Why is MN so obsessed with reception reading?

[skiphopskidaddle]

It's a marathon, not a sprint. It doesn't matter if Johnny is on red and Amy is on lilac as (a) different schools go at different paces and (b) children develop different skills in different order.

I can't quite believe the number of reception reading threads I've seen this week along the lines of "what colour book is yours on?". I'm going over to the behaviour/development board now to check for obsessive posting about when children learn to walk. Cos it doesn't matter either, in general.

I think parents in general are obsessed by reading, and not just on Mumsnet. I think it is because it is one of the most tangible measures of achievement, and also the one thing that causes the most difficulties, or on the other hand, the most satisfaction if the child learns quickly. Also, Mumsnet is a good place to compare and discuss your child's reading as it is often seen as taboo to discuss it in the playground for fear of being sen as 'competitive' or 'pushy'. The reason that it is Reception is because that is the first time parents have encountered reading, and the time when diffeences between children and schools are most apparent- after all they all learn to read in the end (well, mostly, hopefully).

It's certainly not something I regularly encounter where I teach parents are generally very relaxed about reading.

And at ours. Not so me as a parent at my ds's school - no reading books sent home at all till last week, so I cracked in January and brought him home some books from our place to practise his blending skills, and so he could see that he was a reader. He didn't think he could before I did that, with words alone.

I think reading MN causes the anxiety.

None of the mums at the school gate are anything like as anxious about reading or SAT levels or stuff like that as almost all of the posters here.....

In fact I am continually amazed to find out how laid back and uninformed most of the parents are. Even when they do have good reason to be concerned, most of the people I know in RL aren't concerned.

(Big attitude of 'they're only young, they'll do it when they're meant to', 'school is great because little Johnny is on a 15 minute intervention...)

No, parents in the UK are not obsessed with reading. The majority of them don't know what colour book band their kid is on, or what that would imply....

It is totally a MN phenomena

Parents I had thought were quite 'laid back' about reading etc have all expressed some sort of concern about their child's progress. They are definitely not the kind of 'pushy' mums you get at other schools either. I think parents say a lot 'behind closed doors' about how they are really feeling. The question of why we start children reading so young in this country is relevant as it creates the anxiety in a way. If we started teaching them later, when they were ready, it wouldn't be such a slog. My 5 year old child is doing quite well but not a fluent reader yet. I expect this will happen when she's nearer 6. I could be wrong though! It may happen before! But what was interesting was all the parents I was out with said it was a labour intensive task at the moment. As I am not a primary school teacher I don't know whether this is usual for their age or something to be worried about. Oh yes, went to a phonics session and the teachers there said English wasn't a phoenetic language and the tricky words just need to be learnt! Don't know what to think about that..

If we started teaching them later, when they were ready, it wouldn't be such a slog. but it would only transfer the MN reading obsession to Y1 or Y2 or Y10 whichever year reading instruction is begun... because there are always going to be children who run and others who walk and parents are always going to worry about their children (even when there is nothing at all to worry about)

the teachers there said English wasn't a phoenetic language and the tricky words just need to be learnt! Don't know what to think about that..

People keep confusing language with spelling, but u can judge for yourself if English spelling is phonetic or not by simply looking at the words which I have listed on the Learning to Read page and the Sight Words pages for reading at www.EnglishSpellingProblems.co.uk, and then all the other lists which have something quirky in them for spelling.

Children can be taught to sound out 'main lane, they play'. But when it comes to spelling, each one has to be memorised word by word. My blog now lists them all in one post.

If u contrast that with Finnish spelling, which is the best European one, with just 38 totally reliable spellings (u sound out what u see and u write each sound just one way), u begin to understand why learning to read and write English takes years instead of weeks, is harder to teach, causes more anxiety and endless controversy.

That's the price for neglecting to look after the health of the spelling system for hundreds of years. I would do something about it, but understand that most people are not keen on that. That's fine, but they should understand that this entails substantial ever-present costs, like thousands of 16-year-olds leaving school every year barely able to read, let alone spell.

Everyone on this forum can read and can help their children to do so too. But 1 in 5 parents can't read themselves, can't help their kids with the reading homework as schools expect them too, and u can imagine the rest... With more learner-friendly spelling systems the educational chances of children are far less dependent on the literacy of their parents or the quality of teaching at school.

