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.

requiring children to both memorise and guess and use the less effective analytical-style phonic knowledge is like asking them to pat their heads and rub their tummies at the same time.

If I might give an example here from a G4 student who was referred to me as 'dyslexic' but has good metacognition, observed very early " OK so the words in these books are just for sounding out? Can I sound them all out?" He is one a good examples of a child who first has to decide what sort of word it is - a so-called 'sight' word or a 'sounding-out' word.
The net result was his sounding-out was laboured, (but rapidly becoming automatic with the increased practice), and his 'sight' words were in a muddle, with guessing from the restrictions imposed by not attending to all the letters in the word. eg muddled go/get, for/from, put/pick, no/on, no/not and so on ad nauseam.

If only he had had 20 minutes a day of synthetic phonics first and fast he would not be in the place he is now. The default must be to to sound out, and for words with rare correspondences that have not been encountered, that's the time to ask a reader how everybody pronounces this word.
Exact pronunication doesn't really matter unless you are using the word in a conversation or an essay. I pronounced several words incorrectly for years! (glower, Lucy Ann were words in my Enid Blyton's I got wrong!)as they were not used in my vocabulary.
So I cannot agree with the statement made by you stoatsrevenge.The education of children is never solved by one solution - we're dealing with little people who are all different and learn in different ways. Teachers cannot absolve themselves of the responsibility of teaching all children to learn to handle the alphabetic code.

Ymeyer, I don't think you can read.

Singapore, Hong Kong and India cannot really be compared to the UK at all where reading of English is concerned, as the first language of most people in those places is not English. And India doesn't really belong in any comparison of education systems or methods as only about 2/3 of the potential students there are enrolled in any school whatsoever.

Your figures wrt boys having SEN in the UK perhaps reveal more about the school environment in the UK and how the nature of small boys is not accommodated within the classroom than the existence of real problems among boys to such a huge extent in Britain -- most boys with a statement have a diagnosis of behavioural, social or emotional issues, or autism. The statement of Lillian Katz wrt the negative effect of formal clssrooms on small boys that I linked to earlier suggests that it may not be the boys but the schools' expectations and the way the day and the environment are structured that are the problem.

I don't think you are right about the reading levels of US children. Table here, with explanation below it. The data are from 1971 to 2008, for black, white and hispanic students, and are further broken down along gender lines.

Headstart is for low income, sometimes non-English speaking, or disadvantaged children. There are virtually no middle class or even working class children enrolled in Headstart programmes. It is not therefore surprising that any gains children experience there have evaporated by third grade. The fact is that a wide vocabulary in standard English and constant exposure to written language at home are required in order for students to succeed beyond kindergarten in the US and this means that many children will fall behind no matter how they are taught to read initially. And incidentally, Headstart is very reading-focused in most centres, but the content of the curriculum varies greatly from centre to centre.

And you are just wrong in your idea that different ways of apprehending reading skills cannot be complementary. As Stoatsrevenge remarks, children all learn in different ways; individual children are capable of learning in different ways simultaneously too. They can in fact rub their tummies and pat their heads at the same time, figuratively speaking. They can learn two or more languages at the same time too.

'You also do not warn parents that reading aloud to a child and having them follow the words in the book without the child having learnt sound/letter correspondences, encourages the child to sight-memorise whole words....You fail to mention that the common practice of teachers reading aloud while children follow the words in the book, without knowing the sound/letter correspondences, entrenches the habit of memorising sight words and guessing meaning from context which has the potential to permanently limit their ability to read at the level necessary to fully participate in school and adult life.'
-- I was not misquoting you at all, and one other poster also asked you to clarify your bizarre claim. You betray a fundamental lack of insight into the learning process here.

Project Follow Through critique here. The study was hastily assembled in order to take advantage of funding that was about to run out. It was poorly run and much of the classification of methods studied was misleading, vague and ill-defined. Same goes for the outcomes measured. Yes it was huge. And yes, it cost a fortune.

