Teaching your children to read - your job or the teachers?

[clarlce]

Apparently, according to Ms Frost, 33% of parents NEVER read to their children.

What lengths should parents go in supporting their children in learning to read?

I volunteer as a reading assistant in my local primary school and the variation in the level of ability, in one year group, is significant and would certainly make it extremely difficult for a teacher to accommodate all those differing abilities.

From my point of view i cannot understand why any parent would want to hold their child back, especially as the benefit of a one-to-one session with mum or dad can have about the same impact as weeks of school.

I am not just talking about reading to your children before bed etc. but actively, imaginatively teaching them how to read as a teacher might.
Is it a parents responsibility to make the teachers and, of course, the child's life easier?

I think I have had an enormous influence on my children's education by providing stimulating conversation, a house full of books, plenty of visits to places of interest, an interested adult to bounce ideas off, lots of stories and songs.

But when it comes to actually teaching them letters, no that never worked, because they did not like learning formally from me.

I certainly don't think I have been holding them back just because I didn't teach formal reading before they started school. Dd is top of her year in English and has read more books literature most of my undergraduate students. I think what I did offer was more valuable in the long run than merely teaching the phonics.

Is this supposed to be a Home-Ed thread by stealth?
I thought what ChristmasMum posted made perfect sense.

Agree with what Cory said.

But also. Why are we sending our children to school if it isn't able to teach our children adequately? Is it just a form of childcare?

Also - to play devil's advocate slightly - how realistic is it to think that kids have to be fed education in the most engaging manner humanly possible and god forbid they should ever have to just get on with it? How does this mesh with the reality of the world of work?

I am genuinely confused.
When I talk to teachers on MN and in RL, they talk about reading being so much more than just recognising letters. They talk about children being able to anticipate the story, predict the endings, to be familiar with how a book works (which way up it is held and the direction pages are turned), to be able to talk about the pictures etc. etc.

Surely any parent who ever reads with a young child is helping develop their reading skills. That's why the Bookstart scheme was initiated, to encourage pre-school children to develop these skills by sharing books with their family.

The fact that a third of parents don't ever read with their children is simply shocking.

it is a teachers job to ensure that young children are excited and interested to learn, to inspire them and to get them to think creatively. it is also their job to make sure that every child learns, whatever their abilities when entering school.

most children entering school are four. there is plenty of time for them to be worrying about work later, which is 12 years or more away.

I only disagree in so much as I think it is very important to develop a tolerance for disciplined work which may require a tolerance of tedium for longer-term gains. I really think this is overlooked as a necessary strategy for kids and I speak as one who was academically very bright but fantastically undisciplined with a rock-bottom boredom threshold. This is something I am keen to address with my dd - although I haven't quite figured out how yet. But I think something of this sort has to start young.

It is the parent's job to provide a good foundation for learning. This involves talking to their child, reading to/with their child and giving a wide variety of experiences. If a child doesn't have good speaking and listening skills it is difficult for them to learn to read and write.

It is also helpful if the child comes to school able to recognise at least some of the letters and corresponding sounds.

My DD started school already knowing how to read. We did not give her lessons as such but did read to her alot. Her favourite books (which she remembered word for word) she then began to "read" to us. From this she started to recoginise words that showed up often and become excited when she saw those words in other books. This is how she started to build her reading vocabulary.

So yes it is helpful if children are exposed to reading frequently at home but I don't think parents of the average child would need to do more than that at the start.

I would say 4 year olds are so different in their learning abilities e.g. reading/writing, and, yes it does come from the learning environment at home, nurseries, childminders, grandparents, etc.

The EYFS is part and parcel of this and expects too much of a child. If the 4 year old has been to a nursery, childminder, then obviously they will have been part of expected milestones, even if they can't write or recognise their own name.

What some teachers have to come to grips with I suppose is a lot (I would say three quarters of the class) not being able to even recognise the letters in their name.

In a lot of European countries formal learning isn't done until 6 years old and then by 11/12 they are still on a par with us British.

Blackeyedsusan - i don't think christmasmum's friend is a crap teacher.

I think they just need more resources and extra hands to cope with all the children.

