What do teachers do with children who can read when they enter reception?

[iamnotreallyhere2]

My daughter is starting in reception in September. She has learnt to read alongside her older brother, and is currently quite able to read books in the Oxford Reading Tree level 4 - I daresay she'll be reading level 5 or 6 by the time September comes. Waah - what a boastful mother I am! ;) She's just a keen bean who will get my son's phonic books out to work through them on her own. And she's been a big fan of starfall.com for a while now.

Anyway, I'm just wondering what other's experiences are of having a child who is a confident reader when they go into reception. I'm almost certain that she will be the only reading children in her class at that point. Obviously I will ask the teachers what they'll be doing with her and how they plan to stretch her. But have other people found that that their reading child is given something else to do during the times when they the rest of the class is being taught phonics formally?

yes there is a TA,i think one of the problems is that dd's teacher perhaps isnt a good teacher,the dc are not heard individually but do guided reading a couple of times a week.

Sorry, OP, but I think it is very short-sighted of you to think that your child will need "stretching" and have no need for phonics lessons on the back of being able to read some -very formulaic and not phonic-based - ORT books.

At our school we start "home reading" in Nursery for those who are ready...it is continued in R for everyone. I hear all children once whether it be through individual or guided reading. My NO hears them all once too. Books are changed twice a week but parents are free to come in and change more often if needed/requested.

When my pfb in nursery and reception I was really 'into' him reading. He enjoyed it too thank goodness. In Reception I think I was a bit of a pain in the arse with my intenseness around my precious and his reading.
Roll onto year 1.. err what the hell was I fussing about? Yes he is still a good reader but others have caught up. I realise I really didn't need to push it. Ds2 will have a pretty relaxed Mum as I now realise that school is more than rushing/ pretending its not a competition re reading. I am faintly embarrassed by my Reception self. I am now calm on the verge of comatose Mum.

Wait till you have a 3rd 2boys... I'm not entirely sure how my DD (DC3) actually learnt to read as I certainly didn't teach her, but I think DS1 might have. She just sat down one day and read a book to me! Such a contrast to the trials and tantrums of trying to teach DS1, who was actually the latest of the 3 to learn to read.

Childrens' abilities speed up and slow down as they get older, at different rates and in different subjects. I find this obsession with 'stretching' your children quite bizarre. If you stretch a child too much in one direction they may not develop all round. I have seen this time and time again, when a mum 'find's their dc's 'gift'. OK they start learning the names of the dinosaurs before the other kids do. Great. Suddenly they're a scientist and are propelled in that direction. Parents don't mind that he's not good at art, cos he's going to be a scientist. So poor kid never learns to draw. Or the girl that can't ride a bike cos she's too 'bookish'. At 12.

Sorry that is probably not relevant to your dd, but just needed a bit of a rant.

Ds could read very well when he started school (I would loosely use the term 'fluently', as in he could read a 'normal' children's non-scheme non-early reader book with expression and could understand and discuss what he had read.

He still did Phonics, but the class teacher focused very much on how he could use them in writing (he was much less advanced with writing due to poor fine motor skills) rather than in decoding.

In reception, he was extremely well differentiated for, by a teacher who was interested in him and keen to help him to progress. In Year 1, very much not so but that is another story and not at all linked to his early reading.

Thanks for your replies. Interesting to read about the range of different experiences.

Yes, I am very aware that it's not unusual for children to be reading at four, especially when they come from a family who is interested in reading in general. I'm also aware that it doesn't make her some kind of tiny genius, but yes she is reading with understanding.

However, in the school my daughter attends reading before starting reception is unusual, for a variety of reasons, and so in that respect she is and will be the odd one out. What I do know is that reception year will be important for her social development as in this respect she's still very much a baby.

barbie - interestingly our reception teachers said to me that it was a problem telling parents that their child was G&T at something as quite often the next year or the one after everyone else has caught up and the child is no longer in teh G&T category but the parent has fixed in their mind that thier child is gifted!

THough apparently music and sport are the exception and quite often a child who is ahead of their peers in either at reception will stay ahead as its an inherent ability and not something the learned.

As much as we don't think much of our dd's school I have to say that I'm pleased that she's sitting through and learning the phonics formally, I'm her mum, I've encouraged a love of books, not sat down and taught her phonics. My dd can read Winnie the Pooh by herself. But believe me she can't spell half the words in there because she's missing the phonic sounds. They're clever little things really. I'm sure my dd is learning to read photographically. A new word if told to her she'll never need to sound it out or ask again. Give her a word with 'ph' in it she can't sound it out if she needs to because she doesn't know the 'ph' sound. She can read photo because she's learnt that word once, but give her the word graph she wouldn't be able to read it because she's not come up against that word yet and she is missing that phonic sound.

I guess what I'm saying is that although your child is a good reader it doesn't mean there aren't gaps in their knowledge that need to be filled in and that will come by her being part of the phonics lessons just like every other child in the class.

barbie also makes a good point about being pushed / labeled as gifted too early being detrimental. I was "labelled" as being gifted at science and maths early on. I didn't do well at art because I wasn't arty aparently. Now in adult life I've developed my art side and actually, I am ok at art, in fact I win competitions with my photos, which is art. So I just wasn't allowed to develop all round as a child because I was pushed down the sciences and other things were not fostered or encouraged.