Feenie, I don't want to deny anyone the pleasure of reading. But I wouldn't have wanted any of my DCs to be placed in a position where they would try to master some skill, whether to please an adult or because everyone else was doing it or simply because that's what they felt they had to do as that's what the classroom focus was, and fail, at 4. I didn't teach any of them to ride a 2-wheeler until they seemed ready for it and expressed eagerness to do it. The ages at which they accomplished this skill varied immensely. Teaching everyone phonics at 5/6 means virtually everyone will achieve the desired reading skills and quickly progress without all the failure and the struggle.

LOL at ymeyer thinking every 2 year old in the world can sight read McDonald's and Coca Cola. We don't all live in suburban strip malls you know . My DD is 6.3 and she doesn't know what McDonald's is (and she certainly hasn't had a sheltered life). She would have been able to read Coca-Cola a while ago, though the opportunity doesn't often arise.

Thanks for the link mathanxiety am I reading it correctly that 88% of white children between the ages of 3-5 are being taught letters, words and numbers at home?

The number of children on the SEN register has no relevance to this discussion.

Most children on the SEN register can read.

And many children who can't read aren't on the register.

Mathsanxiety: "All over the world, children are taught to read English from age 5-7, and by and large, it works. In the UK by contrast, children are now being taught at age 4. The move towards a play-based curriculum in Ireland has been noted earlier. In Scandinavia, play for the sake of play is valued for preschoolers (which means mostly children under 6) with no excuse required"

I haven't followed all of this thread, and can't claim to be any kind of expert on learning to read, however I do need to point out that this isn't the case in all of the UK. It might not even be the case in any of the UK, but I only really know about the bit that I live in

Here in Wales we have something called the Foundation Phase Curriculum, which you might want to google to find out more. It is a play based curriculum for children aged 3-7, ie up until the end of Year 2. My children were taught to read in Welsh in Year 1 (aged 5), although TBH two out of three of them had figured it out already during Reception. There was no pressure on them to read until Year 1 though, and all learning of phonics/sounds etc was play based. They then learn to read in English in Year 3, aged 7-8.

So as you can see your statement regarding the contrast between the UK and the rest of the world (especially Scandinavia, which provided much of the inspiration for the Welsh curriculum) is incorrect.

Mathanxiety

Teaching everyone phonics at 5/6 means virtually everyone will achieve the desired reading skills and quickly progress without all the failure and the And you are just wrong in your idea that different ways of apprehending reading skills cannot be complementary.

As Stoatsrevenge remarks, children all learn in different ways; individual children are capable of learning in different ways simultaneously too.They can in fact rub their tummies and pat their heads at the same time, figuratively speaking. They can learn two or more languages at the same time too.

The point is that to learn the alphabetic code is to learn a body of knowledge, just as a child embarking on learning a musical instrument learns a body of knowledge, a chemistry student learns a body of knowledge, a medical student learns a body of knowledge.

Many children find it difficult to rub their tummies and pat their heads simultaneously. Many children are befuddled by multi-strategies and lack of clear, logical progression.

It's OK for the middle class children, on the whole. In my limited circle, I know of children of distinguished broadcasters, child of a Booker finalist, children of poets, novelists,editors,Oxbridge lecturers, privately educated children. These children were not able to 'pick' up reading in a mix-and-match environment and their parents were wealthy enough to hire private tutors. Unless it's a muggins like me who charged at v. reduced rates for families who could not afford much, these children are lost.

Well-trained reception teachers only require 15-30 minutes a day to teach the foundations of phonics.

"But I wouldn't have wanted any of my DCs to be placed in a position where they would try to master some skill, whether to please an adult or because everyone else was doing it or simply because that's what they felt they had to do as that's what the classroom focus was, and fail, at 4. I didn't teach any of them to ride a 2-wheeler until they seemed ready for it and expressed eagerness to do it. The ages at which they accomplished this skill varied immensely. Teaching everyone phonics at 5/6 means virtually everyone will achieve the desired reading skills and quickly progress without all the failure and the struggle."

