Reception teacher told us not to read everyday

[TeaJunky]

Ok, so dd started bringing books home. She initially brought the purple level with no words then progressed onto pink quite quickly. She reads her school reading (phonics) book to me everyday and as the reading book is changed only once a week, she began to find this boring quite quickly.

I wrongly assumed that she is perhaps ready for something more challenging and I wrote this in her reading record.

Dd's reception teacher called me in at the end of the day and proceeded to show me the whole reading scheme on the trolley and explain that it only consisted of 500 words and the whole point of it was to achieve fluency blah blah (I already know all this). She said dd had been tried out on some 'harder' books and struggled with them hence she stayed on pink.
That was fine by me, so I suggested that she perhaps needed a new book more often as she read everyday. The teacher said 'really, don't read everyday because it can get boring really quickly'.
I pointed out that it actually wasn't me pushing dd to sit down and read, it was her bringing her book bag from her room and literally dragging me onto the sofa to read - she said 'honestly, don't let her do it everyday'

What ?!

The second thing that worried me about the whole conversation was the fact that the reading scheme only went up to level red, so the whole of the reading scheme was only three levels; purple (pre words), pink and red. She said that's the highest they can go in reception on the scheme.

Am I right to feel that this is a very limiting and pre-determined scheme with no room for differentiation or individual progression?

This is a highly thought of school and we are happy with everything else but the whole reading convo we had seems so bizarre.

thoughts ?

I liked those Charles Lamb Shakespeare tales when I was quite little (maybe around five or six). I am pretty sure a lot of it went over my head, but I found it very heady stuff and it made me long to read the real thing. I was so delighted at 11 when I finally got to do a whole Shakespeare play at school (it was only A Midsummer Night's Dream but I loved it, every single word).

Mrz, mrz - oh no! We disagree!!! As a mum, I love its arcane silliness (not the stories, my children and I can do without Thidwick, the Grinch and the rest, but the truly zany ones like One Fish, Two Fish). As a teacher, I wouldn't use it as a way to learn to read.

Jesus. Can someone fill me in on what's gone on in my thread please

I think I am puzzling about the right ages for various kinds of literature because my daughter is currently doing AS-Level English. She is getting on very well with Oscar Wilde, and was okay with The Crucible.

I know that it took me some years to recover from doing loads and loads of set texts and it made my relationship with literature quite peculiar. It's as if I had to stop reading classic works, then find them all over again.

I think the analogy would be meeting the love of your life in the wrong place and at the wrong time.

Yes- I read Wuthering Heights at A Level, we dissected it to death, wrote course work on it and was the basis for my exam. I read it 3 years ago...what a joy to read it at an older age after more life experience. Think the reading purely for pleasure made a difference too...

DD is doing The Grinch at school and loving it.

I think its important to be led by the child in what they want to read (within reason!)

DD (5) will choose The Happy Families Series some days and SuperFudge other days.

it took me some years to recover from doing loads and loads of set texts and it made my relationship with literature quite peculiar

I can see what you mean here. I found sometimes as a teenager and young adult that the relationship to a set text took some of the joy out of the actual text. I do not think my relationship with Thomas Hardy can ever recover. Or Browning.

I liked your comment about the comedies of Shakespeare being full of terrible things, too. If you think about comedy, generally, as a dramatic thing, an awful lot of it is about nearly getting to disaster or the last-minute turning aside of something dreadful beyond belief. It can often be laughter born out of relief that the very worst hasn't happened. I quite like that aspect of it and think the line between comedy and tragedy can be very thin indeed.

I don't think there is a right or wrong age to access literature for pleasure and revisiting later in life is like visiting old friends

As a scientist from the age of 15 (and having English teachers who believed that it was important that set texts for O-level should very definitely NOT be books that you would have loved had you read them any other time: hence Mr Polly instead of Cry the Beloved Country) despite being a voracious reader, i have a mostly unspoiled view of English classics.....

Yes, reading again later on is lovely and can be very surprising. Even children's literature can surprise you when you come back to it as an adult.

I do not think my relationship with Thomas Hardy can ever recover.

Oh, do try some time, huitre. Some of his stuff is very good.

OTH, I have never been able to face The Mill on the Floss since loathing it in Y8 (or 'Upper IVth' as it was then known)! I can manage other George Eliot novels OK...

Agree with mrz that there is no right or wrong age, beyond the child's ability to deal with the concepts in the book eg I wouldn't read my 6 year old The Hunger Games or The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas, because I realise that even as an adult I found the subject matter of these books troubling.
However the complexity of the language per se I do not find a barrier. A year ago I read my eldest (then 5 years old) Five Children and It which has a fabulous storyline for this age group but some really quite obtuse Edwardian language. As I read it outloud to DS1, I thought it was trickier than I had remembered and would stop every so often to ask questions and check DS1 understood. Despite the difficulty of the language DS1 understood and lived it and immediately asked for it to be followed up by The Phoenix and The Carpet which was also a big hit. DS1 is not scared off by language at all and I have indeed considered reading him A Christmas Carol. I think the key thing for me when reading stories with more tricky language is to judge whether DS is actually enjoying them. If he is then complexity of language does not make them off limits.
I also think at a basic level it is fine for a child to just enjoy a book without necessarily having to dissect it in minute detail and discuss themes. Further deeper understanding can come later if necessary by re-reading a story that is already loved. I read Wuthering Height for pleasure when I was about 13/14 years old and absolutely adored it, I'm not sure the enjoyment would have been A&E great if I had had to think about every little nuance of the book at that stage by studying it for GCSE. I think people can get a bit snobbish about literature sometimes thinking there is something wrong with the just simple enjoyment of a book.

