Discrepancy between reception and Y1 reading level

[Vickster99]

I'm after some advice on how best to tackle this.
My DD is a very able reader and in reception last year she was reading white & lime books (stage 10/11) by the end of the year. Today she came home with her first book from Y1 - it was blue (level 4) and way too easy for DD. I'm quite shocked her teacher could have got her ability so wrong and am wondering what on earth is going on. Did they not have any communication between reception and Y1 teachers? Even if they'd like the kids to recap things from last year surely that amount of drop in levels is way too much?

A lot of the books they used in reception were mix and match from different reading schemes or sometimes stickered with a colour but not part of a formal scheme. I was told they'd be following a more formal scheme in Y1 (Collins). Is it possible that the teacher just needs to demonstrate progression through the levels now that they are on the formal sheme?

I'll obviously be talking to the teacher about this but not sure how to tackle it? I dont want to be "that" parent but I fear that DD will completely lose interest in reading at school if she is forced to read stuff like that. At home she is reading Julia Donaldson and other similar picture books and we are just making a start on Horrid Henry books.

Applauds goingmad

In the long run, it is actually very difficult to prevent a normal child learning to read, what ever method you use.

I can't decide what you mean by this, Longlost. Are you suggesting goingmad's Y3 non-readers are not 'normal'? Or are you suggesting the 20% who fail to read nationally are not 'normal', so it doesn't matter what method is used?

You didn't say what iit is that you teach at secondary, longlost.

What for, mumbo - hard work? I don't doubt her work ethic. I just don't think being a maverick for the sake of it while flinging around qualifications and failing to fully understand the problems is going to help these children, I'm afraid.

Ha! I wound up Feenie!

You know nothing of my teaching style. I make a few throwaway comments on an anonymous website and you are wound up. I'm not a maverick. I do things properly and thoroughly, just don't feel trapped by the system. Please lighten up and trust other professionals to do their jobs.

I understand the problems and deal with them. Honestly. This has nothing to do with me, just a system that others really trust in, yet is interpreted so differently by so many people. Of course comprehension is vital, but a love of reading will last a lifetime. Tie the two in together and you can start to make a difference. Get the children engaged, reading, understanding, having fun, reading at home (GRT included) and you're getting somewhere. For life, not just KS2 SATS.

Ha! I wound up Feenie!

I'm not wound up, and I don't need to lighten up or be less anal about the serious concern over non-readers in Y3.

I don't think MNers reading your 'advice' would know that your comments were throwaway. You still won't elaborate on why your school has such serious problems and you're very vague and airy about how to solve them. I don't think minimising the seriousness of the problem, or implying that others who take the v unusual problem of Y3 non-readers seriously are only concerned with SATS, not enjoyment.

I think you're probably at the start of a very steep learning curve. Good luck!

Sorry, that should have read:

I don't think minimising the seriousness of the problem, or implying that others who take the v unusual problem of Y3 non-readers seriously are only concerned with SATS, not enjoyment is necessarily going to help.

Or are you suggesting the 20% who fail to read nationally

I actually meant the method matters very little. But incidentally I also think you'd find the national literacy rates would shoot up over night if the benefit system was changed to mean that illiteracy decreased the benefits you were entitled too, rather than increased it.

"just tell the job centre you can't read.. they won't be able to prove otherwise" not an unusual piece of advise bandied around amongst neets

I actually meant the method matters very little

That absolutely is not the case, as all the recent evidence points out.

And we were talking about children leaving KS1 and then KS2. Children, longlost. They don't claim.benefits.

I appear to have slipped into some kind of MN Twilight Zone tonight.

That absolutely is not the case, as all the recent evidence points out. it absolutely is the case, the "recent evidence" is horse shite, as is much "educational research", conducted by people without the foggiest idea what "research" actually means, and if there was any actual real evidence, then the educational authorities in all English medium countries would come to some sort of concencus, rather than everybody believing something different, but getting the same general results as everybody else, anyway.

And we were talking about children leaving KS1 and then KS2. Children, longlost. They don't claim.benefits. and I'm talking bout people who DO claim benefits, and about people who do claim benefits, and pass their attitudes down.

I know enough families who ban literacy from their households, including not allowing their children to bring their pencil cases home, etc.

then the educational authorities in all English medium countries would come to some sort of concencus, rather than everybody believing something different, but getting the same general results as everybody else, anyway.

They have. It's called the primary national curriculum. I do keep pointing out you haven't read it!

As for research, you're showing a great deal of ignorance here. I'll direct you towards a recent thread with a wealth of evidence that I doubt you'll bother to read.

I really hope you don't teach English at secondary school.

No feenie I was responding to a previous point made - cross posting!

primary national curriculum scoffed, scorned and ignored in many countries

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/primary/2719894-Appalling-reading-advice-for-parents-and-TAs

The last 20 or so.posts in particular.

Entire English National Curriculum, including your key stages - something you should know whatever your subject:

www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-english-programmes-of-study/national-curriculum-in-england-english-programmes-of-study

primary national curriculum scoffed, scorned and ignored in many countries

Do try to keep.to your point, which was there is no consensus on reading method between counties. There is, it's a statutory document which advocates one method.

Struggling to follow your motives on this thread. .Your points are also over the place and I suspect you're here to wind people up.

What about the ones in youth detention centres or prisons? Are they just pretending not to be able to read for the shits and giggles too?

Functional illiteracy isn't just an issue among benefit claimants. It's an issue across many low paid job too.

TBH I'm not sure either the benefits system or the calculation of literacy levels works in the way you think it does.

I know how it works, and I've worked in prisons too. We are really up against it when people see literacy as undesirable, and the benefits situation rules reinforce this.

Struggling to follow your motives on this thread. i don't have any "motives" I'm chatting, what are you doing?

Anyway, you have misunderstood what I said, which is that different countries come to different conclusions in how to teach children to read English, because there is no research that conclusively shows anything at all, but it doesn't matter, because all of them end up with similar success rates, what ever method they use. And the "statutory document" is actually a laughing stock in many places.

I'm trying to have a rational discussion and providing an evidence base for my points.

I realise now I am completely wasting my time expecting you to post anything approaching the same.

And I am informing you that there is no significant research at all. And if you think there is, you have been misinformed.

I've shown you lots of links to a wealth of evidence. I didn't really think you would read any of them before chucking round loads more unsubstantiated generalisations though.

I've shown you lots of links to a wealth of evidence you don't understand the meaning of the word evidence

Are you seriously suggesting that primary school children are deliberately choosing not to learn to read so they will be able to claim non existent benefits as adults?