Instead of changing English spelling, why don't we all just learn to speak Finnish? Just get rid of English altogether.

lol! Feenie, that's seems like the last word to me!

I live in NI and am from The republic of Ireland. Many people in NI ( from both traditions) refer to ROI as Southern Ireland and I dont have an issue with it.Presumably Mrz was talking in a UK context, hence her referance to Ireland when speaking about NI. The rules for starting school in NI are that if you are 4 before 2nd July you start in September, so children born between 2nd July and September are 5 when they start. In fact more children probably start younger in England as the cut off date there is 31st August. However I know that you can defer in England until aged 5 but then you often end up starting in yr1 rather than reception so defeats the purpose somewhat. In NI although you have to start at the specified time , if a child struggles, some schools, if there is space available will agree to hold back a child.
Not read the whole thread but I agree that MN is more obsessed with readng than in RL, but maybe its because people are reluctant to be obsessive in RL. its easy to be that way while anonymous. I am obsessed because I have a ds that struggles but with my other DS I am not interested in what his peers are doing in comparison to him. I find MN a haven for my obsessions as in RL people would think I was a nutter!

Also I have nephews in ROI who started school at 5 whereas mine started at barely 4. One struggled with reading and one didnt. Whilst I am in favour of parents having a choice as to whether to defer sending children to school until 5 if they wish I dont for a second believe that teaching mine to start learning to read at 4 has had any negative impact

I wish, Malaleuca!

@Masha

"That's fine, but they should understand that this entails substantial ever-present costs, like thousands of 16-year-olds leaving school every year barely able to read, let alone spell"

Difficulties of reforming orthography aside (does rendering the entire population learner readers again really help young readers) this is really one of the most ridiculous statements ever made.

The English orthographic code is more complicated than others (which means greater debates about how to deliver teaching which cracks it) but it is not an obstacle which would remotely explain why 16-year-olds can't read. Anyone can be taught the code: word decoding ability does not necessarily correspond to intelligence, background or any other factor-including language skills more generally. And if you think about it at word recognition level it isn't really that hard: having identified letters there are only a few possibilities for each, and the context within the word helps, since we know learners do see all letters, and so can apply rules for split and non-split diagraphs and letter combinations with increasing accuracy.

If 16-year-olds can't read it is either because (a) the definition of reading at that age is more focussed on the language side of the SVR or (b) because they've been taught poorly by those who thought encouraging them to fake the reading skills of the already fluent (context, pictures, testing through overall comprehension) was a suitable alternative to teaching them to master a complex but graspable orthography.

Still no word on the merits of formal teaching for children who are so young? I think there would be less fuss about it if all children started later, because it would be less of a slog for most.

Parents' first experience of teaching a child anything from a starting point of not doing something to a finish point of doing it fairly well and independently is usually potty training -- lots and lots of anxiety generated by that (see MN threads) and lots and lots of advice about waiting for readiness... (yes I know they're different skills)

The problem is mathanxiety that children in England follow the EYFS which isn't formal Babies and young children are powerful learners, reaching out into the world and making sense of their experiences with other people, objects and events. As they explore and learn, children are naturally drawn to play. Play is recognised as so important to their well-being and development that the right to play is set down in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), and play is a fundamental commitment within the Early Years Foundation Stage.
Being an effective adult in helping children to learn involves being both skilful and thoughtful. Many Early Years practitioners shy away from using the word ?teaching? to describe their work with children, perhaps because of the perception that teaching implies a particular ?top-down? or formal way of working with children. In fact, teaching is much broader and more subtle than that, and covers the many different ways in which adults help children to learn. The more we are aware of our practices ? what we do, why we do it, its impact on children and their learning ? and the more we reflect, learn and develop our practice, the more effective we will be. This is developing our pedagogy.
^Pedagogy is the understanding of how children learn and develop, and the practices through which we can enhance that process. It is rooted in values and beliefs about what we want for children, and supported by knowledge, theory and experience*.

