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???????

I'm sure they already know how to do the "d-o-g" Tgger
but it's much easier to send a word box home and get a parent to teach it by sight /shape/looking at the picture /guessing from context because "children need lots of strategies"

Oh dear. Think I'll bow out now, as I'm not really adding anything. Just feel rather lucky that DS's school teach the letter sounds and blending very well.

I know schools that teach as mrz describes. I think from mumsnet that it can be a bit better as schools have regular discreet phonics sessions but it is still normal for children to then be encouraged to use other methods instead when actually practising reading with reading books which rather neutralises the impact and children are discouraged from using sounding out as their first or primary strategy. Often they are given reading books and expected to read when they can't blend at all and it is not the focus of teaching.
Some schools seem to teach reading through whole word recognition and then tag on some phonics sessions as if they are unconnected with the process. When a child is expected to read but they are not really strong in letter recognition and cant blend you end up with the sort of scenario described by the OP.
When you read descriptions on teacher forums it also often sounds like the phonics session are not very systematic. It is about practice and the systems in place often don't sound like they give each child much individual practice.

My DC school does that - teaches the letter sounds but not how to apply then it encourages guessing and picture looking. Some DC are fine with that unfortunately not mine.

We expressed concerns about eldest using her excellent memory but not blending we kept being told it was fine until her year two teacher. When we asked how they were going to DS progress from recognizing letter sounds to blending - they said they would do more letter recognition practice and would during other activities say short words slowly to him so he could hear the sounds - there would be no written text near him when they did this.

daytoday
What u say above is spot on, except for its just a code that needs cracking.

In languages in which it is just a matter of cracking the code, i.e. in all alphabetically written, phonically regular languages, this is the case. Learning consists of merely learning the sounds which their graphemes make and blending them into words and simply getting faster and faster.

Learning to read English is much more difficult and takes longer
a) because English uses 205 graphemes instead of the European average of merely 50
and especially
b) because 69 English graphemes have more than one sound
e.g.
a: and ? apron, any, father
a-e: came ? camel
ai: wait ? said, plait

That's why phonics in the normal sense of that word, of sounding out letters and blending them into words is of more limited use in English. All proficient, fluent readers read by recognising all common words by sight, instantly, without decoding. That is the final goal of learning to read.

Because of the nature of English spelling, whole word reading has to kick in a little earlier and to become a fluent reader takes longer. My oldest granddaughter who is nearly 9 and is one of the top readers in her class, always has a book on the go and reads for at least half an hour every night before going to sleep, gave me a good demonstration of what makes learning to read slower, when she tried to read the short news items in the i with me a few days ago.

She read nearly all words beautifully, but stumbled over 'levy' and 'marine' which she clearly did not yet know. She pronounced 'levy' as 'leevy' (presumably by analogy with 'lever') and made 'marine' rhyme with 'define'. I of course corrected her and also explained what the words meant.

In English, this kind of reading help at home makes an enormous difference to children's progress. Children who have to make do without it, who for whatever reason have to learn to read entirely only with the help they get at school and their own efforts, are hugely disadvantaged.

Parental help makes a huge difference to the ease with which children cope with the spellings which have more than one sound, such as 'and any, on only, tough cough' and which prevent learning to read being merely a matter of getting better and faster at sounding out and blending.

Masha perhaps you cann dare I say it, list the 205 graphemes because that's 30 more than I know.

That's why phonics in the normal sense of that word, of sounding out letters and blending them into words is of more limited use in English.

Masha perhaps if you actually knew the graphemes in words you would find it easier
eg your example of camel the graphemes are

not    

no wonder you find it very difficult

Just for the record, I want to make it clear that ds was not left "sitting in classes till 6 and 3/4 while everyone around was reading and he was struggling"

He was given 6 weeks intensive 1:1 tuition by the depute head (who has responsibility for infants) at the beginning of P2 (Y1) before we (mutually) agreed to move him down to the middle language group (so as not to damage his confidence), where the kids were "reading" more on a par with him. It still took him to the end of P2 (actually, he would have been 6.5, not 6 and 3/4 now that I think about it) to "click" about how easy reading should be.

The HMI report on the school was excellent, with particular emphasis on how good it was on English language attainment. One relevant quote: ^"The school?s arrangements for supporting pupils? learning were very good. Several aspects
of these arrangements were outstanding. Teachers planned lessons carefully taking full account of the range of ability in classes, as well as the linguistic, cultural and religious diversity of all pupils"^ This is a school with a high proportion of pupils getting free school meals and 2/3 speak English as an additional language.

