Are there any trained reading volunteers out there?

[RefuseToWorry]

I know schools are hyper-vigilant about DBS checks before volunteers are allowed into classrooms to hear children read, but I'm interested to find out if any reading volunteers are given specific training before they start?

If you have received training, what was included and how much time was given to equip you with strategies to help the children you work with?

How were you advised to help with words children were stuck on?

It's good that volunteers get training but I'm quite interested to know what they are being told in their training.

are you going to contribute suggestions of how best to train reading volunteers?

No, it would be a waste of time if schools are training differently.

Happy to give advice if asked and so, I'm sure, Feenie would be, too.

'It's good that volunteers get training but I'm quite interested to know what they are being told in their training.'

Yep, me too.

Yep, same.

Thanks, Madrigals.

Were you given any unspoken prompts - like framing the letter/s the child needed to focus on with your index fingers, or slowly revealing sound-by-sound as you drag your index finger horizontally across the word from left to right?

(Am I making any sense at all?!?)

I had no training and just a pile of policies. Sometimes there is far too much fear about parents getting it wrong. Surely practice with an untrained volunteer is no different to practicing reading with parents.

Out of interest how many parents have recieved training on how to teach reading. Many mumsnetters claim to have children on really astronomical reading levels inspite of a lack of training. Do you think that teaching/ practicing of reading has become over professionalised? Unless a child has a learning difficulty or dyslexia, learning to read is just a matter of practice.

ReallyTired

Sometimes there is far too much fear about parents getting it wrong. Surely practice with an untrained volunteer is no different to practicing reading with parents.

I don't really think there needs to be fear over parents 'getting in wrong', although I am deeply concerned too many volunteers listening to children read can mask a problem of (fully trained, paid and accountable) teachers not hearing individual children read and assessing their progress properly, in order to extend their learning. Reading to a teacher 1 to 1 is still invaluable IMO and cannot be replaced by reading to a volunteer. Reading to a volunteer does not really extend learning any more than reading to a parent would. Schools need to be providing more expertise than this. Reading to a volunteer is of use when in addition to a teacher regularly hearing children read.

capsium a volunteer's job is not actually to teach a child to read. Teachers are not able to teach children to read without someone making sure that child gets some practice. Sadly many parents can't be arsed to listen to their children read or they have learning difficulties or life is simply to challenging. Frankly it doesn't matter what the parents' sob story is, if a child gets no reading practice then they will make less progress.

If your child has violin lessons and does no practice then he will get nowhere. It is the same with reading. Making sure that all children practice their reading is an effective way of improving social mobility.

a volunteer's job is not actually to teach a child to read.

I couldn't agree more. Schools are here to provide education. Part of the National Curriculum is the teaching of reading. Volunteers should strictly be used for reading practice.

Listening to a child read one to one is an invaluable teaching tool though, in terms of assessing progress, so teachers should still be regularly listening to children read. Reading to a volunteer should be in addition to this.

Not delegating all the individual 1 to 1 reading to the volunteer sector and fully trained, paid and accountable teachers taking full responsibility for all of the teaching of reading is an extremely effective way of improving social mobility.

capsium

I 100% agree with you! Expecting volunteers to actually teach a child to read is an abuse of the volunteer. In fact expecting TAs to teach reading is unfair as well. However teachers cannot to be all things to all people. It is time consuming to listen to 30 children read every week. A well managed pool of volunteers could listen to children read several times a week easily.

Volunteers are useful when parents are not doing their job. They should not be used to replace teachers.

Volunteers are useful when parents are not doing their job

Although hearing reading is not actually a parent's job as in they are not paid employees.

It is perhaps the role of a good parent, when they are able to do it. However because of illiteracy / other disabilities such as blindness or deafness or other very pressing priorities (eg being a full time carer to another relative) some cannot hear their child read as often, or as well, as they perhaps would like. Some understanding is called for.

It is time consuming to listen to 30 children read every week.

But invaluable in terms of assessing progress, extending a child's learning and catering to any additional needs. It is wholly acceptable to make this a first priority, since good literacy skills are of extreme importance in being able to access all areas of the curriculum.

capsium Do you think its realistic to ask teachers to work harder?

Teachers cannot listen to 30 children ready every day AND prepare as deliver lessons. As I said children are severely disadvantaged IF they do not get one to one teaching practice. Excuses do not help a child how to read. Practice with a volunteer does help a child learn to read better.

"Although hearing reading is not actually a parent's job as in they are not paid employees. "

Not all duties are paid. Nuturing and bringing up a child is very much the parents' role/ job/ responsiblity. Just because something is not paid does not mean that it is not important or worthwhile. In an ideal world education would be a partnership between school and parent. A good volunteer acts like a subsitute parent for reading practice.

Has anyone mentioned Beanstalk? Have a google and look at their scheme.

A teacher Hearing children each child read, 1 to 1 every week, would be a start. Some teachers do, do this (mrz mentioned she does this in another thread).

I didn't say all duties are paid. However duties are not 'jobs' and some parents are not very capable in terms of hearing their child read regularly, but can make up for this in other areas. This does not make them a 'bad' parent or one who was failing in their duty. Their child is a parent's first priority, not making life easier for the school.

In saying this I have spend a lot of time individually reading and discussing books with my DC, (who began starting to read from 2yrs). However I myself love reading and did a degree in English and Education, so I am not exactly unskilled in this area.

Do you think its realistic to ask teachers to work harder?

They don't have to. Just make reading a first priority. In terms of where to grab the time I would be happy if a lot less time was spent on 'enrichment activities' which often are not backed up by any academic learning. My DC has spent a lot of time having parties, watching films and having whole 'fun' afternoons spent playing to come home and have to do all the academic work as homework. It's topsy turvy. I'd rather do the fun enrichment activities with my child at home.

" didn't say all duties are paid. However duties are not 'jobs' and some parents are not very capable in terms of hearing their child read regularly, but can make up for this in other areas. This does not make them a 'bad' parent or one who was failing in their duty. Their child is a parent's first priority, not making life easier for the school. "

There is no point in judging whether someone is a good or bad parent. A child needs to practice reading every day if they are to make best progress. Practicing reading once a week is not enough.

A lot of schools do guided reading rather than one to one reading. It would be interesting to see research that compares the effectiveness of one to one reading once a week with guided reading every day. Certainly guided reading sessions can help with comprehension when children discuss text with each other.

But Guided Reading may not be the best assessment tool in terms of determining how well an individual child has actually understood. Reading in a group can also affect reading performance detrimentally. Really teachers need to be doing both Guided Reading and Individual Reading with children to ensure the best all round learning.

I never said a child does not need to practice reading regularly.

However reading 1 to 1 with a teacher offers much more than reading practice, it offers an invaluable opportunity for the vital continual assessment required, to extend a child's learning. This is what I am saying should be done regularly, once a week, by the teacher.

Volunteers and parents can provide practice. At a certain age, once a child is a free reader they can also practice by themselves.

'Sometimes there is far too much fear about parents getting it wrong.'

Possibly, but that's not my motivation for starting this thread. What I would like to do is ensure that the time the reading volunteer spends with a child isn't simply ticking a box.

Reading, like any other skill, needs to be practised to be mastered, but if inefficient strategies are being encouraged (e.g. neglecting the letter detail and guessing at words), bad habits will develop.

If I was a volunteer, I'd want my precious time to be used as effectively as possible and I'd want some guidance on how best to carry out my role.