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.

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

It is very odd, this unshaken belief that you are 'right', despite a very experienced practitioner assuring you that you are mistaken. Are you convinced that mrz is coming on here and lying to you?

Hi Feenie!

"It is very odd, this unshaken belief that you are 'right', despite a very experienced practitioner assuring you that you are mistaken. Are you convinced that mrz is coming on here and lying to you?"

That's the bit I can't fathom. Why, when you have absolutely no clue as to why it would not be the case, someone would be so vociferous in arguing the contrary view - with people who actually see it happen, day to day. See my earlier surgeon analogy.

Hi maizie

oh dear, wish this doctor analogy wasn't being brought up all the time

the truth is, I do feel I have the right to keep a critical, questioning attitude towards any professionals I come across- and expect others to show the same critical attitude towards my work

I'm still quite happy with dcs' early education though

less so with some of their early medical treatment

Not suggesting at all that surgeon's were infallible, cory, honest - have bitter experience to the contrary. I was talking more about the questioning of the procedure itself - if the success is absolute, why not consider the assertions who affirm it?

surgeons

Tis a big if there Feenie. Lots of children fall by the wayside. Mrz is not teaching every reception class in the country after all. Are you seriously asserting that all children in reception throughout the UK will learn to read if taught with SP?

Cory, I suspect the emphasis on creativity with a purpose in Sweden has something to do with encouraging children see themselves as competent and creative and able to contribute something tangible they might feel pride in to their home or school environment. Sweden's incarceration rate is about half that of the UK (not including NI).

Are you seriously asserting that all children in reception throughout the UK will learn to read if taught with SP?

No one is seriously asserting that every single child in Reception will learn to read with SP; it has been said before that there seems to be about 3-5% of children who have extreme difficulties with learning to read. This, though, compares rather favourably with the 20% which has been accepted as inevitable in the last couple of decades. (For the 3-5% figure check Dr Jonathon Solity's paper presented to a DfES phonics seminar in 2003).

As I'm sure you very well know, there are very few research studies which compare SP as developed & taught in the UK with 'other methods'. Clackmannanshire is the only one which comes to mind at present. However, evidence from data compiled by programme developers (I know, there will be accusations of bias)shows that SP achieves consistently good results (look at figures for Jolly Phonics, Read Write Inc, Sounds~Write, Sound Discovery, Solity's Early Reading Research). Trawl professional forums and see what teachers who teach SP think about it. You won't find many dissenters. The comments of teachers who have used 'mixed methods' for years and then 'discovered' SP are usually particularly illuminating.

In the absence of good studies you either have to accept less rigorous data or stick your fingers in your ears and sing "la, la la" very loudly.

If the 'failure' rate is consistently lower where good SP is taught then fewer children are traumatised by struggling at an early age. If SP were taught consistently throughout the country the need for such an early start with reading might be perceived to be redundant.

I like the Swedish practical skills model. I find it very sad that we do not do enough to make our future generations better able to fend for themselves.

What maizie said - but far more eloquently than I could.

magdalene you are correct there are huge variations some children are ready to read long before they enter reception.

mathanxiety I'm not teaching any reception class and I don't think all our current reception class will be reading when they enter Y1 in September in fact I don't think most of our current reception will be reading

How come, mrz?

dare I say it ...they aren't being taught effectively by someone who understands early years.

I'm going to be released to try and "sort it out" ...

That happens to me quite a lot, but never in Reception, our teacher is brilliant, thank goodness. Y4 is the favourite usually!

NQT with lots to learn especially how to listen

Give me good, reliable studies any time as a basis for pedagogy. at the idea that one should rely on anecdotal posts on internet fora as an argument for teaching SP to 4 year olds. You just can't bash ahead with young children, using a method that really hasn't been studied for that age group, based on such flimsy foundations.

To proceed on the basis of what essentially amounts to hype on the part of the companies selling the products is shocking. In the absence of good studies I would prefer to take my blinkers off and have a look at what other countries are doing and why, and ask serious questions of the programme developers. Just comparing one method of teaching reading with others, without taking account of approaches that don't bother with focusing on reading at all, is not going to tell anyone much about what is really desirable as a focus for early years.

I believe the Swedish approach (teaching of practical skills) hasn't half as much to do with the long term aim of teaching children to fend or themselves as it has to do with the short term benefits involved -- the value of inculcating a sense of personal competence and pride in creation in young children is enormous. In the UK, the tendency to focus on long term goals with a huge dollop of national anxiety thrown in has resulted in a missed opportunity in early childhood to do something whose immediate usefulness to the needs of the workforce may not be completely clear but which exists nevertheless.

So 15 - 20 years of effective use in schools isn't reliable? Action research carried out by educationalists unreliable?

To proceed on the basis of what essentially amounts to hype on the part of the companies selling the products is shocking.

perhaps this is the route of your problem with phonics ... the products were developed as a result of demand from teachers who used phonics and found it effective (and were in fact making their own resources) rather than teachers being seduced by companies selling snake oil.

Mrz, the statistics on children entering secondary poorly prepared, with horrible reading skills, and especially the number of boys who are being failed by schools tell a different story from any so-called 'action research carried out by educationalists'.

Your own admission that 'effective' teaching does not exist even in your own school belies the phrase that there have been 15 - 20 years of effective use.

"Mrz, the statistics on children entering secondary poorly prepared, with horrible reading skills, and especially the number of boys who are being failed by schools tell a different story from any so-called 'action research carried out by educationalists'."

And as we have repeatedly told you, to date, and since we started effective phonics teaching, our children don't enter secondary school like that.

Of course, I should abandon this kind of instruction immediately, since seeing it work for 15 or so years is clearly not evidence enough. Think of the untold damage which my actions may have done! How could I have adopted such practices with 'such flimsy foundations'?

The problem with your argument is you are including those schools with a long history of successful phonics teaching with those schools who have used mixed methods rather than comparing. If you did so you would find those schools who use phonics well have a much lower level of struggling readers and those with mixed methods have a much higher level than the combined figures suggest ...

As people keep saying mathanxiety good teaching depends on teacher knowledge and unfortunately our new teacher lacks that knowledge (she expected 4 year olds to sit down and read and write when they arrived in school) ...

Sorry, but if you don't have actual research (not anecdotes about your school) showing that students taught using SP buck the trends your case is indeed flimsy.

Take a look at this article -- (it even includes a quote or two from MNers) on the harsh realities of school for the majority of deprived children and for a large number of boys. I have to say the picture painted by this article is horrifying. Poorest children's bad educational outcome article here. Yet another depressing article here.

Or maybe you're saying that Roma and Irish Traveller boys, British-Caribbean boys, British-Pakistani and Bangladeshi boys, as well as poor white protestant boys in NI and poor white boys in Britain are going to schools where SP is not taught, while girls from all those groups plus NI Catholic children, mixed race children, British-Indian and other Asian children are being taught SP? That is some pretty magic stuff you've got there.

case studies