle out words before I looked at the books. Now I can see him look at an unfamiliar word (with no picture cues) and work it out.
I think by 12 a lot of kids are totally turned off school and learning if reading is a struggle.

Roisin - I have never said these methods don't teach children to read. I have said - many, many, many - times, that of COURSE it all worked.

Let me make it a lot clearer:

Mixed methods does work for the majority of children. We know this because:

Most children learn to read
We can all read, and we weren't taught this synthetic phonics way

This I know. I have already said, I had a load of Year 1 classes reading above average year after year and were storming through the scheme and being able to read all sorts of things.

Children are incredibly adept at making sense of the chaos. We all read using phonics knowledge by the time we are fluent - but what you do when you encounter unknown words will demonstrate for you how effective your knowledge and skills are.

My point is, what about the children that do not learn to read, precisely because of the methods they are being taught? Not only is it sad that they are failing, but they are failing as a result of their teaching. This is criminal!

And what about the children that do succeed - shouldn't they be given the possibility to do so more quickly and with greater, more secure foundation knowledge so they are left to work less and less out for themselves?

And what about the teachers? Wouldn't you like to know that you had taught something at its most effective - rendering it much more of a pleaseure for you and multiplying your job satisfaction hundredfold??

I'm not trying to make you feel a failure. I am trying to get people to evaluate their practice with all the information to hand. I am trying to get parents to understand this debate more.

Yes, I want it for my kids too. And I can see the passion my ds has for reading.

Oh roisin, please - "Statistics to prove its 'more and more common now'?

I don't think it is. I think it's less common. Most primary schools do pick up on non-readers fairly early, and secondary schools have booster sessions too."

I really don't want to seem abusive, but I am beginning to wonder what planet you are on. The headlines have only been screaming out over the past week, as well as the wealth of more specific information out there. There is no 'think' about it - go adn find out. To wallow in ignorance is really not good.

That TES article referring to "thousands of 12 yos unable to read or write properly" is not referring to non-readers. It's talking about children who have not got a level 4 in SATs at the end of primary school.

Level 4 is the standard, yes. Last year 78% got it. But it's quite a difficult standard, and there are all sorts of reasons they might not quite make it. It is certainly not the same as "non-readers", and the TES was being sensationalist in saying such children are "unable to read or write properly"

I have to say that it was a delight to hear my DS sounding out photograph (from the ORT books - blast can't have everything) with great pizzaz and then turning to me triumphantly and saying 'you know p and h together makes the f sound'!

Bliss, sheer bliss!!!!

well done soapbox and soapbox jnr!

children do learn to read with ORT - or mabe despite it... your ds is obviously taking it all on board very well, from whatever source! You are right to be pleased! (photograph is a greta one for 'ph' as it begins and ends with it!! Kids love that!)

well done soapbox and soapbox jnr!

children do learn to read with ORT - or mabe despite it... your ds is obviously taking it all on board very well, from whatever source! You are right to be pleased! (photograph is a greta one for 'ph' as it begins and ends with it!! Kids love that!)

you can dispute what you like to suit your own story and I know newspapers are well known for distorting the truth, but you only have to talk to teachers of secondary pupils who are non-readers or, more commonly failing readers - those 12 year olds with a reading age of a 6 year old. Those are the ones to be concerned about. Non-reader, failing reader, struggling reader - you can't deny their existence. Shouldn't we be doing more for them? Especially when there is well-documented evidence, including the success stories themselves, to show there is a fairly straightforward remedy to it.

The question I always wonder is this - if there were no government/management restrictions and guidelines, what is really stopping teachers from taking on board synthetic phonics practices and principles, after some training??

I'm really surprised only half of school use phonics. Or am I wrong?