Reading in P1? Need perspective

[HauntingMyWay]

I'm quite nervous posting this incase I'm seen as thinking DD is a genius. I don't.

DD (4) started P1 in August. She learns the words in her word box easily and is confident with the sounds they have done so far.

We read together every night. For about a month we have been getting early readers from the library and we read one of these and then I read a 'chapter' book.
The early readers take 5-7 days and she can read them independently. Learning by sight and rote mostly I'd expect but in the past week she is sounding out words and making sensible attempts. Also we play word games and she can read so many of the words out of context.

Anyway... her school reading books as so simplistic in comparison with little scope for word games. She just reads it and wants to move on to something else.

So:
Are these books essential foundations to learning to read?

Is she in danger of losing interest in reading in school as they are too simple?

When should individual reading levels be assessed and catered to by the teacher?

Thank you so much if you read all that. She is my first and I want to do right by her. Not pushing but not ignoring her needs either.

Your DD won't be the only one in the class at this level I'm sure. I'm sure DD will zoom through the levels soon till she gets to the right level. At the same time the reading has to be balanced with ensuring she knows the more complex phonetic sounds (igh etc). The teacher should start to differentiate more soon hopefully.

My bookworm DS1 could read well when he started school and after one term they seemed to have his ability level sussed. He still did all the usual phonics and I was very happy about this. DS2 couldn't read letters when he started school in Sept but he seems very natural and is already reading the basic level quickly and blending effortlessly. The teacher has told me he is making good progress and so I know she is aware and will move him forward when she thinks it's appropriate.

"Eg (bad example as it is fairly phoenetic, but the first long word I saw when I looked up) uninhabitable. You could sound that out, but it would be far more important to know words like 'habit' and 'habitat' when reading it as part of a sentance."
yes uninhabitable is very easy to sound out but unless a child has previously heard the word or other words from the same root they are unlikely to know what it means even in context The house was uninhabitable.

There are loads of words that I knew the meaning of, and enjoyed reading books that included them, well before I could sound them out.

Fascinating.[hconfused]

How did you get to know what these words meant? Did you just look at them and the meaning popped into your head? How old were you?

Too many people don't read the classics or a broadsheet newspaper because they have been taught that long or complex words are dangerous and only to be attempted by the specially trained.

Well, well, well. That's a new one

OK lets try it:

Remember, you haven't been specially trained, but you're not one of those who thinks it's dangerous to attempt it, despite what you've been taught to believe, all you have to do is look at it and you'll know what it means.

charientism

and it means ...what?

I'll put it in context for you to make it a bit easier.

He was a master of the art of charientism.

My son was reading well before he went to school. We have always taken the approach that we read the school book once (one a week in YR and two a week in Y1) and on other days we read something that we've chosen from the library or his books at home because they are more tuned to his interests and at a level that stretches him. I use his reading diary to record what we've read together with the level if it has one. The teacher has moved him up several times in response to a series of comments in the diary that the books are too easy. He is reading far above the expected level for his age as it is, and the teacher has commented that we need to be careful that his comprehension keeps pace with his decoding ability, which I take on board. The school reading workshops have been useful for their approach to guided reading.
This is a partnership between you and the school, I don't think being confrontational about it is helpful (not saying you are, OP) but you are entitled to use your own judgement. You will have a better grasp of where your own child is than someone grappling with thirty kids. Did you say to the teacher from the start that DD can read? When is your first parent consultation evening?

"How did you get to know what these words meant? Did you just look at them and the meaning popped into your head? How old were you?"

Erm - a dictionary? That's what I did when I was a kid in that kid of situation. Knew all kinds of obscure words and absolutely no idea how to pronounce them.

Know exactly what you mean arkestra, I was the same as a child.

Of course now you can just google. "charientism: an insult veiled in grace" - that is actually rather beautiful.

Exactly. Dictionary, context (and you know full well that one sentence isn't context, fgs. Unless, that is, you only ever read Biff and Chip...), comparing to other words that you know, sometimes only fully understanding the meaning of a certain word later ( I studied books at uni that I had read a few times already, and found new aspects and meanings every time, and I still come across things that make me think "ooh, I hadn't considered how that word in that context could mean x, that brings a whole different slant to that poem or whatever")

Where did I say that all words had the meaning apparent without any context? I said that the meaning is usually in the word, and that knowing other words like it would help you decode the meaning. Obviously if you have never heard any of the roots then you won't be able to decode the meaning, so you use other strategies. Then you know next time you find a word like it.

Surely you must come across words you haven't read before and be able to work out what they mean? If you need to look up something out of your normal areas of knowledge what do you do?

How on earth would anybody read anything new if they have to know every single word first?

