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.

abit further up this thread teachers and the teacher training agency were mentioned as being responsible for how reading is taught - when will parents realise that teachers are told what to teacher and sometimes how by the government and work in a system that is beyond there control.

Essentially all must start and finish (their formal education) at the same time and move up at the same time with little movement for the individual.

I have posted at the beginning of this thread and am surprised it's still going with over 800 posts - I think this shows that there is quite an obsession there.

I know some people who kept their children out of the system for the first year to spare them this nonsense, and they are not behind but loving school. Not everyone is ready developmentally ready to read at age 4, it doesn't mean they are not clever. That's why nowhere else children start school so early - there is so much else to learn about the world!

They say it's all learning through play, but what if some (especially young boys in my experience) don't want to play that reading game? I didn't opt out, DS (now in Y1) is reading average, but does not enjoy it.

Also, I found reading is one of the few areas where parents get involved in their child's learning at school. I don't know much else about the stuff they do, and especially when it's the first DC you want to be a fly on the wall (I did anyway).

Oh yes gabid I would so love to be a fly on the wall you are right I have my first DS halfway through reception.

magdalene - of course, first priority for parents is to make sure DC are happy, save and looked after, but at the same time DC always talk about their interests, worries, they ask questions and parents answer, read books DC are intested in, take them to places, etc... I feel parents can teach the 4-6 yo a lot more by just interacting and encouraging their interests than any school with 1 teacher to 30 kids could. This may include reading or just reading to them.

The trouble is, the government does not seem to trust parents (or teachers for that matter) to do the best for young children. And all too many parents are grateful for the free childcare - the UK does have the unhappiest children (was it in Europe? can't remember).

If your income is average or below average you probably have to do 2-3 jobs even to keep going. When I lived in the country I used to teach the damaged readers, the look- at- pictures and guess- from- the -first -letter or shape-of -the- word i their homes. It was an eye-opener to see mothers having to work at two jobs, with an all night session thrown in, looking after a handicapped sibling etc.etc. This 50% of parents need to rely on teachers who are sensitive, curious and have the professional back-ground to understand how to teach reading. It's a tall order but at least we should question whether teachers have the professional knowledge to teach all children to read. Many feel too insecure to speak out - but the fault lies with the Educational Establishment.

And Gabid, my dd spent more time at home, post operations,than at school - of course the one-to-one benefited her enormously. But most parents don't have that option.

Gabid, I agree. The one size fits all education train where all get on at the same station and all get off at the same one down the line has failed boys especially.

Allchildrenreading -- again, where have I said 'no phonics, ever'? I have never said that leaving children to their own devices until age 6 or 7 will somehow magically result in reading. What I have said is that teaching children to read using phonics when they're 5 or 6 or even 7 can be far less painful for everyone concerned than trying to do it for 4 yos. I have seen it with my own eyes with children who are English-speaking and also Spanish- and Polish-speaking in the DCs' school in the US in a school where all teaching was done through English. And whether the teaching is done using play, games, songs to dress up the lesson, thread after thread here can't disguise the fact that parents feel pressure, and children are feeling it too.

My own DCs learned without benefit of phonics -- doesn't mean all children will drift into reading and doesn't mean I think they should. Again, there is no evidence to support the notion that 4 year olds are suitable candidates for teaching to read. Other English-speaking countries wait.

What is the hurry in the UK? The rest of the curriculum will still be there when they learn, and all the richness of English literature too. Children are not more ready, cognitively speaking, to tackle any sort of complex material just because they can read at 4.

What is coming from Mrz is not evidence, but anecdotes.

Which reading statement mathanxiety?

Is developing an interest in books?
or
Knows that print conveys meaning?
or
Recognises a few familiar words?
or
Knows that, in English, print is read
from left to right and top to bottom?
or
Shows an understanding of the elements of
stories, such as main character, sequence
of events and openings?
or
Reads a range of familiar and common words and simple sentences independently?
or
Retells narratives in the correct sequence, drawing on language patterns of stories?
or
Shows an understanding of how information can be found in non-fiction texts to answer questions about where, who, why and how?

Puzzled by your question -- to what are you referring?

It's in response to this statement from you

One of those ridiculous and inappropriate targets is the Reception reading one;

I wondered which reading target you meant

I think all of the above, in light of this very well-researched plea for imaginative play, not phonics dressed up as play for 4 year olds.

All of the precursors to reading you mention are just fine as precursors to reading, all of the early sounding out and evidence of comprehension, encouragement of listening, etc., is just fine as far as it goes, but the issue is -- is it the best thing 4 year olds could be doing with their time? That this is accepted wisdom in the UK is what is ridiculous and Dorothy Singer (Yale) has a convincing argument as to why such targets or activities are inappropriate for 4 year olds going on 5.

And targets, which are imposed from above, beget anxiety, anxiety begets pressure.

Importance of play in the development of self-regulation, with a pertinent discussion of Vygotsky's theories. Also pointed out is the link between absence of self regulation and delinquent behaviour, and all sorts of school failure before that point.

As with all American research (including US research cited in Rose) please note that 'Kindergarten age' refers to children aged 5 and up. Preschool refers to younger children.

