Forced baby behaviour?

[learnandsay]

Are simplistic phonics books good, bad or neutral? If a Reception child can already read Ladybird stories such as Three Little Pigs, Where the Wild Things Are, Dr Seuss, etc, etc, etc but they're bringing home apparently the whole ORT 1+ range comprising of nothing but CVC words which present no challenge and no learning opportunity either, is reading them:

(1) a waste of time, reading time is precious, doesn't it make more sense to spend it on reading words which present a learning opportunity?

(2) potentially leading towards reading becoming uninteresting

(3) promoting ignorance - if the child can read the names of countries already the child could be reading sentences like: The Nile is the longest river in the world, instead of sentences like Dot got a pot and Bot got Dot's pot. Pat pat pat, tap tap tap.

In summary, would the time be better spent reading something useful?

What "stuff" do you write? (Apart from excessive commentary in your dd's reading record)

So where did you go and get an idea like that from, Yellow?

Words mean a lot to me too! Do you think no-one else has the reverence that you do?

I was so sure you were a dog trainer - you don't write about dog training methods do you? I would feel slightly vindicated if so.

I think yellow probably inferred it from the need to give her a lolly to get her to read. Its not an unreasonable assumption.

I know this has moved on a bit but we get a library book and a readjng book each week. we were told we didn't have to record comments in the book but DD likes to give reviews of her story books, so that's what I write down 'it was really funny and it made me laugh - 150 stars'.

Maybe your DD could review her readjng books? Then you and the teacher would both know if she's getting bored with them.

Because if you have to bribe her with lollies to read, she is clearly not doing it just for the enjoyment of it, is she?? And don't forget, she is FOUR, a baby.

I have no problem at all with teaching 4yos to read if they are ready and it develops in a fun, natutal way. This just smacks of hothousing.

Going up a point or two, and trying to be precise here: decoding is necessary but not sufficient for reading.

A child who is not decoding words is not reading.

I have not encountered in RL a parent who claims that their child is reading when they cannot decode.

I have encountered some who think decoding is ALL of reading, and that was why I posted as I did upthread.

So 'true reading' is 'decoding plus more' - but without decoding, a person is not reading. Treat what your child is currently doing as a cute party trick and no more, as I did with DS. Read a lot of fabulous books with her and to her, and stay with the school programme, because they obviously have the right ideas about phonics and phonic readers.

Because nothing in your posts conveys that either you or your dd get anything out of reading, aside from you believing that you're teaching her to read and creating a completely unnecessary confrontation with her school.

A child who loves to read will eat books, not lollies. Put the lollies away and read to her for fun.

Wanders away, muttering darkly....

As kew said there are children who cannot read as well as their parents think (not necessarily saying it is like this in this case though).

DS started reception being unable to read anything (even his name) and really struggled with reading despite me reading to and with him daily, until Easter time and then it just clicked.

He is in yr3 now and one of the best readers in his class....

As I have already said DD could read some words before nursery. Her teacher in reception has assessed her and said her phonic knowledge is very good and she is in an advanced phonics group with one other boy (out of 80 kids in the class) but this is not really anything I have taught her she just picks it up herself or I might have told her a sound once and she remembers it...

I would trust the teacher a bit tbh as you don't want there to be gaps in her phonics knowledge but encourage a love of reading at home.....

How widely does your DD read? It seems to be mainly Dr Seuss and Michael Rosen. What else does she read?

No, Kew. I know nothing about dogs. I used to know a lot about sheep many years ago. But nothing about dogs. Maybe I should teach my daughter to write about sheep. But when I was young I drew a ram with a penis mounting a ewe. I've still got the book. And I remember the teachers giggling over it in the hallway where we had the pupil's display.

Nope - not seeing a lot of sheep training in your approach. Never mind - I am wrong sometimes

Hmmm, (defer to Kew on sheep, maybe she knows more than me. Kew, what do you know about sheep?)

But seriously, folks, my daughter really loves reading books she's really familiar with, and has read 1000 times. Do I think that's good? (not really.) Would I like her to read something else? Of course. Would I force her to?

