Skip to main content
Skip to main navigation
Skip to talk navigation

Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Saved Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Flip

Join our Primary Education forum to discuss starting school and helping your child get the most out of it.

1 2 3 4 5 6 ··· 16 17

Join our Primary Education forum to discuss starting school and helping your child get the most out of it.

Primary education

Phonics versus Biff, Chip and Kipper

405 replies

Lukethe3 · 31/01/2013 14:09

I find it slightly irritating that at DS school he is taught phonics but then sent home to read the old ORT stuff which has tricky words at even the easiest level. Is this purely because the school has no money to buy new books or is there actually an advantage to be taught like this?
I have bought some Songbirds books for DS and these seem to make far more sense to me as they include the sounds that DS is learning.

OP posts:

Report

learnandsay · 01/02/2013 14:22

Who said anything about reciting?

yellowsubmarine53 · 01/02/2013 14:25

Just noticed the OP .

My dd started off with some ORT books in reception which she found incredibly frustrating. She got some Songbird phonics ones and I got more of these and other 100% decodable ones from the library ('Traditional Tales' ones were good) until she was confidently reading.

I agree that it's irritating and unhelpful for lots of children.

I don't think there's any advantage in children being given books that they can't read independently, nor do I think it's a particular strategy. More like the school isn't following best practice in teaching children to read.

simpson · 01/02/2013 14:37

If my child was on yellow level and could read at a higher level then I would be pushing the school to provide harder books (as well as providing them at home).

How are they (the teacher) supposed to assess the reading at the correct level if they are not on it??

learnandsay · 01/02/2013 14:39

I'd imagine that if a child receives a book that she can't read then she can learn to read it. The disadvantage with phonics is that ideally a person is supposed to be knowledgeable about phonics in order to teach a child to read using phonics. So it puts some parents off teaching their children which I think is a terribly bad thing. Children don't need to read all books independently. In fact if they only read books they can read independently I'm sure they learn at a slower rate if they're not taught lots of phonics quickly. And if they only read books that they have to struggle with I'm sure they'll learn to hate reading. I'm sure it's a balance and some of the balance will involve reading books which are at least slightly challenging. If they're not challenged at all they won't progress. I think our school teaches phonics slowly. I think the teacher said something about the children learning more vowel digraphs in Y1. If they're still doing basic techniques in year one then the teacher wouldn't be expecting them to be reading non decodable books by then. I'm pretty sure they haven't covered any digraphs at all yet.

learnandsay · 01/02/2013 14:42

I'd rather just have the non decodable books and have done with it, simpson. If they put her back on decodable books at this level or a level similar to it then I'll get them to change the strategy. But so long as they continue to find me the books I'm getting then I'm happy.

simpson · 01/02/2013 15:44

If a child receives a book that she can't read, then I would say it was too hard for that child.

learnandsay · 01/02/2013 16:00

I don't know what's going on with schools teaching phonics and sending home look and say books. But I'm guessing the teachers have some expectation that the children can read them, surely. I mean if they didn't it would be a bit like teaching them English and then sending home books in Chinese.

learnandsay · 01/02/2013 16:04

Wouldn't it be even more silly than that because the teachers actually read the books with the children. So it would be more like teaching them to read English and then sitting beside them staring at a Chinese book and wondering why they can't read it. What do such teachers write in the reading diary? Another book your child couldn't make head nor tail of.

Lukethe3 · 01/02/2013 16:11

yellow OP here, thanks for answering my question The thread seems to have taken a different direction! All interesting though. I just love helping DS learn to read. It's teaching me something I've never had- patience.

OP posts:

Annanon · 01/02/2013 16:12

For me, it feels like teaching them English, then sending home English books with a few random Chinese words to memorise as sight words.

learnandsay · 01/02/2013 16:14

So, OP, what is it like to get a look and say book if your son doesn't have enough phonics knowledge to read it? Do you both manage in the end?

mrz · 01/02/2013 16:37

It's possible that there were no sight words in them. there aren't any sight words in any books just words!

learnandsay · 01/02/2013 16:39

Why would you say a thing like that after explaining that you'd teach one and who as sight words?

mrz · 01/02/2013 16:50

Because the whole concept that a book contains decodable or sight words is totally unnatural ...books contain words.

What I actually said learnandsay was

maverick I would argue that here and of don't need to be memorised

(one, two, who and eye would be my list)

mrz Thu 24-Jan-13 18:03:28

phew!

(I teach them as decodable)

as it is I did teach who as decodable (but tricky) last week so perhaps I need to reconsider my list

learnandsay · 01/02/2013 16:52

OK, you cut the words one, two, who and eye out of all your books then. And then your books won't contain any sight words.

mrz · 01/02/2013 17:11

As I just said I taught who as decodable last week (we were looking at words containing alternative spellings for "oo" and who was suggested) so I need to revise my list ...one and two come under early maths teaching and have probably been learnt before the child encounters them in a reading book so I need to think about eye as it isn't a word that crops up much in early books.

learnandsay · 01/02/2013 17:19

OK, you can leave the word who in and just cut the others out then.

mrz · 01/02/2013 17:43

Leave them in I don't teach them as sight words learnandsay

learnandsay · 01/02/2013 17:47

Just because a child may have seen the words one and two in nursery it doesn't mean she knows how to read it. The child has doubtless seen first aid kit and emergency exit too but won't be able to read those either.

mrz · 01/02/2013 17:51

I'm not sure why you think I'm suggesting that would be the situation learnandsay

learnandsay · 01/02/2013 17:52

probably been learnt before the child encounters them in a reading book

Are you saying that children who don't know how to read can probably read the words one and two?

mrz · 01/02/2013 18:02

No learnandsay I am saying they will probably know the words one and two before they encounter them in a reading book

Don’t want to miss threads like this?

Weekly

Sign up to our weekly round up and get all the best threads sent straight to your inbox!

Email address

Log in to update your newsletter preferences.

You've subscribed!

learnandsay · 01/02/2013 18:04

What does "know" mean? Does it mean be able to read the words one and two?

mrz · 01/02/2013 18:08

Yes learnandsay it means they can look at the words and know what they are.

learnandsay · 01/02/2013 18:14

And how did they learn to read the word?

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 ··· 16 17

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.