By the way, I've worked in a reception class and it is very demanding.

yes. I have worked in a reception class too, with no ta s and one a classroom had 6 trays of plane shapes and not much else, and still tried to make it interesting. two classes have been in the dining room of different schools. it mainly takes imagination to accidently drop a pack of seeds down the back of your desk one night, then hoist a magic bean stalk made of cardboard tubes over the class room beams the next, or stick alien footprints to the ceiling, leaving a note for the children to find, or go outside with the clip boards and paper to find out about all sorts of things.

it doesn't take many resources to turn the role play area into a jungle or a shop or a school or an ice cave or a space rocket, or a prehistoric cave or a victorian school.

nor does it take much to make an easter egg treasure "spot" or treasure hunt in the sand tray.

it is not that difficult to throw out a question or a challenge for the more able learners to think about whilst teaching the rest of the children something else. (katie, can you work out... whilst we practise... ) it is all about knowing where each child is at and teaching them from there.

I would say that the teacher who says that the readers in her class are bored is failing those children if she is not teaching them.

I don't think it's my job to "teach" my DC to read. If nothing else because DS considers the teaching side of reading to be akin to torture and I'd rather not "inflict" it on him at home.

I do think it is my job to encourage my children to love reading. So we'll read a variety of books, go to the library regularly and let them pick what they want, discuss what they read etc.

IMO part of the "learning to love reading" also means not pushing them. DS can (say) read Roald Dahl, but if wants to read a simple picture book I am not going to stop him. I do think there can be a danger as a parent of pushing your child onto the next level of book constantly whereas they actually just want to enjoy something they can read more easily.

As a parent my job is to follow my child's lead - if she wants to learn something, we do so. If she isn't ready, she will wait until she is. As it happens my DD is interested in letter sounds, so we've done a bit at home with collages and I spy etc, but when I showed her a few CVC words she looked at me like this so we left it, and we are just carrying on with basic letter sounds. She's a summer baby and starts reception this year, so I don't expect her to take to it immediately - we will do all the practice she wants but I'm not going to panic if it's not a quick process.

FWIW my mum taught me to read very young, no phonics involved, and I do have fond memories of the flashcards and booksharing etc. I entered reception in 1991 as a free reader and the teacher was full of praise rather than telling my mum off - though perhaps that's because I was completely fluent, rather than being halfway there and risking confusion IYSWIM? Oh, and the Playing Up reason is bollocks IMO. Ridiculous to assume that just because a child can do something the class is learning they will get bored and misbehave. I just sat at the back during phonics time and read whatever I wanted (the teacher brought in her older DD's books for me) and did my own thing, it was great.

IMO if a child isn't ready to learn to read (or add up or whatever else) then it is just as harmful to be taught at home as it is to be taught at school - perhaps even worse, as it affects children terribly if they feel they are disappointing their parents.

As an aside, I would be very sad and angry for a child if their parent thought the only reason to share books with them was to help them learn to read.

" i cannot understand why any parent would want to hold their child back"

No, but.....

Some parents can't read.

Some parents can only read with difficulty and lack the confidence to read with their child because they think the child will think they are stupid.

Some parents find it difficult to read and see it as a stressful activity to undertake. If they don't see much of their children because of work or whatever they might choose to interact with their child in a different way.

Remember MN is soooooooo unrepresentative of the country as a whole.

Children don't need to be able to read when they start school and parents should avoid thinking that their children will be one step ahead of others if they can. A friend of mine taught her son his letters before starting school and he could identify them wonderfully, but unfortunately she'd taught him them in upper case rather than lower case. A parent choosing to teach their child to read before starting any formal education should do so with care.

blackeyed - we didn't do differentiation at school until A level maths!

I think read to your child , point to the words , talk about the book. It helps if you have a house with lots of book s and parents with their nose stuck in one. I do think people should read to their child nearly everyday (not the same as making them read to you , or teaching them ) follow their lead and answer their questions. I think in a LOT of cases this would get a child reading pre school. A child is certainly not necessarily gifted if they can read pre-school (or not gifted if they cannot!).

If there are problems later (with anything educational ) then it is your job to help your child. At primary age most parents can teach their child what is required to help them, certainly listen to their child if it is reading homework to do so.

I left it entirely to the teachers. Oh, I did do that excruciating 'reading practice' with them - the sort where you bite back bellowing FOR HEAVENS SAKE YOU READ THAT SYLLABLE PERFECTLY WELL A MINUTE AGO YOU IDIOT CHILD - which was particularly painful with DD1.