My DS was similar to yours, but they didn't start actually reading at school until April as they spent most of the year doing phonics, which was good in some ways - worked well for us only because my DS in an avid reader at home.

He is now a free reader, in that he can read any book from the library that interests him. He is still on level 5 at school but that is because he was only read to 6 times so far, and every time bumped up a level. I think the teacher would be nervous going straight to free reading so will just carry on bumping him up I reckon.

The good thing they did at school was phonics, which has really helped him move on from the ORT level 5ish type reading to reading anything. I am a big fan of phonics as you can tell!!!

emy72 I completely agree about the phonics; sound phonic knowledge is, as I see it, the key (no, not the magic key ) to being able to read anything, as you say.

When I started school 30 years ago already able to read, it caused all sorts of problems. This was well before phonics etc., the method they used to teach reading was called ITA, and afaik comprised strange symbols and spellings, but maybe someone knows more about it. As I could already read proper English I spent much of the time sitting on the carpet on my own reading while all the other children did their ITA work. I hope it's different now.

I am a massive fan of phonics. As a dyslexic myself who was taught to read by look and say I never did phonics at all and my spelling is terrible. In the last three years my DD has been at school and using phonics to learn to read and spell my spelling has dramatically improved as I have learnt the phonics rules. I did have to ask for them to be taught to me, which the teacher willingly did.

Kewcumber, have you read the Q&A with Matthew Syed (Bounce) re: 'inherent ability' :).

I've yet to meet a teacher that doesn't believe IQ is largely set in stone, and that you can 'usually tell quite early who the bright ones are'. Most teachers talk about their 'high, middle and low ability pupils'. Although teachers are always pleased when children surprise them it's difficult for a 'low' ability pupil to become a 'high' ability pupil and vice versa. It's human nature to label and it can be damaging and difficult to overcome unfortunately.

At the school my DS attends, Phonics and Reading are two quite different subjects. They read in groups with others with similar ability, and obviously their home reading is based on individual ability.

Phonics are taught in year groups, but it is usual for children to move up a year, just for phonics, if tghey are ready.

In DS's year, one girl was miles ahead at the start of Reception, and was free reading at home. She moved up to Year 1 just for phonics at the Oct Half Term.

My DS wasn't reading, but by the Christmas, he had got the knack of it, and joined her for phonics by the Easter.

I think it going to depend on the individual school.

OK, I've just read 'Bounce' and I don't think he covers 'inherent ability' very well at all. He talks about what anyone can do with 10,000 hours and the advantages that some people have that help them get to that number sooner.

He doesn't attempt to explain why some children seem to be able to manipulate numbers as soon as they can talk and others don't, nor what happens if both of those children do the same number of hours.

I thought bits of the book were excellent and made great sense, but I don't think it skimmed over quite a lot.

Catleprod - my older brother was taught ITA! However it didn't work for him, he always was a poor reader and speller. I can't honestly remember how I was taught? Don't remember phonics. What I do remember vividly is standing reading for a teacher with a Peter and Jane book, the one where they are peeping out of a wigwam

My dd1 could read and write extremely well when she started in reception and was really motivated to learn; her teacher said she had already reached all the learning milestones for the year, but would not be given any extra attention as she 'had children in her class who couldn't hold a pencil' and she had to devote her attention to them. I was very taken aback by this but, being a new mum, with no experience of current teaching methods, I let it go. However dd1 became really bored and 'lazy' according to her class teacher so the following term she was taken out of some lessons to join the 3rd years in reading and writing. I do feel I failed my dd1 as I didn't make a fuss about it, however I took her out of the school at the end of reception and put her in a very highly academic school. Interestingly the reception class teacher told me I had done the right thing as she thought my dd1 would just drift through the primary years.

this is my worry with my own dd crystal, can see her just drifting through primary if we dont move her.
Its really frustrating,it seems to me that they just like to make sure that children reach a certain level and as long as they achieve this then thats ok.

Singersgirl have you read the Q&A on Mumsnet? They were interesting. Seuna asked a very good question I thought. He does give an example re: piano players, whereby the only difference between the good and the great was hours of practice. When you took a group that were all basically sound at the skill the best were always, without exception, those who put the most hours in.

Some may be born with greater cognitive powers but it's amazing how much an 'average' person can improve given the opportunity to develop and flourish. Fixed mindsets and subconscious beliefs can put a stop to that unfortunately. I believe if you tell a child they can get incrementally better it can change their performance dramatically for the better.

Gaby Logan said that Nick Faldo and Theo Walcott disproved his theory as came to their sports comparatively late. Nick Faldo changed his swing later in life and hit thousands more balls each day than most other golfers before he dramatically improved. Arguably Theo Walcott's talent was in his vast speed rather than his ball skills. He had the basic 'hardware' to be a good runner and had lots of practice at running earlier in life. The ball skills were more incidental.