I was about 6 or 7, btw, (which I think isn't exactly child prodigy level, although maybe slightly earlier than some) when I was properly reading independently and so coming across new words. A child in 1990 isn't going to have heard all the words in Alice in Wonderland or Enid Blyton or whatever. That is part of the joy of reading. That is part of the POINT of reading.

Phonics is very useful, and is, to me, the best way to start reading, and a very good thing to carry on practising. Very quickly, though, reading becomes mostly about the joy of discovering it for yourself.

And yes, people are intimidated by classic literature and broadsheet newspapers. They say things like "I'm not clever enough" or "I'm not the right type of person" before they even try.

A dictionary is fine if you can read and understand the definition. Don't forget that we are talking about average Y1s here.

But what I am really intrigued by is this interesting idea that implies that phonics taught children are frightened of long and complex new words that can only be attempted by the specially trained.. It would be interesting to get some clarification from BrittaPerry..

Whoops, cross post.

And yes, people are intimidated by classic literature and broadsheet newspapers. They say things like "I'm not clever enough" or "I'm not the right type of person" before they even try.

Yes, and it mostly because they don't have a clue how to work out what the words 'say'. For most people that is enough to severely dent their confidence and make them steer well clear of any words/texts which are outside their comfort zone.

I'm afraid that saying 'I can do it so why can't everyone else?' (which is what you seem to be saying) isn't realistic.

maizieD: Personally I'd put people not even trying broadsheets / classics down to their cultural norms / expectations as much as the relative salience of phonics in their personal journey on learning to read. Seems to me like the phonics thing is a bit of a red herring there either way?

Ideally one would be able to don an evil scientist coat and do some Kasper Hauser type experiment to settle the matter definitively but I've always found it hard to get that kind of thing past an ethics committee.

Agree that phonics is an very effective structuring tool for many when learning to read - and even for those who can teach themselves to read on a pattern recognition basis with no phonics at all, it's still useful for spelling/writing.

No, I think we have gone on to separate arguments :-)

I'm just saying that i think phonics is great for starting off, but once a child can read well enough to be independent, then being exact on phonics isn't the main thing any more.

I'm sure other children learn differently - I'm not a teacher, so I have only read up on things that crop up around my own children. I have personally found, from my learning and from my own DD1, that the insistence that we have both come up against at school that being able to perfectly sound out every word is essential to being able to "read" - to me, reading is understanding and appreciating the text, not just being able to say it out loud. I would be happier, if it was a choice, for DD1 to understand the meaning of a word she couldn't pronounce than for her to be pronouncing words she couldn't understand.

DD1 is year one, and will have a good stab at reading pretty much everything. When we read through something together though, our focus is on understanding the text. If she says a word wrong when she is reading out loud (I still ask her to do that at least daily, just like I read to her) then I quickly correct her, but it isn't the focus. For example, today she was reading a picture book, and I asked her to read some aloud to me and DD2. She stumbled over the word "worrisome" so I read it to her, and at the end of that line asked her what she thought it meant. She said it sounded like, and had some of the same letters as, "worry" so maybe it was saying that the girl was worried about the thing. To me, realising that "worry" is in there is more important than the fact that she pronounced it wrong.

DD2 is 2, so she is still on her first few sounds in reading, but we can talk on a more basic level about what is happening in a story, and soon we will start encouraging her to pick out words and sounds in stories that we are reading to her.

Obviously they both do Jolly Phonics, Education City, Letterland and the rest (including the ORT and Usborne very first readers sets that we have), but we read lots of "grown up" poetry, sing songs, read the newspaper together and so on and our focus is much more on enjoying reading and working things out as we go, with a background of games etc to try to eliminate any blind spots.

But then I was just on Amazon looking for Latin resources so I can familiarise myself with them before starting DD1 next year. So I maybe have an unusual outlook [hgrin]

Personally I'd put people not even trying broadsheets / classics down to their cultural norms / expectations as much as the relative salience of phonics in their personal journey on learning to read. Seems to me like the phonics thing is a bit of a red herring there either way?

When you look at 19th century popular literature, newspapers and magazines it is very evident that 'cultural norms and expectations' have taken a nose dive over the intervening century as far as complexity of text is concerned. I have some very turgid novels given as Sunday School prizes to my Edwardian forebears (who were not of highly educated middle class origin) presumably in the expectation that these children would be perfectly capable of reading them.