Teaching everyone phonics at 5, or nearly 5, has the same effect. Where are these 'failing' children? Do you know any? Several experienced teachers have told you this isn't the case. Go into a good Reception class - see how phonics is taught using play, games and songs. I can guarantee you will see a class full of 'eager' children, who love showing off their new skills.

Your figures wrt boys having SEN in the UK perhaps reveal more about the school environment in the UK and how the nature of small boys is not accommodated within the classroom than the existence of real problems among boys to such a huge extent in Britain -- most boys with a statement have a diagnosis of behavioural, social or emotional issues, or autism.

The figure of 1 in 4 boys having SEN does not solely refer to boys with Statements of Educational Need. If it did, the school in which I work would have somewhere in the region of 80 - 90 Statemented boys. Which it doesn't, it has about 6. (This is not a 'leafy suburb' school, it is a school in an area of high social deprivation).

I suspect the figure is either plucked out of thin air, or is taken from the annual schools census, which requires that all pupils at School Action (or Early Years Action) and 'above' (i.e up to and including pupils with a Statement) are recorded. As children who are getting extra help with reading are invariably designated 'School Action' and as there seem to be more boys than girls getting extra help this will skew the figures very significantly.

I work each year with about 50 pupils across Y7,8 & 9. They will all be returned on the census as School Action. Most of these pupils have no learning difficulties at all, beyond the difficulties caused by the the mixed methods reading instruction they had at primary school.

I find it interesting that the mix of boys/girls in the children I work with is about 50/50. I don't know why this should buck the National trend.

Another point; from primary records I find that far more pupils have had help with 'literacy' (and so were at School Action) than need it at Secondary. It is possible that very much higher numbers are returned from primary schools than are from secondary. It would be interesting to compare figures (though Secondary figures are possibly suspect because of the extra points 'SEN' children earned towards the Value Added figure...another story altogether)

about Wales.

I think the figures quoted by Ymeyer were in your latter category (annual schools census). I wonder why more boys than girls need reading help and what this early categorisation of boys does to their self perception. Since boys in general tend to perform lower than girls in general at later stages of schooling, I wonder if the alleged feminisation of the educational environment referred to by Katz and in the Kernan paper are having an effect on boys' performance, or perceptions of boys' performance.

Your 'value added' comment is interesting -- does the presence of more statemented children in a school, or even School Action children, result in increased allocation of aides or teachers or funds? Maybe I am too cynical though.

This was a small study of boy/girl self perception. The gender gap in educational outcomes has been a concern for many years.

And not all Reception classes boast optimal conditions -- there are teachers who are poorly trained or just not that motivated. They are not all created alike.

The same could be said about any year group from nursery to post 18

Wow, this thread keeps on running and runnning. What is clear to me is that children who are older 6/7 have more of an attention span than when they are 4/5. Seems like common sense to start later. The really gifted ones WILL learn to read early (4-5) because they have the concentration and persistence to do so. I also think that it is up to the teachers to teach the children to read- us parents have enogh to do with actually raising our children! After all, my dad was telling me that in his day there wasn't all this pressure to read at 4-5 years old and the parents weren't expected to help their children become readers. It was up to the school to teach reading and writing. Class sizes were the same size they are now too. There has definitely been a shift in attitudes and parents are definitely more competitive.

I was reading when I started school but all my classmates were being taught to read in a very formal way, whereas my son's teacher said she wasn't allowed to let him read when he started school and presented him with Lego day after day ...he hated school.

mrz - I echo that. My DD was so very bored at the end of grande section de maternelle, where she was not taught to read (in French) and would burst out of school at 4.30 aching to do "work" with me at home. We spend a lot of time doing numeracy and literacy at home last year.

Now she's in primary and actually being taught reading, writing and maths she doesn't ask for that kind of technical learning at home.

Interesting mrz. My father taught himself to read before school but said he found other activities at school to keep him interested (all children are different of course). He isn't the type of person to get 'bored', he thinks there are too many questions to answer! Did you change schools for your son mrz?

