I'm angry with the school that my son can't read

[Teamumizumi]

my DS is 5 and has just finished reception. Reading has always been a struggle and he has "progressed" to level 1. I've been trying to get him to read appropriate level reading books over the summer and have now given up. He can only read basic words like "and" " to" "for" "at"..... I'mwondering what the school has been doing for 2 years -he started in their kindergarten so he has been "reading" for 2years. What he does is get the teacher/us to say the word out loud, then he memorises it. Now that he has read a couple of books cold i have discovered he cannot read at all. WHAT DO I DO???????

It's simple really. If you teach children to read in a way that is very difficult some won't manage till they are a bit older. If you teach in an easier way they all get it.

If only this was true! But as the mother of two children who both went to Oxbridge, and both of whom had very similar exposure to books, but one of whom learned to read very easily, while the other really struggled and needed much help, and because I have seen big differences between my grandchildren too, just as I did with the children I taught, I know that children's ability to learn to read and write English varies enormously.

My dd was like this age 5 - turned out to be dyslexic. Yours might not be but keep it in mind.

And a big fat fuck off to everyone who has glibby told you to teach him yourself. Your job as a parent is to support his reading (which you are doing) by reading aloud to him and enjoying books together and by listening to him reading to you. It's the schools job to teach him to read, phonics, decoding etc

I know that children's ability to learn to read and write English varies enormously. but if they are taught systematically 98% will succeed.

Research shows it is not really about age and being developmentally ready age wise, it's about exposure. You become 'developmentally ready'' when you have been exposed to the skills necessary to learn the next thing. Age is not the most relevant factor

I think this is a rather simplistic way of looking at child development.

I know one anecdote does not make evidence, but, to give an example: ds did not talk coherently until he was 3+ but did speak a fluent form of serbo-croatian I did not worry as I knew that I apparently didn't talk until I was 3 (and ds had the added disadvantage of being male and I'd read that boys are often later speakers than girls). Ds is now 11 and I wish he would shut up speaks fluently and argues with us articulately.

He was surrounded by books, read to, watched Baby Einstein DVDs, had phonics posters etc etc from birth. He started school (just before his 5th birthday, in the younger half of the year) able to recognise the letter M and that was all. He still wasn't ready to read aged 5. He was ready age 6 (and 3/4) towards the end of P2. This was not a case of the school not teaching him properly.

He left the school this summer as one of the brightest in his class, with the teachers saying lots of complimentary things about him and all saying how ready he was for secondary and how well he would do there.

But even if he weren't bright (because everyone is not the same), the best thing they have done for him is to help ensure that he loves reading. He writes stories of his own accord at home. He reads in his free time. What more can you ask for? :)

Children with delayed speech and hearing difficulties such as glue ear often take longer to learn to read than their peers in my experience but get there in the end. I would always suggest parents rule out the simple physical obstacles to learning first. A small number of children have complex issues which mean that learning to read will be more difficult and require outside interventions from other professionals.

I would add that a number of posts from parents with a struggling child seem to indicate that schools are continuing to use mixed methods

A good teacher or SENco - such as mrz might have already mentioned to a parent about simple checks.
There were several (out of 60) children last year that the YR had the teacher suggest hearing tests and SALT referrals. Each one came back with difficulties.

It's impossible to comment on an individual case but I can only repeat that many schools have all children doing some basic reading by the end of reception. They achieve these results year in and year out with mixed intakes. The only variable between these schools and others is the teaching.
It needs more than anecdotes to explain why in some schools virtually all children are developmentally ready and in other schools many aren't.
Btw when my ds aged 2 was behind in his speech my health visitor told me to talk to him more not just to sit and wait. My point is that what is dangerous about assumptions about developmental readiness is the idea that progress will just happen as the years tick rather than looking into what the child's next steps are to make progress. Sure my ds would speak in the end, pretty much everyone does, but I made it easier for him to learn by following the tips from a speech therapist.
Reading research has identified what it is that a child needs to understand and know to be able to learn to read. Explicitly teaching these things will mean your child will make progress. Assuming it is just about age and maturity means you are making learning harder for your child as they will have to work out for themselves things that could have been made clear.

I should say that the difference between something that most children learn without teaching like speech and reading is that with reading it can be harmful for the child to spend time struggling and picking up bad habits that will hinder their ability to learn to read.
I would not want my dc sitting in classes till 6 and 3/4 while everyone around was reading and he was struggling. There may be all sorts of reasons why a child does not get reading till 6 3/4 but developmental readiness is not likely to be one of them. If you do not agree you need to explain why it does not stop some schools getting their reception children reading and in other schools it does.

