year one book band

[prettyFLower23]

Hi
My DD is currently on ORT level 9.
What happens in year 2 once children finish the books?
Level 9 looks like expected for year 2, should I ask what additional support she'll be given for progression in year 2?

NB this is not a gloat thread, asking for feedback

So you are completely denying a genetic component to intelligence vickster? Very egalitarian, but wrong.

I love these posts - so interesting to see that a universal curriculum does not result in a universal way of teaching. Maybe teaching is alive and kicking, not dying a slow death after all.

DS2 had read 20 books in his first year in reception. Owing to the fact that the parents are supposed to swap the books in the book bag (and we didn't for 3 months!) and if the reading log is anything to go by, he doesn't read with a TA or teacher we would probably be in the bottom 5%. Thankfully the 3 schools my kids have gone to have never revealed my child's ranking in the class, and I've never thought to ask (I just ask if there's something we should be concerned about). As for the correlation between parental education and child's ability, again we may be the exception to the rule (but I won't give details as it's not about me!).

Pretty I am professional ( in the sense that I belong to a regulatory body and H.E status).

The amount of professionals I meet on a daily basis lacking resilience, time management, ability to multi task no longer shocks me.

In fact, it is often the lay people I meet that demonstrate resilience, common sense and time management.

So you are completely denying a genetic component to intelligence vickster? Very egalitarian, but wrong.

No, absolutely not. I'm suggesting that a good education & background has more influence on your chances of ending up in a professional job than your raw intelligence.

Also, intelligence is controlled by a number of genetic loci so its inheritance is not linear. Often people at extremes of intelligence & IQ tend to have more average kids. Kids born to disadvantaged backgrounds who haven't a hope in hell of getting to a professional job are just likely to be of above average intelligence than those born to professional parents.

What you're suggesting seems to be almost Lamarckian

Mrz Do you select more complex books for more advanced readers, but books which cover the same general concepts that are being discussed in class? Although I hate the later ORT levels, I can see the advantage in having groups matched on the level, so that each an discuss to the level they are working at. So, would a school just assign a text to a group of students in the similar way, and just have some working beyond the scheme books?

Irvine my DD is Y2 and is on the last level, so not quite finished KS2 levels yet . But actually, in old money, it means she would have been working at a level 4. Which is good, but she isn't the only child in her class working at that level. I think she is the most avid reader of all the children in her class.

But I guess, I am curious how schools develop their readers who are at (old school) level 4, to (old school) level 6. And my disclaimer is that the only reason I'm asking about old levels, is because it is easier to represent an increase in levels!

How is it Lamarckian? I'm saying parental intelligence is correlated to child's intelligence (that's Darwinian) and intelligence is correlated to your chances of ending up in a professional job. Correlation is all it takes.

We don't use scheme books once children have the knowledge and skills to read accurately, don't use ORT books and don't do guided reading Whattodosue.

WhattodoSue, at my ds's school, in yr3, they seems to focus more on analyzing books in detail as a whole class.
Also by yr3, a lot children have clicked on reading, ability gap become smaller.

if 6 year old's understanding of literature is as good as yours, your dd must be truly gifted.

Not meaning to do my DD an injustice, but I suspect the case is more that I am a bit thick. I can't fathom Chaucer or breezily read Shakesphere.

Is comprehension the same as reading? Or different? Can it be taught? Or does it come with life experience?

In my ds's case, no, comprehension wasn't the same as decoding. He was able to decode pretty much anything at the start of reception, but comprehension didn't match at all. I think this year(yr3) it really started to match perfectly and he enjoys reading even more.

But his understanding of maths concept was beyond me, so I wouldn't doubt there are children who has exceptional ability in literacy as well.

WhatTheActualFugg said: Is comprehension the same as reading? Or different? Can it be taught? Or does it come with life experience?

Comprehension is certainly different from reading. However, I would be surprised if many fluent readers are not also good at comprehension. Of course, a reader at the early stages may take great pride from the sense of achievement at being able to decode words and actually ‘read’ in that sense, but surely what motivates people to continue to read is the ‘meaning’ behind the words.

Of course, comprehension will deepen with age and experience, and inference certainly so.

Comprehension and decoding are the two strands of reading. Both are needed to read.
Young children usually learn to decode and early comprehension tends to be literal (vocabulary is key to early understanding) as they develop as readers inference and deduction (reading between the lines) comes into play (life experiences /general knowledge can help hugely) and then higher order reading skills (analysing the text and exploring author's intent /choice of words etc are necessary)

DS1 is on level 7, about to go on to level 8 in year one. He's a bit behind for his year but he didn't want to read until quite late. I sure the school will have a plan for when they finish the reading scheme, they've seen all of this before!