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?

Btw, what you describe with your ds isn't memorising whole words - if he sounds it out even just once, he is tackling it using phonics. Some children need to sound out a word many times, some don't. And it's good that he uses phonics again to tackle the next unknown word.

He does both, he uses phonics for new words but many words are learnt as sight words only. ( they can't be sounded out) also we read by just recognising the word do we not...I don't need to sound out because I know them as sight words.
I'm not anti phonics, i they are great and definately the starting point for ALL children. I just think it not so black and white. Like most things in life lots of different methods get you to the end result.

No, being able to read a word to automaticity isn't sight reading, it's the ultimate aim of reading words using phonics.

I think you wouldn't be so laissez-faire if you had a child who fell into the 20% who failed to read using a hotch-pitch if methods.

Hotch-potch: silly auto correct.

Sorry I though recognising the word was sight reading?

I'm not lazzez- fair, far from it pushy mum he's on blue band and is 4 in reception.

He memorised hundreds of words before three, then I taught him some phonics. It's just how HE learns. Same with times tables he know lots of the times tables, he learnt them by rote also.

It can back fire later though if they start having memorised words. They need the phonics knowledge to meet new words as they expand their vocabulary.

For what it's worth my daughter is on yellow/blue having not been drilled pre starting school, only learning some of the sounds! It's a much better donating as fast as I can see.

Donating? Foundation.

being able to read a word to automaticity isn't sight reading,

That's just pointless semantics. Being able to recognise a word on sight isn't sight reading. hmmm. And I suppose chewing and swallowing food isn't eating, it's masticating thoughtfully.

LO it's not drilling, he chose to learn the words himself, then i taught the phonics. ( as I was worried he needed phonics.)
As i said he only need to be a word a few times then he knows it.

Not sure how your DD can be on two reading levels BTW.

I think phonics are great, I have already said that. I also said ALL children should learn phonics first.

Please explain how your DD learns the word that are not phonetic.

That's my point - your ds learnt fine using mixed methods, so you aren't that interested in the 20% who are actually damaged using your horses for courses method you are shrugging over.

Collumgollum, they are the definitions of reading, I can't help it if you don't like them. Sight reading means learning words as wholes without reading the sounds within them - learning to read a word on sight is the ultimate aim of both methods.

Freebie, you knew what I ment by sight reading, if you read it in the context of the sentance it's clear. ( think that another reading skill I think)

Feenie, sorry I'm being distracted by the small children who are building a den.

The terms you're referring to are Whole Word or Look & Say

sight reading is simply reading by sight. In fact all reading except Braille is sight reading.

If a 'cure' for cancer was discovered which had 95% success rate as opposed to an 80% success rate everyone would be screaming to have it implemented across the board.

teacher that is because in my house only 50% of the children learnt to read with just phonics! As someone else said as a parent you want the result for your child not the 95% ... Does someone have a link for that statistic? The school was no help when my DS struggled with phonics, advice was 'read more' for a child who took hours over reading homework (if I had let it go on which I didn't). I had to do my own research and find ways to help him.

My DD2 did this. She had hearing problems and couldn't do phonics at all because she couldn't discriminate the sounds. So she eventually taught herself to read using look and say - after two years of total misery that I think will negatively affect her self-image for the rest of her life.

She had hearing problems and couldn't do phonics at all because she couldn't discriminate the sounds.

I would ask why the school didn't teach her in a way that she could access the 'sounds'; with cued articulation, for example.

Or did they? There is no excuse for batting on with something that a child really cannot do, without looking for alternatives. And I mean alternatives within the context of the body of knowledge which a child needs for competent independent reading, not a flight to Look & Say.

Doesn't that suppose that the teacher knows how to look for alternatives within the context of the body of knowledge which a child needs for competent independent reading?

If I had a daughter who couldn't hear very well and I thought that the teacher was being ideological in her approach rather than helpful I'd be furious. Lots of parents couldn't give a monkeys about the philosophy of the reading method just as long as it works.

As someone else said as a parent you want the result for your child not the 95% ... Does someone have a link for that statistic? T

I can post the Solity paper in which he makes the statement about the %age of children. It is a long paper and you would have to read through it to find the statement. I'll search out the link and post it if you will tell me that you will read it!

I appreciate how you feel as a parent but, as I say repeatedly we will never find out the best way to teach the -5% until we stop wasting money and time on the 15% who could well have learned if taught properly from the start.

Lots of parents couldn't give a monkeys about the philosophy of the reading method just as long as it works.

And it's OK if it doesn't work because we'll just call the child 'dyslexic' and give them lots of crutches. Still won't be able to read, but hey, that's not the problem of all those parents who don't give a monkey's.

SP is not a philosophy. It is a method of teaching reading.

Sure, but all the ideological guff that phonicsy people spout is a philosophy, albeit not a very well thought out one.

My understanding is that it's a combination of the two.

DD is also in reception and just been moved onto level 4 ORT. They always go through the book first looking at the pictures and talking through what they 'think' is happening in the story, then they read each page using the pictures to help with more unusual words for example 'pavement' which isn't easy to sound out and isn't a high-frequency word. When we read at home we add the more unusual words to a poster on the wall so that she can recognise them.

When DD comes home and reads a book to me that she's read at school, she has also memorized some of it (because sometimes she says completely the wrong word without bothering to read it - so I ask her to read it again and she gets it right), but afterwards I go back through the book pointing out some words, to make sure she really knows the tricky ones (because/couldn't/wouldn't - from her latest book) and isn't just guessing them.

But there is definitely still emphasis on using the pictures to assist, but doesn't replace learning to read the words.

katniss, I grew up learning to read with books which had pictures of a single item on each page with the noun printed underneath it. In such a case it's hard not to identify the word with the picture.

What 'idealogical' stuff, cg? Are we reading the same thread?

It's idealogical if it flatly contradicts everything we know about the psychology of learning. Read some Daniel Willingham.

My understanding is that it's a combination of the two.

After reading this thread, you still think that?

Mumsnet Towers, could you please give us a 'bangs head against brick wall' smilie?