Are your children’s vaccines up to date?

Set a reminder

Please or to access all these features

Primary education

Join our Primary Education forum to discuss starting school and helping your child get the most out of it.

Trying to see the positives in Biff Chip etal

150 replies

Ohgoonthenpouranother · 18/11/2011 18:30

My DD school is teaching jolly phonics. She knows all her sounds now.
The school also uses these ORT books. They are ink stamped with the school logo which also has the date on and they are clearly over 20 years old. They do not use any other scheme.
We have now had all the purple books (there's a list on the back) and seem to be doing a second round. Yawn.
Also they are doing a word book of 45 high frequency words. They have not started with easy words, 'this' & 'away' being within first group learnt. I have found this list via mumsnet and I am bewildered to say the least. DD does not seem to be 'getting it' what ever it is! She is a bright girl, but I see no progression and this second round of kipper has finished her off!

Is it a good reading scheme? Should I trust school or do something myself to encourage her.

OP posts:
Are your children’s vaccines up to date?
mrz · 19/11/2011 18:33

I'm also a Literacy coordinator juniper904

mrz · 19/11/2011 18:40

Thank you for you kind words Euphemia it's nice to know you have found some of my posts helpful.

Juniper if you found my post abrupt I apologise I would be much more sympathetic if you were a colleague and arrange some appropriate training.

fedup10 · 19/11/2011 18:45

My DD uses the oxford owl website, she loves it, have a look, it is great!

maizieD · 19/11/2011 18:45

Were you actually trained by a RWI trainer? Because your description of teaching RWI sound extremely odd to me. Not to mention your concept of 'synthetic words' (or, as you so quaintly put it, 'synethetic' words). And your assertion that the Red Words have to be learned as 'sight words'.

I would be very interested to know what research you are relying on to support what you are saying.

juniper904 · 19/11/2011 19:15

Yes, we had a two day INSET from a RWI trainer.
From my training, 'red words are red until some of them are made green', which comes from stage 3 of the RWI programme- the level 2a/3c group.

In my previous school, a lot of my year 4 children were still below 3c in reading, and so we taught/ bought RWI. Thankfully, in my new school, most of my year 3 children are burgundy or above, so we haven't needed any whole school interventions. My lowest are greens, and for them upwards we still use ORT and we seem pretty happy with that approach.

My uni was very anti the Rose report, and one of our assignments was to do a presentation about how poor the data were, and why the whole lot of it should be taken with a pinch of salt. Not very neutral, I know, but tbh if you look at the sample size and the ethnocentric methods used by Rose, then the fact that the government (and yes, I am aware both NLS and NF are Labour) changed the teaching of reading based on THAT research to reflect only one of the four teaching styles that had previously been used.

If you want to slate current teacher training organisations or me personally, then fine- maybe me/ my school/ borough don't work the same way as yours, but perhaps that doesn't make it any less valid, or my opinion any less worthy of point or open to ridicule and teasing, which is how the comments have come across.

The internet might well be a way for random people to talk and discuss with a certain level of anonymity, but the recipients still are real people on the receiving end.

mrz · 19/11/2011 19:20

I'm sorry if you thought I was teasing ...I wasn't!

mrz · 19/11/2011 19:21

My uni was very anti the Rose report it shows
My uni was very pro whole language and real books

ragged · 19/11/2011 19:30

BAck to Biff & Chip... I just bid on Ebay on a load of books stage 10+ (probably old & who cares which phonics scheme);
DS is supposedly a free reader but I cannot for life or money get him to read a variety of ficiton, Biff and Chip are one of the few series he readily delves into when we go to the library.

if anyone has a link to Biff and Chip novels, let me know!?

handsomeharry · 19/11/2011 19:35

My DS loved Biff and Chip too ragged. He found them wildly exciting. Grin

mrz · 19/11/2011 19:36

Once a child has secured the essential skills to decode words it really doesn't matter what they read as long as they read ... but until they reach that certain level of proficiency Biff et al aren't the best option

academyblues · 19/11/2011 19:49

Mrz, my dd's school is using the ORT at the moment (reception). I don't know if they use it all the way through.

They're the ones on the Oxford Owl site that you posted a link to. Are they not ideal, then? Which reading scheme would you recommend?

We've been reading a few Songbird Phonics which I got out of the library and she's doing very well, so not worried but keen to ensure that she learns well and properly.

mrz · 19/11/2011 19:58

The new Sounds and Letters Floppy's phonics are a very good introduction to reading

RWI produces excellent results although I confess I'm not a fan (on Oxford O

We use Sounds and Letters, Songbirds, Phonics Bugs, Project X phonics (they are popular with our children) Big Cat Phonics, RagTag rhymes Star phonics - I use ORT Treetops and All Stars

maizieD · 19/11/2011 20:02

My uni was very anti the Rose report, and one of our assignments was to do a presentation about how poor the data were, and why the whole lot of it should be taken with a pinch of salt. Not very neutral, I know, but tbh if you look at the sample size and the ethnocentric methods used by Rose, then the fact that the government (and yes, I am aware both NLS and NF are Labour) changed the teaching of reading based on THAT research to reflect only one of the four teaching styles that had previously been used.

