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]

Well, I'm sure all schools do it to some srt of level - I would be very surprised if any schools taught no phonics.

However, it is the level of phonics taught that is crucial to children learning effectively, as well as the priority given with other reading strategies.

Once upon a time, it was teaching 26 sounds of the alphabet at first, usually in their initial position in words so children could attempt sounding out cat, dog, sun etc but fell apart with words like little and like.

Then some spelling alternatives would get taught, but enough to supply the amount and level of words read and with insufficient knowledge to adequately apply this to a wide range of words.

Nowadays, expecially with the NLS, it is well known that a wider range of spellings and sounds need to be taught earlier and that blending all through the word should be included, which is what makes some people think it is synthetic phonics, but the rate is still slow and the content inadequate, so mixed methods are still promoted as a shortcuts to fill the gaps and make children think they are reading, although this in turn creates more confusion and conflicts with the phonics.

But I would say that probably all schools are doing some phonics of some fashion.

My oldest son, who was a good early reader, became that way despite everything. Age 5/6/7 he had a very poor attention span at school, was exceptionally distractable, didn't listen to the teacher and at the end of year 1 was put on the school's SEN register for his behaviour in class. He was also diagnosed with hearing problems which he had all through primary school.

The school he was at gave out the odd work sheet (about 4 a term) and a book a week. This was six years ago, when literacy targets for teachers seemed less rigid.

I can't say dh or I did much literacy work with ds at home, or even got him to read through the books he was given. We read to him most nights (10 minutes at the most) and chatted to him generally about words he queried, but nothing much else. We were relaxed about his reading progress because he was picking up reading easily and his teachers had no worries about his ability. Our attention was fixed on his behaviour issues. I can't even tell you what methods he learned to read by - he definitely did not have the ORT books or Jolly Phonics.

He really was one of those children who just picked up reading for himself. I think he would have got there by whatever method he was taught. He was not a hugely advanced reader, but learning the basics was never a problem and, once his behaviour calmed down, he was in the top reading and spelling sets from Year 4 onwards.

I have put in far more effort trying to teach my youngest son to read at home. He gets a literacy worksheet from school every week, spellings to learn and ORT books to read. Like his brother, he is also not a good listener to the teacher. Apart from this, we have far fewer behaviour issues with ds2 at school. His hearing is perfedt. By rights, he should have been the better reader, but to coin two cliches 'life is not fair' and 'all children are different'.

interesting thread.
one thing does puzzle me.
I read here (and everywhere else it seems) that we are failing our children with regard to literacy, that there are "thousands of 12 year olds unable to read or write properly..."
then four years later these same children are getting "record exam results".... in their GCSEs.
I am genuinely interested in the views of those more closely involved than me.
Are either/both of those issues over-exaggerated? or are GCSE achievement standard set lower to take into account changes in literacy levels?
or what?

good question, buffy.

Personally I think it's because the standards are lower (I don't believe children really are getting better year on year - what, we were we totally thick in the 80s?).

I also think there is much less emphasis on getting spelling and grammar correct with more focus on getting the actual factual content right.

I'm not a teacher though, it's just my impression. From doing a lot of recruitment in past jobs, I've found that even extremely bright people in terms of A level results and degree classifications have absolutely terrible grammar and spelling and it seemed to count for nothing.

Incorrect spelling will not be penalised in English tests
By Julie Henry, Education Correspondent
(Filed: 15/05/2005)

Skool xams definitly aint what they used to be. Concern about the nation's spelling abilities may have spawned a best-selling book and a television series, but for today's pupils, ignorance of "i before e except after c" is no barrier to success.

Examiners marking an English test taken by 600,000 14-year-olds have been told not to deduct marks for incorrect spelling on the main writing paper, worth nearly a third of the overall marks.

The rule, issued by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, means that pupils could spell every word wrongly in the most significant piece of writing that they are required to do and yet still receive full marks.

Ministers are particularly concerned about exam results this year, having failed to achieve their 2004 target of 75 per cent of 14-year-olds reaching the level expected in English. Just 71 per cent reached the standard, despite a multi-million pound Government strategy aimed at improving lessons in secondary schools.

Enough said!

I think 'pupils could spell every word incorrectly..' reads better

shouldn't it just be 'wrong' anyway not wrongly?