Back to the reading if you have a child (child A), perhaps old for their year who is ahead of everyone in the class it sets them up very well IMO. If they are verbal and quick on the uptake and demonstrate their knowledge they are likely to be perceived as bright by the teacher and others.

Contrast that to a younger child in the year (child B) perhaps who is solid but not stellar at reading. They understand but they're quiet. They don't volunteer their knowledge. Fast forward to end of the infants and child A is likely still ahead, child B might well have caught up but could be still a few book bands/levels behind child A.

Doesn't matter? Not a competition? B will catch A in the end if they merit it?
I am not so sure. 'Bright' child A is likely given the benefit of the doubt, is accelerated and commented on in the staff room. Reserved, 'solid' child B is often the middle set material of the future. Especially so IMO if in a class of 30. Child B is an 'average child who has worked hard and so made good progress' that has none of the esteemed, natural 'high ability' of child A.

I think it's this sort of scenario that fosters competitiveness in parents and makes them paranoid. It's perfectly possible IMO that child B will have caught child A in time but this won't necessarily be recognised. It will be assumed that child B needs a greater period of consolidation, just so they are really ready and concepts fully entrenched. What's they harm? They'll catch A in time if they really have the ability (but privately we are not so sure)?

AmInot I attended the new parents evening this week as DS starts reception in September. Before this meeting I assumed that the main focus of learning in Reception would learning sounds, reading and writing.

I came away feeling I had been a bit naïve as there is so much more to the teaching of children of reception age than reading and writing. Granted, they are important and are often used as a measure of ability but there is a lot of additional stuff to learn about.

As you pointed out yourself your DD may be ahead in reading ability but may benefit from developing her social skills. Another poster said her child was ahead in terms of reading but had poor fine motor skills.

IMO there will be plenty of instances where a child is ahead in one or two areas of learning and a teacher worth their salt will be well equipped to deal with this. However, is it really so terrible for teaching to focus on bringing the other less able children up to speed in whatever area they need to work on (providing the more able children are not bored)?

STOP WORRYING!!

I have been teaching in Reception for the past 10 years and have been running the whole foundatin unit for the past 8 years. So many parents see reading as the only bench march to a childs academic abilities when it is only a small, but important part of the whole childs abilities.

My main concern and focus for any child in my unit is for them to be happy, independant and sociable. A child that has developed good social skills before entering school, on the whole will deal with the demands far better than a child who's main focus is on reading.

STOP giving your child ORT books to read at home before they start school. These books are great to support the work done at school but threy are terrible story books. They are BORING, REPETITIVE and VERY BAD EXAMPLES OF GOOD STORIES. Also by giving your child these books to read you are limiting their effectivness when used as a learning tool in the classroom. Unfortunately we are in a time when schools have limited resources, if your child has already read and tired of the ORT scheme books often we find they need to consolidate the skills taught but have limited other books to match each level, therefore leading to your child having a mismatched reading scheme of less favoured texts.

Children shoud have a love of REAL books and be building up a repertiore of favourite stories. I would much sooner a child start reception with a love of Julia Donaldson, Jill Murphy, Michael Rosen, Shirley Hughes and many more rather than the ability to decode stories about Sam's Pot and Top Cat.

I understand that in a packed curriculum and limited home school contact it is easy for a parent to see only a childs reading book and feel that that is all that is important in a child curriculum. Reading books play a small fraction of all the reading a child does in a day. Look at a childs reading book, discuss it, read it, enjoy and then take out a real book and have some real fun!

If your child can already 'read' make sure that they are reading and not simply reciting or decoding. I will often give a child a book from a level or two below where they are reading to to hear a child read for fun and understanding. Decoding is very dfferent to reading.

And last of all and then ill get off my soap box, honest! Beware the reading scheme race!
Learning to read is not a race.
Learning to read should be a fun, natural process.
It does not matter if little Johnny is on a stage higher than your little Jill
A child is not 'behind' if they are sent a book to read that they have read before.
A teacher is teaching your child to read daily even if they have not listened to your child individually for a week or two
If a chilld has a love of books then they will read
If a child is only given droll ORT books they might find reading boring after time

Sorry rant over, back to writing my 52 end of year reports.

Interesting stuff Cortina. I did a Psychology A Level (back in the day) but it did touch on expectations of children and how it can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

When I started school I was showered with praise seemingly for everything I did (with ease) and became something of a teacher's pet. Was also sickeningly enthusiastic (I was soon informed by other kids) and would ask if I could write a poem when I had finished my work, that kind of thing . Also my parents always told me what a clever little girl I was. All positive, you would think...but I got used to things being easy and if I had to do different, more challenging work I'd baulk at it, and also was desperate to fit in and be average! At secondary school (particularly in maths later on) this translated into being afraid to get things wrong (because I was clever - right? I should know this stuff..) and because I was clever it was assumed I could quietly get on with things, and I found it so hard to ask for help...

I'm still a bit like this at 35 years old. I just get on with things, get myself into a right old pickle when I should have asked for help earlier on, then feel I have to sort it out by myself...though I'm better than I used to be.

So with my DDs I try not to tell them they are clever but praise them for hard work, and let them know it's ok to get things wrong, this is part of learning, and it's always ok to say you don't understand.