There will always be some worry amongst parents these days as we live in a fiercely competetive world. I do think this would be reduced if children were allowed to be children for longer and then introduced to formal education. The children would feel less stressed and then the parents would be relaxed too. The problem with this age group (4-6) is that children vary enormously in what they can and can't do. It isn't about their natural ability to learn but a question of their maturity. In the first six years children should be learning all the social and emotional skills so they are able to concentrate on formal learning later on (this is even more important for children who have difficult home lives). My child is more interested in her friendships and playing with her brother than learning to read! I don't feel it's a sign she is not cut out for academic life more that she has other areas to develop first. It's like comparing a two year old's communication with a 3 year old. When you have children in reception or year one or whatever being grouped by ability it makes parents anxious if their child is at the bottom. This is normal. Many many European countries do not start reading and writing until 6 or 7 and there must be some scientific evidence to suggest that this is in the best interests of the children. Yesterday I heard children as young as 3 are taught phonics and reading - is this really necessary? And doesn't it add another extra year of that slog?

Phonics is formal.

It is not part of a primarily play based, child-centered approach. Yes, in the EYFS there may be a broader range of activities and children may not be sitting in rows at their desks all day, but when you try to teach them SP at four which apparently you do then you have moved from play-based into teacher centered.

I know what pedagogy is. What knowledge, what theory and what values is the teaching of phonics to 4 year old children rooted in?

Magdalene, I agree wholeheartedly with your post.

mathanxiety I wasn't telling you what pedagogy is I was providing you with a quote from EYFS to explain what underpins it.

magdalene I don't think it matters whether children are taught to read at 4 or 14 parents are still going to be anxious so in effect age is irrelevant.

mathanxiety would you call singing songs with your child formal, sharing stories, playing games, ...?

Yesterday I heard children as young as 3 are taught phonics and reading - is this really necessary? And doesn't it add another extra year of that slog?

Do you know, if you were to ask MNers what age they learned to read at a very significant number of them would be falling over themselves to say that they could read at 3, or even earlier. Was that 'slogging'? Or, did the acquisition of that skill open up another area of enjoyment for them?

Montessori noted that she had 3 year olds 'self teaching' themselves to read, as she had letter shapes available for all her children to discover/play with. She was pretty relaxed about it. The children, I recall that she reports, were delighted with themselves..

If children are taught properly there is nothing at all taxing about learning to read. I suspect that many people are influenced by their memories of the extreme difficulty of learning by the osmotic method...

My son taught himself to read before the age of 3 and by all accounts I did something similar no formal instruction whatsoever

Pedagogy is an umbrella term. It is not really 'the understanding of how children learn and develop' -- it is more 'the practices through which we can enhance that process. It is rooted in values and beliefs about what we want for children, and supported by knowledge, theory and experience.' What I want to know is, what theory, what knowledge makes it preferable to teach 4 year olds SP? Why does the UK do this and why do other countries where English is spoken wait until 5, 6 or later? What evidence shows that this is the right age to teach reading? Why not teach 2 year olds? Why not wait until 9? Why is 4 the magic age in the UK?

Pedagogy isn't one specific method. It's the art, science or profession of teaching, and instructional methods (plural) in general. Use of the term pedagogy gets us no closer to an explanation of why SP is taught to 4 year olds. The 'understanding of how children learn and develop' is learning theory. Learning theory might help explain the reason why you are teaching a very accelerated form of phonics to 4 year olds but I'm not holding my breath waiting for one here.

What underpins your practice according to your posts here is not what EYFS calls for. There is a massive contradiction in saying you teach children SP and you follow a play-based programme. Never the twain shall meet.

SP is a very specific method that has nothing whatsoever to do with children 'reaching out into the world and making sense of their experiences with other people, objects and events' in a way that involves any sort of natural flow. It is an experience that is introduced and then led by the teacher. It involves a high degree of intervention by the teacher. It is the opposite of play-based learning.

Singing is not a formal activity unless I'm trying to get the child to sing the right notes, sing the right words, right tempo, etc. If I have the child sing a bar after I sing it, or use a tuning fork for the child to start on the right key, then it's formal. Singing is very useful as a pre-reading activity. So is listening to language (which babies do from birth if you boil it right down), in conversation or by having books read and shown to them, whether prose or poetry. Every sound a baby or young child hears in her environment and every exposure to the written word no matter how fleeting, or to any visual representation of an item or a thought or concept is a pre-reading experience.