They are now reading and writing at a level several years ahead of the graded average, and are apparently 'exceptionally good' at this literacy lark.

Their teachers appear to have done quite a splendid job.

I find the idea of 'readiness' odd really. A child is always ready for the 'next step'. Your child's learning is the sum total of wht they learn at home and what they learn at school. If they do more at home then they will be more advanced - your choice.
On mumsnet I often get the impression that there is some unwritten rule about the amount that its acceptable to do before school - when actually that line is quite arbitrary. To illustrate my point Finland is often quoted as illustrating there being no need to teach children 'early' as they begin formal schooling at 7. I read a study recently that showed Finnish reception aged children were 6 months more advanced in maths than English children of the same age. As their nurseries do no real teaching that advance was down to parental input. Finnish parents don't tend to believe in formal teaching of young children but amusingly what parents 'teach' their preschoolers in maths is clearly more advanced than what we do in Reception...
The study is fascinating and you can google it:
'Children's early numeracy in England, Finland and the peoples Republic of China. - International Journal of Early Years Education, AUnio, Aubrey, Godfrey, Yueyun and Liu

That s great camicaze. I always think children at home get an advantage and are often ahead, and that this does not mean they are necessarily brighter etc. They have more 1-2-1 with adults and..... adults know more!

I think reception and school help if there are emotional/health/social and or educational problems with the parents. I do think the children that have not spent time at nursery/preschool probably (understandably and short term) have more difficulty adjusting to a school environment. I think long term lots even out.

My own children have convinced me of the nonsense of 'readiness'. With dd1 I did nothing pre-school for her reading as the few times I tried she didn't cooperate and I just thought I was going to harm her. DD2 was 3 when dd1 learnt her letter sounds through school and learnt them with her because I had to bribe reception aged dd1 to practise her letter sounds using chocolate chips (!) and dd2 didn't want to miss out! I purposely did very little except keep practising the sounds with dd2 as I didn't want her to be bored at school. I soon realised - as dd2 quickly became more advanced in reading than any other child in her class that I might as well have taught her. I was just nervy to 'require' a 4 year old to do something work based that went against her inclination.
DS is just 3 and shows very few signs of intelligent life. However, having learnt from the mistaken assumptions with dd's I have shown him alphabet books to learn his sounds most nights since he was 2. He has gone along with that happily enough although an alphabet book hasn't necessarily been his first choice every night! He has just started sounding out one or two words and is very interested in what words on a page mean and very proud of what he can do.
My point is that ds (least intellectually advanced or 'ready' of my children by a long way) is 'ready' to learn more becasue he has been actively exposed to the building blocks of words. I consciously chose to do that and miraculously in terms of reading he is 'ready' at 3 when my dd1 didn't seem ready at 5. But then I'd never done much to make dd1 ready - no surprise really.
If you want to teach your child then why not - if you don't - your choice - but looking for signs of 'readiness' is nonsense really. Its YOU that make them ready through your previous input, whether you realise it or not.

Kids want to please bless'em!

Yes, I read to my children as much as they want to and I do read with my 6 yo DS every day. I feel it is vital to speak, play and read to young children, however I do not think it is necessary or even helpful to teach them to read or write before they start school, unless they initiate it and want to learn to read. I feel for many school starts too early and there is nothing gained in spending time teaching them reading and writing at age 3 or 4 when they are so curious and could be learning so many other things, e.g. language through reading and talking to them, social skills, sharing, cooking ....

both teacher is the educational specialist parents should support
not surprised by that figure btw

I think it's the teacher's job to teach them, only because they have the training and the knowledge of the logistics of learning to read. But as parents it's our job to support that teaching and to create an environment where books and learning are valued and facilitated (God, I hate that word!)

exactly the same as motherinferior.

You might think that I, with a background in eng. lit., would not find it too hard to teach my kids to read, but I could not do it at all. I did not have the temperament, the knowledge or the tools. I never even tried with dd2. They both started school knowing letters and a few words, enjoying being read to, but not able to 'read' read.... and took off from there.

Oh yes, I've got a couple of English degrees too . And I put words on the page for a living. I lecture students about putting words on the page.

It's just the sheer horror of THAT BLOODY WORD AGAIN YOU JUST READ IT ARE YOU COMPLETELY INCAPABLE OF GRASPING THIS that drove me to the edge.