Songbird or wrens.

[pongonperdy]

Does anyone kow if there is any difference between the oxford reading tree songbirds and wrens etc.

My DD only seems to bring home songbird books.

Songbirds are a phonic reading scheme (wren books are Look and Say)

What do yoy meqn by look and say?

Is one preferable?

Yes - phonics is preferable. You are very lucky that she is being sent home songirds and not wren.

Look and Say means memorizing whole words.

Phonics means learning to sound them out.

would a mixture not be preferable? (i'm new to all this - DD not due to start school until Sept) - not sure how I learned to read, but I was reading before starting school and pretty sure parents can't have used phonics only to teach me (both teachers) - I remember they stuck words on pretty much everything around the house ('table', 'chair', 'fridge' etc....!!) so some must have been memorisation too...

Most schools follow the government policy to teach reading using a systematic phonics method unfortunately some use Look and Say reading schemes (for many reasons) which isn't helpful or desirable. Songbirds were written by Julia Donaldson ~(the Gruffalo) so very child friendly

I thought songbirds were part of the ORT and were used in conjunction with wrens, robins, jackdaws etc? They have an ORT reading stage on the back and my ds always brings home 1 of each.

Songbirds are published by Oxford Union Press who also publish ORT but aren't the same scheme.

I am confused now. I thought songbirds was part of the oxford reading tree. In which case i have been basing my DD s progress on the wrong colour scheme i guess.

I think the colour scheme remains the same for the levels no matter which system your school is following.

The book banding colours are widely used by most publishers and as Songbirds and ORT are both produced by OUP they should be closely matched. But Songbirds are a new stand alone scheme not part of the whole ORT collection.

"Yes - phonics is preferable"

Not everyone will agree with this opinion.

Don't base his progress on bands or schemes or colours.

Is he understanding what he's reading? Can he tell you the story? Can he make an educated guess about what's going to happen next? Can he make up a credible alternative ending to the book he's reading? If he is reading aloud to you, can he match expression to the context?
Is he strugglling with a lot of the words? If so, it might be too hard. Does he whip through the books? (and can you say Yes to all of the questions above?) If so, it might be too easy.

Why is it at all necessary for him to be able to guess what is happening next?

'Phonics' (as in text matched to the level of a child's letter/sound correspondence knowledge) is most definitely preferable.

"
'Phonics' (as in text matched to the level of a child's letter/sound correspondence knowledge) is most definitely preferable."

Yes - if what you are aiming at is an ability to decode regardless of meaning,

If you want a child to read with pleasure and understanding, a mix of phonics and other methods, including "look and say" is prefreable.

Sorry, Seeker, that's rubbish - no teacher would teach reading, whether by phonics or sight words, without teaching comprehension alongside. It goes without saying.

I agree with Feenie; it's rubbish.

What evidence do you have (apart from unsubstantiated assertions) that ability to decode words prevents children understanding what they are reading? Who ever put that myth around needs a lesson in logical thinking.

Mix of methods is fatal to a very significant number of children.

seeker you could say teaching whole word recognition is aiming at word reading regardless of meaning. Of course children are taught to talk about what they are reading (decoding)and to answer questions and infer meaning.
If you know a teacher/school that uses phonics and doesn't teach comprehension I would suggest that is down to their poor training and understanding of reading instruction because it isn't what they should be doing.