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?

She has recently read a few simple books largely unaided, one Ladybird Three Little Pigs and one Heinenman simple chapter book, (something to do with a bear who abducts a girl.) These are beyond her normal range. She's read Cat in the Hat to me 1000 times and Green eggs and Ham and several other books. And so, although she can't remember the exact position of all the text in all the books she has a good idea of how to guess what it should be.

So now we've started reading simple chapter books that she's never seen before and she's doing it relatively well. She's making some repetitive mistakes but managing some difficult words that I wouldn't have expected.

It sounds like she will benefit from going over the basics at school then

Umm, my 3 year old can 'read' Cat in the Hat and plenty of other books ie recite the text he knows off by heart and turn the pages at approximately the right time. He's definitely NOT able to read. Reciting the same book over and over again is not reading -fun, developmentally appropriate, confidence building, cute yes, but not 'reading'.

Remembering text that you've previous seen isn't reading. Being able to decode and understand unfamiliar words is.

It now makes complete sense that she's starting with the basics of phonics (which of course includes writing and punctuation as well).

DS's party trick was the whole 'Little red train' series, entirely from memory...

I knew he couldn't read, but it would have convinced a casual observer, and certainly an observer who WANTED to think he was reading.

It did feed into him REALLY reading, because it was through that constant repetition that he worked out the phonic code for himself and became a self-taught pre-school reader. But it wasn't reading at that stage IYSWIM.

Yes, yellow, sort of. You're kind of right. Reciting isn't reading. Decoding isn't reading. Predicting isn't reading. Guessing isn't reading.

Reading is reading.

But to read, you've got to be able to read.

In what way isn't decoding reading?

It's not all of reading, of course, but it's definitely reading.

Where as reciting most definitely is not.

Decoding can be barking at text.

Are you serious, op?
Although she can't remember the exact position of all the text in all the books she has a good idea of how to guess where it should be
And you think she's reading?

Ha, ha, ha, Flogging. I can take just one bit of any of your sentences and ask the same thing.

Are you serious, Flogging? You think?

No, decoding is using phonic knowledge to segment and blend words in order to read text (or something like that, possibly not 100% accurate description).

I'm also stunned that you believe that having a good guess of where familiar text is in a well known book is reading.

You have to be able to decode words to extract meaning from text and phonics provides an effective means of decoding words.

But flogging's question is completely valid.

Do you really believe that guessing where familiar text is to be reading?

I agree that phonics is a fantastic method of decoding, (the best in fact.) I don't think it adds much to meaning, (well nothing at all, in fact.)

That wasn't the question, as you very well know.

Do you know, OP, I think you're the one forcing baby behaviour in your dd, by offering lolly bribes for her reciting familiar text so that you can convince yourself that she's 'reading'.

This thread is actually quite upsetting. I feel really sorry for your daughter.

Yes, I do think guessing is important in reading. Phonics incorporates guessing as the word achaeans attestifies.

Very amusing thread.

My DS started reception without being able to read or write. He had other issues which needed my attention at that point and being able to read at 4 was not important to me - I was happy to wait until he started school.

Reception class were all sent home with ORT 1 for first half term and their reading was assessed around half term and bands were adjusted then. I understand that ORT 1 (which I hated) was used to get the whole class used to taking a book home and to encourage the parents to read with their child (there are a significant minority who appear to do very little reading at home).

All the class did the phonic basic alphabet - reading and writing regardless of how well their parents thought they could read or write and in fact it transpired that quite a few children didn't know the basics as well as their parents thought they did. I don't know a single child that was bored by it.

DS is now in yr2 - he is free reading chapter books but not to a particularly advanced level (ie he's not reading Harry Potter, more Horrid Henry!) - some of the children who arrived supposedly reading fluently are still ahead of him, some are behind him after 2 years, some of those who couldn't read at the beginning of reception are still struggling and some are up with DS (and ahead). From my enormous sample size of 30 I cannot tell from the level they are reading at now whether they learnt to read at 3, 4 or 5.

You say you don't care about the other children but the teacher does. And it just may not be possible in the first half term to be differentiating much.

Out of sheer curiousity, are you like this in real life? You sound exhausting!

I can't believe I bothered to type all that.

If that's your analysis of phonics, then I would strongly suggest you leave it to the school and just focus on enjoying books with your daughter at home.

Do the nightly reading etc but from what you've said, it seems very obvious that school know much more about teaching reading than you, and I would let them do the split diagraphs and the like.

OK, people. If you feel that upset about the lollies, give your reasoned arguments.

I can imagine how

please read 'absolutely,' correctly, without any mistakes, and you'll get a lolly, looks.

Actually, I haven't tried that one.

Eh? No idea what you mean.

My reason for never having even thought about 'bribing' my children to read is that if we enjoy it. My dd does her school reading every night without any sort of fuss and if she wants to read more, great, and if she wants me to read to her, then I'm very happy to do that.

I'm not upset about lollies, I love lollies but they'll rot her teeth and what will you move her onto when her teeth fall out lollies aren't enough?

You aren't a dog trainer by profession are you? I originally thought academic of some sort but I'm veering more towards dog trainer I think.

balloon for you yellow. Yippee.

DS would probably be thrilled if I let him have a lolly every time he read to me. Not sure it would motivate him more than the first time he realised he could read instructions on toys/lego though.

Um, yes and no, Kew. I write stuff. (Hate to admit it in a context like this!) But words kind of mean a lot to me.

So it sounds like your dd doesn't actually enjoy reading then?