Is this how children learn to read these days?

[Bananaketchup]

Am genuinely asking. DD is in reception. She started late at the school and has only been in full-time since xmas, so they don't really know her too well. She loves being read to, she can sound out words when she's in the mood, but is also one for the easy life. She reads once a week 1-1 with a TA at school, and brings the book home afterwards until it's swapped a week later. The books are of the 'this is a house, this is a garden' level. In her reading record it will say 'DD read the book and enjoyed it'. But when she reads it at home she rattles off the sentence on each page and has clearly just memorised it, and isn't actually reading. If I mix the page order up, she can't read it. If I hide the picture, she can't read it. She will make wild guesses without even trying to sound out the word e.g. she will guess 'the' for 'house', just pure guesses. This weekend she got in a strop because I wouldn't let her see the picture (as she was just guessing from this and not reading the words at all). She then said 'but Mrs X (The TA she reads with) says look at the picture, then read it'. So my question is (if you've got this far without dying of boredom), is this how children are taught to read - to look at the picture to know what the words say? Because DD isn't paying any attention to the words, just gabbling off what's in the picture, and I can't really see how this is teaching her to read. I am minded to speak to school, but don't want to be 'that' mum if this is genuinely a method children learn to read by, which I'm unaware of. Can anyone advise please?

So far I'm not convinced that anyone has hit upon the best way.

Isn't that because you can't be arsed to inform yourself about it?

But I'm sure the priests in Ireland who are getting locked up thought what they were doing was best for the children concerned too.

Ofgs, you have just convinced me that you repeatedly join phonics threads purely to troll. What a disgustingly crass remark.

to agree to the proposition that 'excellently taught synthetic phonics is the best method known of at the moment

plus all the other things needed to read words without regular grapheme/letter correspondences...

which ultimately means I don't agree with the proposition at all. What I do agree with is the statement that phonics is useful. But so too are other things.

At last, the great internet refrain: anyone who doesn't agree with my point of view is a troll.

Well, you could try putting together a coherent argument, for a start.

perhaps you should follow your own advice columngollum rather than post your own opinion as facts when they are far from the truth.

My argument is this: several different techniques are necessary in order to successfully read English.

I always find it hillarious when someone throws that well known educationalist Michael Rosen into the mix

Your argument has no basis in fact so it is purely your opinion

Does it not?

Let's suppose one technique alone is sufficient for the task, which is the contrary of my argument, what would that be?

No, anyone who thinks it's appropriate to make the comparison you did is clearly not here for a serious discussion, but would prefer to wind people up. You've been doing the same thing for years.

I prefer not to suppose when a child's future is at stake columngollum

The comparison simply highlights the fact that the argument of being in the best interests of those concerned has happily been used by some of history's worst offenders.

The comparison is indefensible

If you prefer not to think about then you might reach that conclusion. The "we make the world a better place" philosophy is responsible for many ills.

I can see why people who use that argument might not want it examined.

You are a piece of work, McCollum, you really are. I have reported your comment.

Perhaps you should think twice before making that argument then columngollum

McCollum?

I don't use it.

True columngollum you haven't really got an argument because repeating your personal opinion over and over doesn't make it true

An argument is merely a proposition. I think what you mean is: it doesn't make it correct.

But proving it incorrect requires a counter argument.

I have to say that I find your line of reasoning increasingly bizarre.

As an educator, I seek to use the best possible, research proven, methods that work for the largest possible number of the children I teach.

As a parent, I COULD choose to use my parental experience as a coumnter-argument to established scholarship, as my DS happened to learn to read via a rare route.

But I don't.

Your anrgument, as I understand it, is that as a method which works for 95% of children when well taught does not work for 100% of children, it should automatically be combined with, if not replaced by, a method that only works for 80%. It would be an interestibng argmnent IF the two sets are non-overlapping - ie if the up to 5% who do not successfully learn to read via phonics alone are DEFINITELY in the 80% who WILL succeed using mixed methods.

What I suspect is the case is that the sets overlap - the 8-0% of children who learn to read via L&S are in fact also in the 95% weho learn to read via good phonics instruction. The remaining 5% - some of whome will be in the % of children with significant SEN affecting learning, others of whomn may in fact succeed if phonics teaching is even better, as mrz's experience is of 100% of children earning to read this way - may indeed need something different, but whatever it is it is probably NOT flashcards.

(It is interesting that the mopst successful reading intervention in my old school, for children who came from other schools who arrived with us not reading well, was simply a 'back to basics' phonics prrogramme, suggesting that the 'reading problem' was simply due to poor phonics instruction, and possibly the use onf non-phonic readers in the early stages, rather than phonics per se)

That's not my argument.

My argument is that phonics alone is not sufficient to teach reading because some words have irregular grapheme/letter correspondences and that there are more reasons than that one besides.

But you haven't got a proposition columngollum

That is a proposition. It's a statement and a statement is a proposition. (The idea that a proposition is a proposal is a colloquialism.)

my argument is that phonics alone is not sufficient to teach reading because some words have irregular grapheme/letter correspondences and that there are more reasons than that one besides.

And that is merely your opinion. Which really counts for absolutely nothing as you have never taught SP or LP and have no idea of, and no intention of informing yourself about, how the alphabetic code works.

What bothers me is that other mothers might take you seriously..