Masha perhaps you cann dare I say it, list the 205 graphemes

Here they are Mrz:
a, -able, a-e, aer, -agne, ah, ai, aigh, air, -aire, al, all, -an, -ance, -ant, -aoh, ar, are, -ary, -at, -ate, au, augh, aw, -ay,

b, -bt,

ca/o/ut, cc, ce/ci, -ce, ch, -che, -cial, -cian, -cion, -cious, -ck, -cqu-, -cy,

d, de-, -dge, di-,

e, -e, ea, ear, eau, -ed, ee, e-e, ei, eig, eigh, eir, -el, -ell, -en, -ence, -ent, eo, -eon, er, -er, ere, -ery, -et, eu, ew, -ey, eye,

f, -ff, ga/go/gu, -ge, ge/gi, gh, -gh, gn, gu, -gue, h, i, -i, -ible, -ic, ie, i-e, -ie, -iew, igh, -ign, -il, -imb, in-, -ind, ir, is, -is, -ite,

j, k, kn, l, -le, m, mn, n, -ne, ng,

o, -o, oa, oar, o-e, oe, -oe, oeu, -oh, oi, ol, -ol, -omb, -on, oo, -oo, -oor, or, -or, -ore, -ory, -ot, ou, -ough, -ought, oul, our, -our, ow, oy,

p, ph, pt, qu, qua, quar, -que, quo, quor, r, -re, rh, -ry, s, sc, -sc, -scious, -se, sh, -shion, -sion, -ssion, -sure, -sy,

t, -tch, th, -tial, -tion, -tious, -ture, tw,

u, -u, ue, u-e, -ue, ui, -uoy, ur, -ure, -ury, -uy,

v, -ve, w, wa, war, wh, wo, wor, wr,

x, xc, xh, y-, -y, --y, y-e, -ye, z, -ze, -zure

• consonant doubling rule after short vowels (and some extra rules for /k/ sound

Do u not count the split digraphs a-e, e-e, i-e, o-e, u-e (as in save, lever, dine, bone, tune) which are used in hundreds of words as graphemes?

How is the child to know that a-e works in came but not in camel?

oh dear no wonder you have problems masha

Yes I count split vowel spellings but NOT

agne,
ah,
, all,
-an,
-ance,
-ant,
-aoh,
ary,
-at, -ate,
bt,
ca/
ut,
cial,
-cian,
-cion,
-cious, -
de-, -
, di-,
eig,

-en, -
ence, -
ent, eo, -
eon,
-ery,
-et,
eye,
ga
/go
/gu, -
/gi,
, gu, -
gue,
ible,
-ic,
-iew,
-ign,
-imb,
in-,
-ind,
is,
-ite,
-oh,
-omb,
-on, o

ory,
-ot,
ought,
pt,
qua,
quar, -
quo,
quor, r
-ry,
-scious, -
shion, -
sion, -
ssion, -
sure,
-sy,
tial, -
tion,
-tious, -
ture,
tw,
uoy,
ury,
-uy,
wa,
war,
, wo,
wor,
xc,
xh,
zure

Pretty bird first I really am not trying to comment on your individual experience as I can't know what you do about your sons experiences. However in response to your post, that's my point. If a child is not going to learn till developmentally ready what is the point of special intervention? Just keep doing the same thing until they are ready to learn it... You ds school clearly thought that it was worth doing something and not just waiting for maturity.
The problem with teaching using mixed methods is that it is a bit like slinging mud at a wall. You keep going till finally it sticks, the magic moment of developmental readiness. In fact duringthose years of waiting the child is actually gradually acquiring the knowledge they need to read, e.g. Phonological awareness and familiarity with letter. At the point when this understanding is in place it all appears to magically 'click'. Mixed methods teaching largely leaves the child to infer these reading skills and it can take some children a while. Often they start in reception pretty unfamiliar with letters, with poor phonological awareness and find trying to learn whole words too much for their memory. That is why the USA and Australia have the same problems though beginning a year or two years later.
If taught using systematic phonics there is explicit instruction in what a child needs to know to be able to read. First they are taught letters and the teacher ensures they are really automatic in their recognition of them. Thenchildren are taught to blend and not distracted with other methods so they are more likely to 'get' blending as that is what all practice is focused. By this stage they are now much more familiar with letters and have been directly taught phonological awareness(the two main ingredients to be able to read) and the loading on memory to access whole words is much less. On top of this they have been taught to decode words explicitly rather than having to infer the phonic rules to decode unfamiliar words. An analogy is that learning reading is like a child climbing steps. Mixed methods means the first step a child has to climb is very steep - that very big demand of memory for example. With systematic phonics instruction lots of little manageable steps get you to the same level. The other problem with mixed methods is that if the child can't access words but is continually presented with them they can sometimes pick up some pretty bad habits like compulsive guessing that are really detrimental to their progress long term.

