Listening to children reading is not a good use of a teacher's time.

[seeker]

Honestly.

The children learn to read through all sorts of classroom activities. Reading aloud to an adult is only one small part of it, and one which can perfectly well be done by anyone who can read. So if you hear your child read every day, don't worry if he doesn't read to the teacher very often- he will be having lessons in all aspects of reading which he then practices at home with you, and in some schools on parent helpers, other volunteers, year 6s- anyone who will sit don with them for 5 minutes.

The teacher meanwhile is doing loads of other things- things which you need to be a trained teacher to do!

Yes, Swedes2, but that's part of what we do in guided reading, and generally throughout all teaching time as individual children respond to the teaching, read something from the board or a book, how they answer a question in whole class or group sessions, etc.

Swedes2 I can hear a child read and not teach them a thing. If the child is independently decoding the words and able to understand what they have read ... what exactly have I taught? Not a thing!

I've assessed but not taught.

and as AbigailS says I check probably a dozen times each day if each child is reading and understanding what they have read in a variety of class activities.

mrz I would have thought assessment was an essential component of teaching. Otherwise children might just as well have a YouTube teacher.

I don't actually know what guided reading is. I've never heard of it before.

Guided reading is part of the 1998 literacy strategy

Assessment informs teaching but listening to a child read their home reading book every day isn't the most effective way of assessing ... I would probably be better off with YouTube readers.

Swedes, think of guided reading as being a taught 'reading lesson' while 'hearing readers' is more like giving a child time to rehearse their reading.

It's not done whole class, because children are at too many different levels.

So it's a small group of readers at a similar level, and a teacher with a lesson plan that says 'Objective for today is using punctuation to guide expression' or 'using features of a non-fiction text to locate specific information' [remember that daily phonics lessons will be working on the 'decoding' skills, so guided reading sessions focus on the 'higher level' reading skills]. The teacher will then lead the group through activities - involving each child reading a bit, directed teaching, answering questions, using features like indexes, contents pages etc etc - that move the children on towards achieving that target.

Ours normally last about 25 minutes to half an hour, with groups of up to 6 children with 1 teacher - usually one group per day, each day of the week, to give every child in a 30 child class that focussed 'reading teaching'.

I assess every child's reading several times each day informally, every week formally during guided reading, and for 'target' children, a couple of times a week when reading with them individually in e.g. assemblies. My TA informally assesses all SEN's children's reading daily, which informas what she does with them the next day, and feeds back formally once a week before the guided reading session for me to incorporate her comments into the planning of that week's sessions.

mrz I've never heard of the 1998 literacy strategy either. [sorry] And even if I did know, does it really explain what guided reading is?

teacherwith2kids - thanks. That explains it all very well.

I'm just wondering exactly what primary teachers do think they should do. They won't supervise breaks and lunchtimes, they don't think they need to hear children read, they don't do generally do whole class teaching. What exactly do they do?

It seems these days, just like real nursing is done by healthcare assistants, real teaching is done by teaching assistants. The teachers seem to be the pen pushers, with computers that write reports for them. Am I right?

Genuine question btw, albeit a little controversial (not in the mood for beating around the bush tonight).

(Our TAs are much more extensively trained on aspects of SEN and on specific reading skills and difficulties than we are as teachers. They work under the direct guidance of the SENCo and are trained to be the SEN and intervention experts. My TA knows more about dyslexia and all the different programmes to address readers who are having difficulty with particular aspects than I do, and has had far more hours of specialised training in it than I had as part of my PGCE. A teacher is, be definition, something of a generalist. A TA who works very specifically with SEN children is trained (in my school) to be a specialist - my TA is the main 'SEN reading specialist for the school, another is the Maths expert, another the gross and fine motor skills expert)

Not meant to be an answer to gaelicsheep. As a teacher who supervises breaks and runs clubs at lunchtimes, teaches children to read in guided reading sessions (much more valuable than simply 'hearing them read'), does whole class teaching at the beginning of almost every lesson and continue to teach a target group throughout every lesson I don't think your'e being contraversial, just ill-infomed...

I'm just wondering exactly what primary teachers do think they should do. They won't supervise breaks and lunchtimes, they don't think they need to hear children read, they don't do generally do whole class teaching. What exactly do they do?

Not sure where your information comes from, really. Teachers do supervise breaks. Lunchtimes are supervised by lunchtime supervisors, (traditional dinner ladies), while most teachers set up their classes and snatch 10 minutes for lunch.

Hearing readers has been explained brilliantly by mrz and teacherwith2kids - it's not teaching.

But this bit has me totally baffled "they don't do generally do whole class teaching" - biggest load of rubbish in your post, sorry.

this probably sounds really old fashioned but when i was at primary school we were split into groups and we sat in a group of about 8-10 children at roughly the same ability and went round reading a page or half a page or more or less each, with us following as the reader read and the teacher commenting on anything 'difficult'.. same way we later read shakespeare at secondary school..

inbetween we were given bits to read at home to keep the 'story' going... more at home as we got older (whole chapters by p7).

i'd guess each group got an hour at a time, three groups in the class... the whole thing twice a week or so...

i'm sure there's some reason why this is no longer the 'done thing'... but can anybody let me know why it isn't before my children go to school?

"On a recent thread it was very clear that many parents are not able to [hear their child read]/refused to do so for all manner of reasons."

Which thread was that? What on earth were the reasons?

gaelicsheep I think I should teach children and I do supervise 9 out of the 10 breaks each week and I listen to children read at lunch break so that I don't waste valuable teaching time changing reading books.
I teach all my lessons whole class and I don't have a teaching assistant.
Before school I work with struggling readers to teach them how to read and after school I work with struggling writers to improve handwriting and spelling ...

maybenow it may sound old fashioned but I do just that with my class most days except I do it whole class.

I work in a school where a proportion of children come from homes where books are not valued. I think that if a teacher hears children read it makes them feel reading is important, if nothing else. I like the idea of hearing children read regularly - practice is important and valuing this kind of activity is in my view very useful. I know I sound v old fashioned.

Sorry, but IME lessons seem to be children working in small groups and/or doing busy work aka worksheets. How much whole class teaching is really done these days, honestly? In my DS's school breaks are either unsupervised (it's a small school and not a requirement apparently) or supervised by parent volunteers.

Clearly I'm not a fly on the wall and I am sure I'm ill informed, but teachers should perhaps be aware that the things I listed are the message that is often given out. Latest one was teachers objecting to being in school past 3.30, or something. Again I'm sure I don't know the full story, but the message is teachers are lazy. Sorry.

x posted with mrz
mrz I am a trainee but that is the kind of practice I'd aim for also

Gaelic, at least 1 in 5 of the children in my class have no literate adult at home (and more have barely literate parents who can only read enough to 'get by' and so are 'hidden').

2 more children I suspect of going home to no adult in the house due to evening / night work / shiftwork, and several others are in informal or formal childcare until very late.

There are complex other reasons - parental attitude towards school and reading, substance abuse in the family, siblings with severe SEN or behavioural difficulties.....

gs I have worked all weekend and no teacher leaves before 5 where I am
they plan and prep during 'lunch' or spend time with children
a 5 min toilet trip is prob the longest break they get
when they get home they plan