I didn't mention boredom magdelene that was Bonsoir what surprises me is that your father didn't have formal reading instruction when he started school it was certainly the norm in my day (no play) but then I'm very old.

My son wasn't bored he just hated school ... hated it more when he got a reading book

mrz - how old are you?! My father is 63 and he remembers a lot of play in the sandpit at the age of 4 and 5. He thinks parents today are extremely competitive and doesn't understand the way society has changed (like many of his generation). He also remembers not having homework in primary school and he was moved up a year. Of course he might be seeing it all through 'rosetinted spectacles'. He keeps telling me how children should enjoy their childhood and they will do things in their own time.

not as old as your father but no sand pit or toys (or homework) of any kind once I started reception in the 60s. We did have a nice open fire in the classroom. I went up into the juniors after just 1 year in the infants and did my 11 plus when I was still 9.

He isn't seeing it through rose tinted spectacles magdelene, I am older (but not 63) and there was a lot of play. We didn't take books home to read. Parents were not comparing DCs, they just assumed that you would learn to read in your own time. I think it gets much better after reception when parents learn that it isn't a race and 'little Fred who was a bit slow' is actually the brains of the class and being on 'lilac band' aged 5yrs doesn't prove a thing! They do it when ready. We only had homework for the 11+ year. Children should enjoy childhood and parents would do much better to have regular trips to the library than obsess about ORT (the only reading scheme MNetters seem to think exists!).
I see it was in the paper that DCs do better when they have the same story over and over again, if the DC wants it over and over again-which seems to give me Brownie points over all my years of reading Thomas the Tank engine when some parents refuse. (I have always found it sad that parents ban the books they hate, a huge advantage of choosing their own in the library)

We had a coke stove mrz and outside toilets.

@mathanxiety

Your 'value added' comment is interesting -- does the presence of more statemented children in a school, or even School Action children, result in increased allocation of aides or teachers or funds?

No, 'value added' has nothing to do with funds. My Line Manager tells me that it has now been abolished (it's hard to keep track of what is 'in' and what is 'out'in education these days) so what I am abut to explain is historic, but was extremely important to secondary schools. The 'value added' score was a points system which measured the 'value' which a school had 'added' to each pupil at the end of KS4. If a pupil achieved the GCSE grades 'predicted' by their end of KS2 SATS results their 'value added' equalled 100, anything higher was 'good', anything lower, 'bad'. The school was judged on this value added score. SEN children were given extra 'points'. SEN points varied according to whether the pupil were School Action, School Action plus or Statemented. The idea behind it was that the school needed to be credited for the work they had done to help the SEN children 'achieve'.

Of course, schools played the system for all it was worth. Our, very ordinary, secondary school runs at about 20% of children on the SEN register; it was always quite eye opening at GCSE results time to see the very high percentage of SEN claimed by some very high flying, middle class (whisper it, selective) comps in the area...

I am not saying that middle class children don't have SEN - just that figures of 30 - 50% looked quite statistically unlikely...

yes we had to go across the playground to visit the loo ...not popular in winter.
I still have some of my exercise books and was quite surprised by what I'd written when I was 6. When I grow up I want to be a vet and help sick animals or a teacher.

And there were no TAs so with the toilets outside all 4 yr olds had to wipe their own bottoms-anything else was an impossibility (recent thread where they can't be expected to manage these days!).

Mrz - 'nice open fire' - sounds lovely! My dad did his 11+ at 10 and then A Levels at 16 - you sound similar. And he achieved all of this without tutors, kumon, after school clubs, phonics at 4 and the rest. EXOTICFRUITS - Yes, my kids like the same stories again and again too. And yes, going to the library and just choosing non reading scheme books would inspire the children more. Bloody ORT! It seems that education has become more prescriptive as the years have gone by then. It's funny because you think of the fifties and sixties as just being chalk and blackboard. So the winning combination for education success is LOVE, PLAY and NO PRESSURE. And why on earth isn't there apush to abolish SATS for year 2 kids? So ridiculous