School sending reading books with words that DS can't decode yet - is this OK?

[choceyes]

DS is in Reception year. He keeps getting books that have words that are too hard for him to decode, using decoding methods (which even I don't know much about) that he hasn't learnt yet.
For example last weeks book had the words "headache", "guitar" among a couple of others I can't remember. He could decode the simple CVC words.
Is this totally normal?
I have other reading books from different phonis systems that are at a very basic level and they only have words that can be decoded at that level, like the Songbirds books.

It is a bit confusing as to whether he's expect to decode these words or not. I guess I will have to ask the teacher, but I thought I'd get some advice on here first. I wrote in the reading book comments section today that there were lots of words he couldn't decode as he hasn't learnt how to put he did read the simple words.

Thanks

But ime the parents and children did not read the copied texts beause "they're not books" which simpy meant that no reading got done. It still has to be a partnership.

And whilst the children may be working on specific sounds in the classroom together they were still need different levels of the text too as we have children on such a wide range of abilities, from non readers to lime+
We just don't have the time resources to be sorting this out for every child, every day.

We do have printed texts to accompany the phonics scheme which we do use in class, but they are just that - texts, no books or stories.

I am sure in some schools it may well work, and given time it may well work here. But as our results are good in this area, then it doesn't make sense to change things too much when by the time it would all be sorted we'd have already raised the money to invest in the new books anyway. Its already in our plans for when these will be done and we do try and encourage any additional funding to be pupshed that way too - it just isn't always possible.

Instead we ensure our daily phonics and our weekly guided reading sessions are as good as possible, and for those needing extra that the 1:1 reads are good too; and then we will supplement with new books as and when they come in.

Its not being anti-change - it is just we do understand our own catchment children and parents and we work to a prtnership that works well between us.

So sending home books that the child can't possibly read is preferable?

I am surprised to hear children get upset about it though, mine don't seem bothered. I simply say 'you haven't been taught those sounds yet' sound it out for them and move on. they certainly don't get upset about it but then equally neither do I so perhaps they just accept it.

Lots of children want to be able to read without help so it does upset them when mummy/teacher has to keep telling them words.

Don't forget that using the pictures to aid reading is also a major skill used in reading so if the text says "Dad had a guitar" with a picture of dad with a guitar, the child will be able to read the WHOLE sentence by a combination of blending and using the picture clues.
But they aren't reading the whole sentence are they? They might have read Dad, had and a, but they didn't read guitar, they looked at a picture to see what Dad had. IF they see the word guitar again without a picture they won't now be able to read it. So reading the entire sentence was a pointless exercise. If it had been "Dad had a pig" the child really would have read the sentence.

mrz - no. What is better, or rather what appears to work, for our school at the moment is sending home books that the children can read most of the words and have support with those they can't yet decode, than not read at all.

We also have never had any parent inform us of a child being upset of coming across words they cannt decode yet, nor do we have it in class.
We have children who get frustrated at not being able to decode - but that is even with known phonics - and it isn't the book/word that is the issue at play there, it is that they are finidng the actual process challenging. Obviously we have things in place to support the children - but for many it isn't a straight forward process.

And tbh there are often going to be words in books that children come across that they can't quite decode properly - thats because they are still learning how to do it and how to consider all the different ways we can say some combination ofletters. I would hope that children didn't get upset over them tbh - we try to make the learning process a gentle, enjoyable one - not a stressful upsetting one.

I think being given books where you can decode every word would be beyond dull tbh. Yes, in those very early days fine but for years?

I spent 10 minutes on Monday reading with a little boy in ds2's class (Y1), who reads at ORT 3. Book was about how the earth was formed and was more like a junior science book than a reading scheme book but he'd chosen it. He read the 'and/was/it/there type fill words and I supplied the technical vocab (though he could decode 'earth' and 'magma' and the like).

Was the book too difficult? In many ways, yes.

Should his reading books be at this level? No.

Did it engender his love of books and reading? Yes, absolutely.

It's not just being unable to decode that puts young readers off, its also the banality of much of what they are expected to read (Ginn 360, anyone?).

Hulababy and BarbarianMum thank goodness parents with common sense!

How are you going to help your child read was you are - when there won't be any pictures to help with those words.

I think some children need the challenge of being able to read something a bit more challenging than books that are 100% decodable and as teachers we perhaps understand that.

Just let us do our job, please!

I think being given books where you can decode every word would be beyond dull tbh. Yes, in those very early days fine but for years?

Well, it's been happening to me for the last 50+ years and I don't find it dull at all...

Have you stopped to think that the objective in teaching children to read is to make the entire English lexicon decodable?

louby, I'd be very happy for you to do your job if you didn't send kids to me in KS3 who are still guessing words from pictures (or still just guessing) because they were encouraged to do it in YR.