No, of course not. I would rather that she read me Dr Seuss 10,0000 times than read me something against her will.

But, like all children, she can pull out the stops in search of personal gain.

gah! I don't really much care whether your DD can really read or not, or how much you do or don't hothouse her, or whether her teachers are or aren't recognising her skills. But for the love of God, stop with the lollies as rewards for reading! That just makes me want to weep. She's not a performing seal!

The thing is that if my DD has read a book more than 3 times she will know it off by heart and then not really be reading it properly iyswim....

I do tend to encourage her to try different books by going to the library etc but of course if she is insistent on reading a book she knows very well then I would let her....

OK, sorry, ibelulle. The thing about the lollies in our house is that they're always a bone of contention. Personally I'm against them. But they do appear in bags.

But I've found out how to make the lollies work to my advantage!

How about trying something different, then, where - for instance - she reads 2 stories totally of her own choice and 1 of your choice each evening? No lollies, just that that's how it is. I do think it'd help to shift away from the lollies. How about doing stickers and then when she reads (with you) 5 new books over a period of time, she gets to buy a book of her own choice?

I'll say again - kids love repetition. This is not a bad thing, it's just a thing. So make that work to your advantage. You clearly care a lot about your daughter and want the best for her but I do think some of what you are doing is counter-productive.

Can I be the first to wonder whether you mention lollies in your dd's reading record?

This has got to be some elaborate wind up? Op I know I was very flippant in my previous post, but honestly my dd is really shit hot at reading, she basically taught herself from about the age of 2, she was very interested in letters etc, we had the bath foam letters and the fridge phonics, but never actually taught her to read.

By reception she was basically a free reader, her Yr1 teacher noted that she could read anything and understand it. When visiting my sister (aged 5) she was amazed and kept testing her with random words like "pharmacy"

Is she a genius now in y4, erm no. She is very clever, she has an amazing memory, but is very lazy tbh, she loves science, is convinced she is crap at maths although she is fine at it.

So you see, early reading ability does not automatically = academic success I'm sure dd is actually clever enough to do anything she puts her mind to, but it will be her drive and personality which determines what she will end up doing.

Baby behaviour is saying 'do do do do do' and ripping the flaps off the Moomin picture book.

The argument about decoding words is an interesting one. But it depends on what one means by decoding. Previously in this thread I have explained that my daughter is working out words like 'tomorrow,' 'decided;, and 'probably.'
And what I have said is she does it like this...

she reads 'precise' - 'ly'

says presisley, presis-ly

thinks for a minute and then suddenly says

"precisely"

ie she iterates through the words that she knows until she finds a word that fits with the word that she's looking at. I think there is a certain degree of error (and arrogance) in the phonics view in that their way of figuring out what a word says is the only way of doing it. Of course it isn't. The world is full of people who can read perfectly well and don't use phonic methods, or don't know phonic methods. However, with that said they are useful and I don't mind helping my daughter to sound out words if it helps her. But children, or some children, obviously have a desire to figure out what a word says. That is also reading.

There are lots of different methods of reading. That's the point.

The conversation has moved on from this, but yes OP, there is a lot of research on following children longitudinally to see how they progress. In short, the rankings remain similar (ie if you are the best reader at reception you are likely to still be in the top 3 at age 8). However the gaps change, so 3 years ahead tends to get a smaller gap over time.

You might enjoy 'learning to read from an early age' by Rhona Stainthorp and diane hughes. It's about precocious readers followed longitudinally.

Thanks Jelly. I'll seek it out. If anybody else knows of any studies please let me know.

So I did a quick trawl of the literature for you. This study found that children who read early had less lifelong educational achievement and worse midlife adjustment. This study and this study both found that whilst early reading did give some indication of lifelong academic achievement the single biggest predictor was early Maths.
However, there is an excellent serise of articles in the Telegraph recently the last of which is published today these review the work of Philip Adey Professor of Education at King's College and voice the feeling that Slow parenting actually is the most successful route to long success of all times and that above all we should encourage our children to be imaginative, disciplined, dynamic children with a lust for learning and life. In fact the whole serise of articles make a very interesting read.