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?

The unique use of a phoneme/letter correspondence does not invalidate either it or the word that it appears in.

There isn't a unique use of sound/spelling correspondence though columngollum they are common spellings for the sounds.

The word ghoti appears in countless texts and its sound letter correspondences represent the word fish.

I'd like to see your dd's teacher's face when she uses that spelling in a piece of creative writing

SP doesn't promote alternative spellings!

The fact is ghoti appears in countless texts explaining that ghoti wasn't coined by GBS and why it isn't an alternative spelling for fish

I think quoting ghoti is completely beside the point until people start actually using it in place of fish. If they do, I am sure phonics would be a fine place to start with being able to read it.

I feel incredibly lucky that my kids school teaches phonics and sends home phonics based books (RWI). My Year 1 son has come on leaps and bounds with the system and is reading stage 9 fluently now. He is average academic ability I would say and didn't start to blend until Christmas last year. Without the phonics and the reading every day at home I highly doubt he would be where he is now. My daughter is going through the program right now in YR and starting to get it and not have to sound out every word. I discourage any guessing. I agree with mrz that pictures really add to a story but are not for clues. I'm grateful that my kids are being educated at this time when approx. 95% of the kids will be fluent readers. That is a hell of a lot better than 80%.

Still means close to 20% at KS1 aren't achieving, which matches their mixed methods teaching - also fits tinytalker's assertion that she wouldn't 'expect' a mixed methods taught child to read a word like 'gymnastics' possibly as late as Y3.

Just checked DD's school results - good Phonics teaching. 96% L2+ at KS1, 98% L4+ at KS2, which seems in line with that.

children are encouraged to look at the picture but they are supposed to sound it out but out of the two children of mine that have learnt to read only one has ever sounded it out my daughter prefered to memorise

Er Feenie, get your fact straight! I never said Yr 3!!!! And I stated previously that I work with SEN children. And frankly our recent Inspection of Outstanding in all areas speaks for itself, with special commendation for my department! I sleep easy so don't worry about me or the kids I teach thanks!

I've made a start with my chart; have done the 'a' and 'e'based graphemes (about 40+ of them!) I wonder if mumsnet towers would put it on the site somewhere?

tinytalker Sat 08-Feb-14 21:40:53

"I would never expect a Yr 1 child to read 'gymnastics' but she did and I applauded her for that. Do I expect her to be able to read that word again next week on a 'flashcard'? NO but by the time she is in Yr 2/3 then she will, by seeing it frequently and by associating this pattern of letters with the picture of Biff doing gymnastics!"

Page 18 may help

beckclasswiki.wikispaces.com/file/view/SpellRead+Lexicon.pdf

sorry page 17

maizie- I would love to see your reverse chart! (I am an EFL teacher and MFL/linguistics grad. Pronunciation/spelling is my "thing" ) hence I am often to be found applauding you and Mrz and others on these threads (under various n/c) for your patience and logic in the face of adversity and bollocks

Oh, my facts are straighter that straight, thanks, tinytalker - I see mrz has saved me the bother of finding the place where you said exactly that.

And I stated previously that I work with SEN children.
Yes, you did later - but so what? This fact only serves to highlight your low expectations further.

And frankly our recent Inspection of Outstanding in all areas speaks for itself, with special commendation for my department!
I find it quite funny that you choose to mention that just at this particular moment - before you specifically stated Ofsted schmofsted! If you're going to contradict yourself wildly and/or deny having said anything of the sort all on the one thread, it might be useful to write yourself some notes next time.

You'll find these posts straight after the bit where you decided to laugh with another posters about how I was probably either brainwashe or on a career break. I find it really strange (not to mention ironic) that you think it's fine to jeer at someone who may genuinely have returned to teaching and may need serious retraining (I haven't) when actually it's you who has recently returned after a 12 year break? Odd.

I sleep easy so don't worry about me or the kids I teach thanks!
Yes, I find this phrase is used a lot from teachers on these threads. I also find this very strange. Here you have a thread where teachers have described a method and expectations which achieve results much higher than your own school (as demonstrated by you), and how they still have a desire to get better and improve all the time - but you sleep easy.

I see.

You don't need to use it in place of fish. The texts which site it as an alternative spelling for fish are explaining what it means. (The fact that some people don't much like it is irrelevant.)

Nobody has explained why anyone needs to wait until Y3 to read the word gymnastics. But, regardless of when the child reads it she must understand what it means.

Being able to reproduce it (or select it) without knowing what it means (which young children can do) isn't reading it.

So, the real question isn't at what point in primary school can a child read it. The questions are: Can the child understand it? Can she therefore read it?

Papermover - our school uses phonics (only) and teaches them right through to year 6. L2 95% and L4 100% in literacy.

I should add though, that we are a small school, and unless we have a large intake a single child often is worth up to 10 or 11%, so another year we have had 89% at L2 from a single child missing the target.

Nobody has explained why anyone needs to wait until Y3 to read the word gymnastics

That's because it's inexplicable, collumngollum.

Of course children need to be taught the meaning - that happens regardless of the teaching method. To answer your question, Year 1 children would know what gymnastics means, since it is on the curriculum, and many Reception classes would also do gymnastics.