I am not trying to dispute your experience pretty bird. However, I am trying to point out that it is not good advice to parents concerned by their dcs lack of progress in reading to tell them not to worry because their child is probably not developmentally ready. In my post above and others I have tried to explain why.

Hi there. I have taught young children to read for the past twenty years. From what you have said there certainly is no need to panic or get angry with the school. He sounds like he is at the early stages of reading and is beginning to put together many of the skills he has learned from home and school in order to read. from what you ve said he is building up a sight vocabulary and using his powers of recall to 'read' familiar texts. All very promising. Many boys take longer to learn to read. What is vital is to keep encouraging a love of books and reading. Read everything you can together.Road signs while you re driving, map books, comics, anything!!! it s great that he has such a caring and conscientious Mum. This time next year he ll be flying I'm sure. Good luck

Ooh I forgot to say...Speak to the school! Make an appointment rather than trying to catch them at the end of the day and really voice your concerns. I'm sure they will be able to give you lots of advice and insight in how they are helping your son to read.

Why is it good, or, indeed, better that a 5 year old can read - my 8 year old is getting to grips with reading only now - not in the UK so education system a bit different, but still - doesn't he have lots of time in school ahead of him, or will he only have this year to 'get' it?

Mrz
^Yes I count split vowel spellings but NOT

agne,
ah,
, all^....

Perhaps because u are looking at them from the KS1 learning to read perspective only and not the problem of alternative spellings?

E.g. abstain, refrain - campaign, champagne

car - are, ah

crawl - fall, fault ...

U did not answer my question re ,
How is the child to know that a-e works in came but not in camel?

Half cups you make it all sound like a pleasant journey. You are describing a method which advocates asking children to keep doing something they can't do. Presenting a child with a book and saying 'read' when they can't. Some kids might not mind but after one or two years of this many do. For example one little girl whose mum talked to me about her problems had got to the stage early in year one where she would try and avoid her reading book at all costs and when she had to read to the teacher would whisper in a tiny voice. When she was given a phonic approach she was so excited - bless her- at being able to do the task asked of her. She then did learn to read - quickly- the small steps of the course were all attainable. If mixed methods was the only approach we had this cruelty would be unavoidable - but we have a much better method that avoids all that distress. That's aside from the children mixed methods actually harms, that acquire habits that stop them learning well when it finally does 'click'....
TotallyP whatever age a child is they still need to have the basic skills in place to
learn to read effectively. I have no idea how long children have before they are required to read to access the curriculum in the system he is in - I don't understand the question.

No masha I am not looking at it from a KS1 perspective I'm looking at it from the definition of grapheme

www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/grapheme
Graphene -a written letter, group of letters, number, or symbol that represents a single sound in speech

How is the child to know that a-e works in came but not in camel?

If a child has been taught from the very beginning to blend through the word (trying the most common sound -spelling version first) then they would naturally say
c-a-m-l

However if they have been taught to recognise whole words by sight they might easily say came -l

totallypearshaped it doesn't matter when a child learns to read, as long as they learn ...but if your child is 8, 9 or 15 and they can't read and they were in a class where every other child could read at age 4, your child is at a disadvantage. The other children will be able to find answers in information books independently, they will be able to read maths problems independently, they will be able to enjoy books, novels, magazines they read themselves independently ...

Mrz I think youcontradict yourself in your last but one post.In the whole word approach, phonics knowledge is built up (largely subconciously) through repeated exposure to lots of words .The brain formulates its own links between spellings and sounds and on the basis of this experience, applying the most likely 'rule' to the unfamiliar word.
Phonics teaching is a more 'bottom up', less experience based approach

Then I think you have misunderstood my post sancerreity

Mrz
^How is the child to know that a-e works in came but not in camel?

If a child has been taught from the very beginning to blend through the word (trying the most common sound -spelling version first) then they would naturally say
c-a-m-l
^
In the very basic phonics stage yes, but not after they have also learned about the vowel-lenthening role of , as in
came, dame, same, plane.... like, bike, strike ...etc.

And acc. to your definition, the 205 graphemes I listed are all graphemes. I have shown some of them in syllables because in English their usage often depends on preceding or following letters (kick, comic, speak). This increases the number of spelling patterns children have to learn.

OP, I was like you.

DD went to a different school for reception/Y1 than her brothers. I decided the school must just be really crap if they hadn't taught her to read (At the back of my mind I new it wasn't because some children were reading/writing really well)

Although I know how to teach a child to read, the mud was just not sticking with DD, as they say. She's needing a lot of intervention, at school and at home (although at home she is currently refusing, saying "you play your exciting game by yourself, mummy, I'm going to play outside").

Some posters have been really harsh on the OP. The OP has every right to feel angry and scared because her DS can't read, but needs to find out why he can't read. If other children in the class can, then it probably isn't the schools fault.