I trust that your uni evidenced their approach with lots of very good quantitive data on the success of their preferred look & say/mixed methods.

Did you have an in depth look at the history of teaching reading and the findings of cognitive psychology research over the last 40 years?

I'm afraid that a good many universities are 'anti the Rose report' because it challenges what they have been teaching for decades. Naturally lecturers are going to defend the methods they have been teaching. They are going to lead their students, who know no better, down the paths they wish them to go down. I would be very surprised, for example, if your book list had anything at all on it about the role of phonics in learning to read.

seeker · 19/11/2011 20:07

Grown ups profess to hate the Biff and Chip books but almost all kids love them. They are funny and a bit anarchic and the stories are good. And, crucially, they are better than anything else available. I know parents would rather they were reading Jane Austen but.....!

mrz · 19/11/2011 20:11

almost all kids love them Biscuit they are better than anything else available
Biscuit

wobblypig · 19/11/2011 20:44

My Ds started week1 on dandelion readers switched to ORT at week 3 and uses Jolly Phonics at home. He actually likes ORT but mainly because they really stretch him and make him learn the tricky words. He enjoys studying the pictures - looking for the glasses on the floor; the oddly discarded sandwich or what the caretaker is up to in the background.

I think they are quite playful although very poor in terms of sentence construction and grammar.

The positive in my view is that he enjoys reading them and is progressing nicely through the levels .

gaelicsheep · 19/11/2011 20:51

"Once a child has secured the essential skills to decode words it really doesn't matter what they read as long as they read ... but until they reach that certain level of proficiency Biff et al aren't the best option"

Absolutely agree. Words in the Stage 2 readers so far include such essential words as "concrete" and "cornflakes", and of course the totally made up names of the characters. It is totally unhelpful.

academyblues · 19/11/2011 20:53

That makes sense, thanks. Dd's school is mainly doing Letters and Sounds and using Floppy's Phonics from the ORT range, and it all seems to fit together.

Thanks.

wobblypig · 19/11/2011 23:31

As long as you use magic 'e' concrete and cornflakes are decodable aren't they.

HouseOfBamboo · 19/11/2011 23:52

I don't get the MN Floppy hatred really, there are loads of books out there which are far more tedious and questionable (like those stupid picture books they give early readers with really hard words in Hmm ). DD (5) loves the familiarity of the characters, and will always choose an 'old school' ORT over the newer ones (Songbirds?).

I get that being phonically decodable is a good thing, especially early on, but in terms of keeping her interest up and feeling like she is progressing whilst still dealing with something familiar, the structure of the Biff and Kipper series doesn't seem to have been replicated by any other schemes I have come across. (I would be interested to hear of any that are out there.)

HouseOfBamboo · 19/11/2011 23:54

by 'stupid picture books' I mean the ones that have page after page of 'my kangaroo', 'my bicycle' etc.

elinora · 20/11/2011 00:08

I love Biff and Chip and the magic key and the noncey caretaker. I'll be sad when dd becomes a 'free reader.'

Feenie · 20/11/2011 00:22

As long as you use magic 'e' concrete and cornflakes are decodable aren't they.

Plunge a child into stage 3 ORT and ask them to decode furniture, naughty and curtains - no. Ain't gonna happen..

juniper904 · 20/11/2011 00:47

... yet those words are real words. If a child comes across furniture, naughty or curtains, and has the belief that 'phonics only' will help, then they will be sorely disappointed.

I don't deny that phonetil awareness is important; I just don't see it as the one and only.

HouseOfBamboo · 20/11/2011 00:52

It's interesting - I can totally see the logic of phonics (though I haven't formally learned about them) as when I'm trying to remember how to spell something I sound it out in my head. Even words like 'bright' where the g sound isn't hard I'd sound it out as a hard 'g' in my head. I learned to read in the 70s though when the phonic system wasn't used at all, as far as I know, so it must have been 'natural' for me to resort to phonics.

But we do use more than just phonics when learning to read, don't we? DD seems to learn to recognise words very quickly just by becoming familiar with them rather than sounding them out. She's on ORT stage 5/6 now and rarely sounds things out, she would easily be able to read naughty, curtains etc. BUT she has been taught using the phonics method, which in her case has been effective as she is a good reader.