During my 1960s Grammar school education we were expected to read, in their entirety, at least 3 classic novels every school year and a couple of Shakespeare plays. Today on TES I find an English teacher asking if it is realistic to expect her GCSE pupils to read the whole of a Dickens novel in 7 weeks or should they just 'do' the relevant chapters (i.e the ones the exam questions will cover). (I could read the thing in 7 days, and could have done at age 16)

While we could cite influences such as the prevalence of television and, more recently, of computer games as recreational activities which have replaced reading there is also the fact to consider that from the 1970s on the prevailing method of teaching reading has been whole word/look & say with a smattering of phonics. While it is hard to find data on reading standards over this period there was a notable case in the early 1990sof an EP who was sacked by his LA for looking at local reading data and pointing out, in print, that reading standards had declined as these methods took hold. I strongly suspect that 'cultural norms' have been driven down as much by people's sheer inability to read competently as by any other influences.

"And yes, people are intimidated by classic literature and broadsheet newspapers. They say things like "I'm not clever enough" or "I'm not the right type of person" before they even try."

How sad ... thankfully I've never met anyone who has said that

You say "Obviously they both do Jolly Phonics, Education City, Letterland and the rest (including the ORT and Usborne very first readers sets that we have)," but as a teacher it isn't at all obvious why they would be doing this ...sorry totally at a loss.

BrittaPerry Tue 30-Oct-12 09:30:13

We have just deregistered Dd- she is reading and understanding Alice in Wonderland at home. At school she was still on ORT 5 and bored.

Well I've met loads. Then again, I've met quite a few people with levels of literacy not much better (or sometimes worse) than the average 8 or 9 year old. Mostly through working with them - care wok doesn't really need much literacy, neither does bar work or waiting on. I woukd sa these people still need phonics, because they need basic decoding and encoding skills, but they also clearly have had their confidence severely knocked somewhere.

I always remember when one of my co workers brought her 10 year old into work and I sat watching her at the end of the shift while her mum did handover. I was reading a university book, and the child had never even heard of university.

I have met a smaller amount of people with professional qualifications (including a primary school teacher) who must be able to read such things, but they still say they aren't clever enough.

And my kids do phonics to help them gain basic literacy skills...

The teacher told me that dd1 was 'head and shoulders ahead' in literacy, and they were having trouble keeping up with her. Which is alarming - she is hardly reading war and peace.

Of course, people not reading the classics is not just straightforward reading problems, you also often need knowledge of the bible, history, greek myths etc, but if you are scared to try you will fall at the first hurdle.

The schools solution in reception, btw, was to get dd to read to the other children, to increase her social skills, because she tends to think she is a grown up. Which of course getting her to act like a teacher was going to help...

She does much better socially when she plays in the street or at social groups, and much better academically at home. The school was very well meaning, but just didn't suit dd. (as our schools didn't suit me or dh, and none of us are literary geniuses).

we have had the same issue as MrsZ with DS1.
he has been able to read without learning phonics.
however, now aged 8 he is having interventions at school to help him as he can't spell and this is totally affecting his writing and general ability to get his point across through the written word.

I don't think there is anything to worry about but rather than getting her to learn the book of by heart I would totally suggest changing the book or if you don't want to do that flick through the book and don't read it in order. Point out different words without the sentence to see if she can read it.

Britta, that's scary! And if she was head and shoulders above why was was she still on ORT 5 (unless they can't borrow books from higher classes)? Why couldn't they just move her up to Roald Dahl even? Fun to read and better than ORT when she's past that stage. Mind, not that that means she couldn't still enjoy them; DS pinches the books DD brings home if they're ones that he missed when he was on ORT and he's Y4 now.

Agree with you about the background knowledge necessary for reading some things. I tried to read 'Little Women' when I was 8 or 9 and just wasn't able to get into it, even though I could read it easily, I just didn't have the background knowledge necessary. I went back to it a few years later when I had the background and really enjoyed it.

I think declining literacy standards are probably linked to the fact that for years many secondary schools only read extract from the texts they taught rather than complete books.

Trends in standards of literacy in the United Kingdom, 1948-1996

www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/000000650.htm

During my 1960s Grammar school education we were expected to read, in their entirety, at least 3 classic novels every school year and a couple of Shakespeare plays. Today on TES I find an English teacher asking if it is realistic to expect her GCSE pupils to read the whole of a Dickens novel in 7 weeks or should they just 'do' the relevant chapters (i.e the ones the exam questions will cover). (I could read the thing in 7 days, and could have done at age 16)

I am sure you could, maizie, but 7 weeks for GCSE English classes probably, realistically means 7 X 40 minute sessions, with other classes during the week dealing with other aspects necessary to get pass English GCSE. And I doubt if even you could read the whole thing in 280 minutes. The only way of to accomplish the task would be to set several chapters reading for homework each week, something pupils may not do if they have other homework where they have to produce something tangible to hand in.

I knew things have changed since I did my O levels we had 5 hours for English literacy and 5 hours for English language