It's tricky. We do start teaching reading very early in the UK. And how many times do you hear "well it only clicked for him/her in Year 1/Year 2" after a stressful couple of years for parents in the meantime. And for those who put this down to bad teaching, eg not phonic based, I wonder if this holds true, or how it would be if phonics were not taught until Y1 or even Y2. It would certainly take the pressure off, let young children be young children and take the stress off YR/Y1 teachers in this. I know the counter argument is that there is no pressure, they do it in their own time etc etc, but I think once you embark on a "we are doing phonics", "your child is learning to read", then parents have an expectation that their child will learn and should be learning, should be making x,y or z progress, when perhaps they would rather be doing something completely different age 4 or 5 and would take to it a lot better age 6 or 7. Which seems to be what happens anyway to a fair number of children. Is there any point in learning the first steps of reading over a year when you could learn all the steps over say 3-6 months when older?

I would not want my dc sitting in classes till 6 and 3/4 while everyone around was reading and he was struggling. There may be all sorts of reasons why a child does not get reading till 6 3/4 but developmental readiness is not likely to be one of them. If you do not agree you need to explain why it does not stop some schools getting their reception children reading and in other schools it does.

Do you have a link for this? I mean for the end of reception, rather than the end of Y1 or Y2.

"And for those who put this down to bad teaching, eg not phonic based" I think you misunderstand Tgger bad teaching can be phonics based ...

Oh dear....please don't teach them badly age 4....better not to teach at all....

Masha I agree that not all children learn at the same pace, some struggle more than others. At the end of reception all schools have real variation in the reading skills of their children. However, in some schools virtually all children will be able to do simple blending - at least.

I took ds to a dyslexia unit to be assessed as he was not progressing with reading and writing.
He was not dyslexic but had double vision so could not see clearly long enough to learn.
This was despite seeing various opticians every 6 months from age of 3!
He is now going into year 5 and is flying along.
Speak to his teacher when you return to school and explore all ways of looking at the problem, a solution will appear.
One other thing though, is he is still very young and they all achieve at different times.

I would hope no teacher sets out with the intention of teaching badly

Tiger I agree better to wait than teach badly. Children don't have to be taught to read at 4. Personally I don't mind it but what is really important is that when they are taught it is done well so they don't get a bad experience. However you assume thee will be fewer problems if you wait. they start a year later in America and have just the same issues. My friend in Australia says most parents in Melbourne delay till 6 as they are allowed to. However she says the same issues arise - just later. The 'prep' year is very relaxed 'because they are only six' and often children aren't really reading at the end of it. All schools she knows used 'mixed methods' so that's no surprise.

CecilyP You could look at the ofsted report on how the best schools teach reading.
My observations come from personal experience of both types of teaching in dcs schools, what successful teachers on this and other forums achieve, looking into results published by program's such as read write inc and sounds write, research I have read about what children can achieve. It is so normal for classes taught using systematic phonics to all be blending by the end of reception I have never thought of it as something to be proved. I will have a think if I can find one thing.
Btw I am talking about poor teaching METHODS not poor teachers as the problem. I am not implying that all teachers that fail to get children doing basic blending at the end of reception are weak teachers. they are using a weak method. As the majority of teachers use mixed methods to imply they are all weak teachers would not make sense. On Mumsnet I guess you tend to hear about cases that are a combination of weak teacher and weak method as that is when things go badly wrong.

The USA reports 40% literacy difficulties, the UK 15% and Australia similar levels

www.ofsted.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/surveys-and-good-practice/r/Reading%20by%20six.pdf

Traditionally with mixed methods letters and sounds were taught but not effective blending and segmenting. Lots of a is for apple, ant, aardvark, b is for bat, ball and baboon but not much reading through the word because the child was given a card or box of words they would find in the reading scheme to learn ...

It's not rocket science is it, "d-o-g", "dog". More training then mrz? Or higher pay for teachers and more rigorous entry requirements?

I'm not saying it is rocket science Tgger I'm saying some teachers aren't teaching "d-o-g" they are stopping at 'this letter is how we write "d" ... I spy with my little eye something beginning with "d" ... yes Darren, it is a dog. Well done!'

Oh dear. Surely it wouldn't take much to train those teachers not to do that and to do the "d-o-g"?

The school will only teach the basics - its actually up to you to do the hard graft and read with them everynight. Once I figured this out I stopped worrying and feeling angry about what (little) the school were doing and ensured I had the time.

For what its worth - my eldest did not really learn to read till he was 7 (hence my panic) but he is now about to go into year 6 and is Level 5b with reading, which is really good.

I made him read every night for 10 minutes and then slowly extended it to 20. He's not interested yet in reading for pleasure - some children aren't. But of course, reading is so important.

Reading (if there are no underlying issues) is all about practise practise practise - its just a code that needs cracking.