Reading in secondary school

[Campaspe]

Just a bit of a question really. I was chatting to my niece, who's in Year 9, about reading. She really hates books and reading, and we were talking about this in general, and what might help her to like reading more. DN told me that in her school, she is not allowed to choose her own books, but has to select from a range called "accelerated readers". If any child in her class deviate from this - perhaps because they have come across a book they really want to read - they are not allowed to read it in school, and have to select one from this accelerated books range. After reading each of these books, they have to complete some sort of quiz before they can get another one.

Now, it could have been the way DN was describing it, but this seems like a surefire way to kill off any nascent interest in reading in anyone, let alone a teenager who has already decided she hates books. Surely teachers are desperate to fire up enthusiasm for reading, and take as a starting point their pupils' interests and desires, then lead them gently onto different, and maybe more challenging fare (in personal reading, at least)? Surely, this isn't how reading is promoted in secondary education these days? Set texts and tests on them will always exist, and I understand that, but my goodness, if children can't be free readers by year 7, something is going badly wrong with English teaching.

Tell me it ain't so!

This AR book finder is interesting, but I'm not sure I understand it. For example, Jane Eyre is at the ability level of 7.9. Does that mean the expectation is that the average child could read it by the ninth month of year 6? Surely I'm not reading it correctly? The ability level of the infamous Forever is 4.1, though it is marked as suitable for upper years!

Motherinferior I expect you did spend your teenage years being assessed if you did o and a levels you have a very romantic view of reading which is fabulous for you - but there are many, many children who struggle and don't enjoy it and certainly don't see any 'primal power' in it!

Forever is classed as UY which is upper years content. The text could be read by a year 5 however. Basically it's a naughty book that's easy to read

True. It's full of trite and shite dialogue, which we used to skip to get to the juicy bits. But what do English teachers make of this scheme? Is there evidence to show it works? If it doesn't inculcate at least some liking for reading, it's difficult to imagine kids doing enough to improve.

I might try putting some of my own reading matter in. I wonder how many adults continually push themselves to read at the peak of their abilities?

I find it useful as a parent to help me choose books for my 4 dcs, all of whom read differently

I'd say Jane Eyre is perfectly accessible to a competent Y6. I read it when I was quite a bit younger (there wasn't much else around to read).

The idea of constantly pushing my own reading skills to higher levels makes my blood run cold, I have to say.

And while I realise not everyone likes reading, I do think that stripping the pleasure out of it is a bit counter-productive.

Presumably you're not needing to improve your reading skills to get your GCSEs though motherinferior? Or maybe we should just let the semi-literate 11 year olds continue to read the Beano and not attempt to increase their ability....

DD1's school doesn't use AR - they use set books instead, which could be bad but isn't because they range very widely in how they handle them. DD1 is in Yr8- they did Animal Farm in the first half term and made a lot of time for the history and social context of it - the development of communism, how propaganda works, what allegory is, the deliberate use of language. DD loved it. For the second half term they started on Gothic literature, which will be revisited, and did The Red Room, and then were encourage to write their own Gothic story using the stylistic devices they had learned (I gave DD1 the Whistling Room to read as it is much more scary

I have looked at AR but not really used it - the DDs are both keen readers and are happy to go with what I suggest, which includes a wild mix of classics and new high quality YA literature. But it does give a good range of options to a reluctant reader.

And lastly, a thought - I still read out loud to my DDs and they are almost 11 and 13. Sometimes sharing a books lights the spark.

AR numbers are nothing to do with ages although the testing does also supply the school with an idea of both reading age and Nat Curric level. We only put pupils who are reading below their chronological age on it. It is all about ensuring that pupils can read well enough to access the secondary curriculum.

'it's there to improve reading skills not to foster a love of reading.'

I would really argue that the two do and should go together.

A reading scheme that is not designed to foster reading is a pretty pointless scheme.

Ideally yes. Unfortunately most comprehensives deal with reality not ideal situations.

AR has been proven to raise reading standards. We do it at my school and we have had great results. If a child can't read well enough to access exam papers, they have no hope of achieving.

It would be interesting to see where and what the evidence is for AR raising reading standards, or for raising them more effectively than other methods.

Looking at Renaissance's website there are suspicious references to finding the funding, and to pupil premium. Wouldn't be surprised if schools are using it to target their PP kids, and teachers are being told to use it in that way come what may.

being dim but curious (always a dangerous combination) when it says 4.6 for example does that mean Yr3 as the 4th year in school or Yr4?

Some food for thought here:

penningtonpublishing.com/blog/reading/the-18-reasons-not-to-use-accelerated-reader/

I'm finding this bizarre. Can't it be assumed that for most children (completely accept that it may be different for those with dyslexia or other problems) that by secondary school they can read? i.e. that they can decode text and look up the odd new word in a dictionary?

Shouldn't English at this stage be moving on to learning how to analyse (and enjoy) literature, which is a completely different thing?

My son (year 8) has set texts- "The Merchant of Venice" and "The Great Gatsby" this term; but otherwise they read what they like.

Yes vix it is probably true to say most (a significant minority will be unable to do so) kids can decode at secondary level and the skill of analysing etc is what is needed - this is what AR is designed to do! So kids with poor reading skills, in this context, are given books with short sentences, words they don't need to look up in a dictionary, simple plots etc.

I wrote part of my MEd on the scheme. I had been a real enthusiast (English teacher) but my research led me to ditch it. All the pro-Renaissance (the company) research is written by those who are employed by (or married to) the people who set it up. I can't remember much more. Yes, it does give the appearance of children reading and it can force them into reading a wider range of books. However, we get superb results now by setting reading targets, talking about books in class, using GoodReads so they can keep track of what they have read etc etc.

I may be able to find my essay but it was written about 6 years ago so the research I did is not up to date. However, I went from being an advocate (quite evangelical actually) to seeing it for what it is - an expensive piece of commercial software with no genuine evidence base.

As an aside, try a test on a book you know really well. The questions are hard and led to many of our pupils cheating. The score you get is (roughly) the points for the book multiplied by the difficulty of the book. We found pupils often read lots of easy ones to score more points. Additionally, the points became the goal, not he enjoyment of the book.

I am sure I can think of more reasons why we no longer use it - cost, the need to have certain books in stock, pupils "re-reading" endless books from Primary School to up their scores etc etc.

Any link to the tests?

Yes - they read a book, do the test. The evidence provided for improved reading skills is (and remember, I wrote this years ago) is all from schools sponsored by the company or researchers linked to the company. They have never tested children who read the same number and standard of books (which would be free - or just the cost of the books) against a group who have read the books AND done the tests. I suspect there is good reason why.

Can I stress that my research was a while ago - they may now have evidence but, to be honest, I would be very suspicious.