But SP, which can involve teaching 6 sounds per week using writing (with the tripod pencil grip preferred) of individual letters to enhance recognition, and learning the letter-sound recognition by repetition, dictation, the sounding out of different words formed by combinations of letters, is itself neither pre-reading, nor a natural reaching out by the child under her own steam to understand her environment, nor is it play-based. It can involve all sorts of allied activities such as role play and drama, being read to, etc., but it is at its core a formal, teacher-led activity and apparently it is practiced in the face of sustained and serious criticism both within Britain and abroad.

Torygraph article quoting psychologist Steve Biddulph: 'young children's language skills decrease the longer they spend in "forced group activities", but rise if allowed to play and interact with other youngsters. "Everything we know about early childhood indicates an awesome capacity to self-educate, to draw in what is needed," ... "Any attempt to force or structure learning in the under-fives backfires."' Teaching SP is like '"ripping open a rose bud to get it to bloom."'

Times article here on school starting age, never mind what goes on once they get to school (too early according to the article, which quotes a review of primary education conducted by Cambridge University).

Grauniad here reporting on a study by Durham University on the lack of progress in reading and other academic benchmarks, in fact the lack pf any impact at all except for a decline in picture recognition among young children despite the various initiatives and so-called improvements of the ten years to 2007.

BBC News website piece here, quoting Lillian Katz of the University of Illinois, US home of DI many, many years ago she raises the important question (among other questions) of how boys respond to the expectations of a formal early school environment as opposed to how girls do, and the impact this may have on boys' later performance later in school.

Guardian report with comments by Dr Katz on the emotional impact of early self-perception of ineptitude at a required task like successful sounding out in SP (and it happens).

BBC news site report here on a Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (Pirls). In 2006, England had fallen way off its previous level, and boys were notably underperforming. Reading for pleasure was a declining pursuit among young people in England.

Guardian report on benchmark assessment for preschoolers -- the 'technician' comment rings true.

From 'A Manifesto for Playful Learning' -- "a growing number of studies have compared children in ?academic? preschool and kindergarten classrooms that emphasize direct, formal instruction with children who are in developmentally appropriate classrooms in which play is a central means of learning (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997). Dependent variables in these investigations (both concurrent and longitudinal) fall into three categories: measures of children?s motivation, academic achievement (e.g., in reading or math), and social and emotional adjustment to school. Findings indicate that developmentally appropriate curricula in which playful experiences are central foster all these school-readiness outcomes, whereas formal academic instruction interferes with most of them ? yielding increased child stress, lower self-ratings of ability, reduced pride in accomplishments, lower expectations for academic success, and less favorable academic test scores (see, for example, Hart, Burts, & Chatsworth, 1997; Hirsh-Pasek, 1991; Marcon, 1993, 1994; Stipek et al., 1998; Stipek, Feiler, Daniels, & Milburn, 1995). Follow-up research reveals lasting effects into the early elementary school years."

Obviously there are very gifted children who teach themselves to read. I don't think this is the norm though. If that's what they want to do then that's fine. I don't believe holding a child back if they want to acquire a new skill. But reading at 3 or at 4 does not make any difference to reading ability at age 16. By god, are we a nation of readers? I don't think so. And look at our GCSE results! I don't have memories of finding reading a hard slog maizied. My point is that the social and emotional skills are so often neglected in favour of teaching them to read and write. Children also get put off early on which is such a shame. Also children are coming to school with more and more problems which are a barrier to learning: they can't share, concentrate, are aggressive, insecure etc etc. And they have to learn to read as well!

mathanxiety - do you know about the 'open eye' campaign. They are against formal teaching of literacy and numeracy before the age of 6 and 7. The video 'too much, too soon' is depressing but accurate. Also 'Toxic Childhood'is a good one to read

"By god, are we a nation of readers? "

Yes, actually, the UK sells more newspapers per head of population than any other country, and per capita sales of non-fiction are topped only by France.

Whether you think The Star is reading is debatable, but we are (and have been since the Reformation) an incredibly text-orientated country despite learning to read so early in our lives.