DS3 is in reception.
In 2 weeks time he will have learnt all the phase 2 and 3 letters and sounds' graphemes. That gives lots of scope for reading books, without needing look and say books.
Words like 'was' he already has had a target to learn to spell, as he wanted to use them in his writing, so is quite happy reading them too. It didn't take him long to learn that rule that 'a' often makes an /o/ sound after a /w/. He has also learnt that y makes an /ee/ sound at the end of the word from writing too.

Whilst I am quite happy when DS is reading his own books/library books to help him sound out tricky words, it just seems to make a mockery of a school teaching him to read if they gave him words to guess from a picture - he could tell stories from pictures before he went to school, but it didn't teach him to read. Surely it makes more sense that the book/text sent home matched the new graphemes being taught that week (which is what DS gets).

But mixed methods suit some children. Mine started by sounding out but soon progressed by remembering words. I'm sure that wasn't the school's intention but short of banning them from looking at print, there's nothing they can do about it.

I learned to read by look and say - I learned phonics in my 40s along w ds1 and it's great but it's not the whole picture, or the perfect solution for every child. And given that English is a phonetically complex language many children do just shortcut and learn words by sight.

Sorting out a reading scheme book for every child is had work enough each day. Can't imagine any school having enough time to photocopy a book for each child daily.

It wouldn't necessarily involve photocopying a book. It might work better if you used the short decodeable texts for guided reading and used the decodeable guided reading books as take home books if that's what parents expect.

Paper I think that's probably the case in many schools in London. There do also seem to be a lot using RWI. My niece's school uses Sound Reading System, which I hadn't experienced before, but it has worked well for her. I have a feeling that if she'd been at another school that used picture and context clues and lists of 'sight' words then she would barely be reading at all at the moment.

I'm hoping that more schools will move away from IoE and reading recovery when they see the results that the schools with good phonics programs are getting. Seems to be a slow process though.

You haven't failed her at all. The fact that you posted your thread here the other day is proof of that.

With a bit of encouragement to sound out when she meets a word she doesn't know and providing things she can read you should be able to build up her confidence again.

PaperMover - looking at the KS1 2012 reading assessment results, on Ofsted's dashboard, of all the schools mentioned in 'Reading by Six: how the best schools do it', the school, in Tower Hamlets, with the highest result got 97% children achieving Level 2 or above. Looking at their website they use Read Write Inc, and have two Reading Recovery teachers. This is a London school. However another London school (Hackney) that uses RWI exclusively only got 88% of children to Level 2 or above. The school that scored the lowest (84%) apparently uses Jolly Phonics, Letters and Sounds, New Way, ORT and a 'phonically based spelling scheme'.

But mixed methods suit some children. Mine started by sounding out but soon progressed by remembering words.

Such confusion about what constitutes 'mixed methods'

Sounding out and blending is probably the most effective to get words into long term memory so that they don't have to be sounded out and blended each time they are encountered. What BM's dd is doing is absolutely fine. Some children only need to sound out a word once and it's there in LT memory. Some children need far more repetitions. All children are different, don't forget.

'Mixed methods' are those described by louby44 earlier in the thread, where children are taught some phonics but are also encouraged to guess words from pictures, first letters & context (and are often taught the HFWs as 'wholes').

I get very tired of people saying that 'decoding isn't reading'. Well, at least decoding gives you the right word. Guessing words from pictures is even less like 'reading'. It's guessing and frequently elicits the wrong word..

Oh yes, Paper Mover, don't be depressed about your DD. What you are doing at home is just right for building her confidence. I just hope that she can survive what is happening at school. As she learns more she will find the school readers easier.

And, thank you for coming in and verifying what I said.

However another London school (Hackney) that uses RWI exclusively only got 88% of children to Level 2 or above. The school that scored the lowest (84%) apparently uses Jolly Phonics, Letters and Sounds, New Way, ORT and a 'phonically based spelling scheme'.

Much the same as the Op's school then - they are using phonics teaching but the wrong books.

There is nothing more dull than being faced with a book you can't read BarbarianMum ...stopping and starting and waiting for someone to tell you the words.

clay 'I'm hoping that more schools will move away from IoE and reading recovery when they see the results that the schools with good phonics programs are getting.'

zebedeee '- looking at the KS1 2012 reading assessment results, on Ofsted's dashboard, of all the schools mentioned in 'Reading by Six: how the best schools do it', the school, in Tower Hamlets, with the highest result got 97% children achieving Level 2 or above. Looking at their website they use Read Write Inc, and have two Reading Recovery teachers.' 88% for the Hackney school that uses RWI exclusively.