I have the same issue with the Hobbit despite having read LOTR several times. I think it's something about being made to 'study' it rather than just reading it for enjoyment.

Les Mis was a breeze in comparison and I think most people would probably put those two the other way round in terms of ease of reading.

I think it's something about being made to 'study' it rather than just reading it for enjoyment.

I think that is what worries me about children being expected to do all sorts of textual analysis at primary school. How can they possibly learn to read for pleasure when they are expected to pull texts apart from a very early age. I read voraciously as a child but I would have absolutely hated having to have in depth inquisitions about what I was reading.

I'd agree with that completely. I think in a lot of schools, reading to children is getting pushed out slightly which isn't helping either.

The majority of schools I know do read to children daily in EYFS and KS1. Very few of them continue to do that throughout KS2. Even in KS1 most are reading picture books that can be read in one sitting. I can only think of one teacher I know that regularly reads both shorter picture books and longer chapter books to year 1 and 2 children.

DD's teacher reads both. She reads Horrid Henry (if this counts as a longer chapter book) and shorter picture type ones.

DD absolutely adores discussing books and the use of certain words, why things are in bold, why the author has used certain words to get the message across etc but IMO it's about how you go about it. With us (DD and I) it's almost like a chat about the book, not just me barking loads of questions at her. But at the same time, we don't do this every night (although I listen to her read pretty much every night) and sometimes I just listen to her read and enjoy the story, whilst making sure she understands what she is reading & then she reads to herself of course.

I don't think you need to do an in depth "inquisition" of a text with young children just read together for the beauty of the language and story. After all there is no better or more more enjoyable way to extend a child's vocabulary.

MaizieD I agree about too much textual analysis being offputting. I absolutely hate the SATs reading papers because so often they're about finding a particular 'approved' interpretation of the text. There's no room for children to give their own views, or see things in a different way.

IME children do love discussing books though, so long as it's done in a more child-led way. I'm sharing a great book with my Y6s at the moment, and it's great seeing that 'buzz' when we get to a gripping part- they immediately want to share their thoughts. For me that's part of what reading is about. But not 'what is the effect on the reader of word x and phrase y?'

I'm glad some people agree with me. There is clearly a world of difference between spontaneous discussion, hopefully initiated by the reader and the 'comprehension' interrogation!

Totally agree and also (as a parent) I hope I know what my DD can understand/comprehend without pushing her to do something that she is not ready for, not that she would let me as she would be quite vocal about not understanding or wanting to answer questions that are too hard for her, or reading books that are too difficult to comprehend.

All these parents teaching their children to read before reception. Do you think you're actually doing your children a favour?
It's the best schools and nurseries that prioritise play over reading every time. All the studies show that the later you start formal education the better for the child and too much too soon can cause profound damage to the self-image and learning abilities of children.

But competitive Mums and Dads aren't really interested in what is actually GOOD for their children's well being in the long term when there's an opportunity to boast about how 'clever' little Johnny can read all the reception words already... After all, who does it reflect on when your child is so bright, the parents of course!

'In September 2013, 127 education experts signed a letter arguing that the government’s early years education policies are damaging children’s education, health and wellbeing. The letter appeared in the Guardian and Telegraph and prompted debate on BBC News and Newsnight. Experts demanded that children be allowed to learn through play instead of being prepared for formal lessons at such an early age. The 127 signatories included 11 Professors of Education across the UK.'

So add on your home hot housing and you're really heading for trouble.

All the studies show that the later you start formal education the better for the child and too much too soon can cause profound damage to the self-image and learning abilities of children.

Would you like to give us some links to all these studies? (Or even some of them)

My daughter is a fluent Reception reader. Her chosen play activity at 18 months was to put the Alphablocks tiles off the front of a magazine on top of the matching Alphablocks on a poster inside the magazine while saying the sound that she asked me to make.

At 2 years, her chosen play activity was to take those same Alphablocks tiles or magnetic letters and make words with them, saying 'c-a-t CAT!'

At 2.8 she asked me for books she could read. I bought her Songbirds and she flew through them.

At no point did I make her sit down and do anything unwillingly. Everything was child-led.

Should I have deprived her of her chosen activities because someone was going to accuse me of hot-housing her in the future?

She has just now (at 4.7yo) asked me what 6 billion is, because there are 6 billion people in the world... She loves to learn.

FrameyMcFrame... why do you assume children that can read before reception are being "hothoused" DS1's favourite activity is building Lego models but he has an unquenchable thirst to find out about stuff. Before he was a year old he would instinctively hold a book the right way up and loved loved loved listening to stories. He seemed to just know that letters and numbers were different and before he was 18 months old he could recognise logo's eg car badges. I think he read very earlier because he has an astonishingly good visual memory. DS2 works in a different way but insisted on reading books to me just like his big brother.
Neither of them appear particularly damaged. I have just gone along with what they were interested in and answered any questions the ask as best I can even if I think the concept is tricky.
There is always an assumption that if you have a child that can read/ is very able there must be a pushy parent behind them. In all other respects mine are normal little boys that like charging about on their bikes it's just that they seem to get things very quickly and have an innate confidence that they can do anything.