So picking up a book to look at is not good?
So knowing that the label on their coat is their name is not good?
So recognising their own name and that of a friend isn't good?
Knows stories because they are read to at home isn't good?
Is able to retell a favourite story because they enjoy it and have heard it many times isn't good?

I thought that was exactly what you had been saying...

Anna likes to sit in the book corner and browse through the book boxes. She often selects a book and ?reads? it to one of
the toys. She holds the book the right way up, turning the pages and telling the story in her own words.

On a walk, Tim points to the street name signs and asks the practitioner what they say. At the bus stop, he points to the sign
and says ?This is where the bus stops.?

While Sam is in the outdoor area, a police car stops outside the fence. Sam points to the writing on the door and says ?That word says ?police?.?

Joanna plays with the small world resource acting out and telling the story of The three billy goats gruff. She uses a really loud voice for the troll.

Sally is reading a non-fiction book about vehicles to her friend Ben. She points to a picture and says ?My uncle has got a white car like that.? Ben says ?No, it?s not a car, look, it says v-a-n, that
says it?s a van.?

After hearing the story of Goldilocks a group of children act it out using stick puppets. Naila starts with ?Once upon a time? and then retells the story in the correct sequence, correcting another child who confuses the order of porridge and chairs.

Anya and Paulo are tidying up in the book corner. Anya asks Paulo which book box he thinks a particular book should go in.
?I?m not sure,? he says. ?is it about true things, does it tell you information?? They look together and on the basis that it has photographs in it and a contents page, they decide it should
go in the non-fiction book box.

sigh -- all perfectly fine, and especially fine if your target is to accomplish phonics teaching at age 5-6. But forgetting the importance of hours of free play for 4 year olds in favour of hours of directed learning is counter-productive and smacks of teaching chimps to roller skate.

And you know this because.......

Sigh ... do any of the above examples (from the EYFS profile) sound like hours of directed learning is involved? the roller skating comes under Physical development ...

I recommend the Dorothy Singer book, Feenie. It may well challenge your shibboleths, though.

And whatever were those scenarios supposed to 'prove' or even illustrate Mrz?

(Naila sounds like a sad, sad little girl btw)

Roller skating comes under the heading of things children can be taught that do not come naturally, and it also falls in the category of things that are not necessary (for chimps or 4 year olds.)

To repeat a pertinent observation from way back upthread -- it can be done but is it optimal?

The research that allegedly suggested 4 year olds should be taught phonics is based on studies of older children.

I recommend you spend some time in a good Early Years class and it might just might open your eyes.

Incidentally there is nothing in the reading strand for reception that says they should be taught phonics ...

or a bossy little ... but there is always one

I can't recall anyone teaching me to roller skate I was given a pair for a birthday and turned loose ...perhaps that's why I broke my arm. {hmm]

'The research that allegedly suggested 4 year olds should be taught phonics is based on studies of older children'

That's true, mathanxiety, but laissez-faire teaching children to read has led to catastrophic outcome for those swaithes of children who can't access secondary curriculum, the majority of these ending up in youth offening centres, and in prison. We imprison more people than anywhere in Europe.

We've been been profoundly affected by educationists refusing to countenance good synthetic phonics teaching, or anything expect a derisory dose of phonics. If we can incorporate phonics teaching into a play-based foundation - confident teachers tend not to over-do it - we are all beneficiaries. You only have to look into the eyes of children who don't pick up reading by osmosis or with a small nudge here and there to understand the profound effect on their lives of being given the key to the code and time to practice their developing skills.

The good synthetic phonics would be just as effective if started at 5-6, while the years to then could be spent encouraging the traits that might keep some of the potential jail population from ending up there. I don't think school can make up for deficiencies in home life completely though. Some children have enormous needs.

And the references to poor training of teachers on this thread and on others make me wonder if optimal conditions would exist in most classrooms where 4 year olds are taught. Experiencing failure or falling short of expectations at such a young age does harm to children; self-labeling from an early age can be prophetic. Children can deal with the reality of their own performance a bit better even one or two years later than age 4 if they have been exposed to character-building/socialisation exercises in a group environment as opposed to exercises that promote more academic goals.

Well said, mathanxiety. It is the feeling of failure at an early age which is very damaging. Mrz will say all her children learn to read in reception but I am sure there are huge variations at this age. It is like comparing when children learn to walk, to talk etc. Children compare themselves with their peers; they don't appreciate that other children in the class are much older. My daughter is coming up to 6 and her reading is coming on leaps and bounds but her main focus are her friendships and she still loves to play (thank god they have knocked that out of her).

I am on the whole happy with dcs' early educational experiences: the one thing I do wish is that there could have been as much emphasis on practical skills as my nephews and nieces were getting at the same time in their Swedish nurseries/kindergartens/primaries. I can't help noticing that they did not end up behind my dcs in their reading or general education, but that they could also prepare simple meals and make craft objects that had a real function (candlesticks that could hold real candles) from a very early age, and that this was something they were taught at school/nursery. Dd had to wait until secondary school before she was taught to make something that actually worked. But it must be to do with teacher training- and the fact that practical skills are not usually very highly valued in this culture.

"Mrz will say all her children learn to read in reception but I am sure there are huge variations at this age"

As will all teachers who have seen first hand, year on year, the effects of decent phonics teaching in Reception.