Non decodable books in reception

[Sleeperandthespindle]

My DS was so excited to bring home his first book with words today - then disheartened to find he couldn't read it. He is doing well with blending with the phonemes and graphemes he knows, but of course hasn't been taught 'pp', 'er' and 'wh' yet.
Is it worth mentioning this to school? They must know that it's utterly pointless sending home such books? There's a printed page at the front of the reading record that mentions 'looking for clues' and 'encourage to guess'...

[Wonderone]

Definitely try your library, we have Songbirds in ours and Start Reading plus lots of other schemes.

[Flugelpip]

As someone who worked in children's books for years I have to say pure phonics books are misery to read, even the Songbirds ones. Julia Donaldson is a genius and even she can't bring them to life...

[WhatTheActualFugg]

I think that's a bit harsh Flugelpip. My DD used to enjoy her songbirds books.

Here's a photo OP of two Songbirds books, Stage 1+ and Stage 6. I don't know if they go any higher.

[user789653241]

"You pick your battles for the stuff that really matters"

How to teach children to read is something that "really matters", isn't it?
What OP says seems to agree with most of respectable teacher mnetter on here?

[nagsandovalballs]

Pictures are essential to learning!

I learned to read before I went to school by using picture and word association. Decoding is a life skill. I'm now a lecturer in English literature at university and the entire subject is predicated on some form of interpretation or inference, play with the language or some kind of 'decoding' in layman's terms. All founded on a skill that has been nurtured since people learned to read.
Right now I'm teaching William Blake and I just spent a happy couple of hours with third year students looking at pictures and using them to add to/develop understanding of meanings associated with the poems they accompany.

[WhatTheActualFugg]

irvine of course it is important. What I meant is kicking up a fuss (which based on what the OP has said sounds like she's already known for) because they're not teaching her DC exactly how she would like is only going to achieve bad feeling. No school is going to alter their methods on the say so of one parent.

And actually, reading this thread I'd say it's pretty conclusive that most of the 'respectable teacher mners' on this thread are disagreeing with OPs ideal of pure phonics.

[Sleeperandthespindle]

I have nothing against pictures. I am not stupid. I love pictures in books. They do not help a child read though. They help us enjoy books. But that is not the point here. DS already enjoys books. Probably all the other children in his class do. There is a lot to be learned from the pictures in books. But how to read words isn't one of them.

[Sleeperandthespindle]

Having read that last message from fugg, I'll leave the thread.

[user789653241]

This one?

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

[WhatTheActualFugg]

Goodness me sleeper. I don't think I said anything upsetting. Unless you count not agreeing with you?

[user789653241]

Sorry, on "here", I meant primary education board. Not just this thread.

[WhatTheActualFugg]

Phonics is great. But, come on, people had been learning to read perfectly well for hundreds of years before Phonics was even thought of.

Being so rigid and closed-minded to believe there's only one way to skin a cat is never that great an idea. IMHO. Teaching kids to read is no different.

There are lots of very 'successful' British schools working outside of the National Curriculum using a blend of sight reading, pictorial prompts, and phonics to teach their reception children to read.

My own DD was a competent free reader before she started reception. She learnt to read using regular picture books, pure phonic Songbirds books and a wide selection of Biff and Chip books both the 'phonics' books and the 'first stories' books plus a large dose of 'real life'!

Phonics simply isn't the only way to teach children to read.

[Feenie]

But, come on, people had been learning to read perfectly well for hundreds of years before Phonics was even thought of

Actually, it's phonics that is the method used for hundreds of years and Look and Say (sight reading) which was the brief newcomer - based on not a shred of evidence, just whim.

Op is correct - picture clues have no place in reading and is just guessing. The school's books do not match the NC, and that's a real worry. The aforementioned advisor who is still touting mixed methods is outdated and advocating discredited methods. The thread Irvine linked to has many research links which point to phonics being the most successful method of teaching reading. Read some of them.

[Feenie]

I would recommend subscribing to Reading Chest, op. I did this with my own ds - his school taught phonics and used decodable books in Reception, but Year 1 teaching reverted to old ORT and picture cues, leaving him thoroughly confused and demoralised.

[cornflakegirl]

I had exactly the same issue with DS2. School often lost the books that were sent home, so they sent the old ones that they didn't use in class. I got the Songbirds books out of the library - fully decodable, and much less painful to listen to than Biff and Chip.

As to learning without phonics - we all have to learn the alphabetic code - why would you not want to make this explicit? Pictures are for understanding meaning and adding enjoyment, not for decoding.

mrz has written many posts on here about the number of phonic combinations - somewhere around 100 - compared with the many thousands of words we would have to memorise if learning whole words.

[Feenie]

It's around 140+. complex, but easier than learning millions of words as wholes.

The problem is that around 20% of children are confused and fail to read when using mixed methods, but there's no way of knowing in advance who they will be. Whereas phonics has 95%+ success rate. My ds had been read to and exposed to books since birth. He was one of the 20% - it was quick and easy to teach him using phonics. It took much longer to.pick his self esteem off the floor.

Old ORT use look and say but Floppy's Phonics are great, written by Debbie Hepplewhite, an excellent phonics expert.

[Feenie]

And actually, reading this thread I'd say it's pretty conclusive that most of the 'respectable teacher mners' on this thread are disagreeing with OPs ideal of pure phonics.

Just one new teacher poster, I think. Four posting teachers have explained why the OP is correct - five, counting the OP.

[Feenie]

And it's not an.'ideal' - it's the curriculum now in place, which the OP's school are in breach of. And it's a curriculum based on very solid evidence.

[user789653241]

I hope OP comes back and at least read end of this thread....

[mrz]

"Are you sure they're not actually trying to teach him the 'tricky'/high frequency words?

My DS has been bringing home books with 3-5 words per page. He is in no way supposed to be decoding. Just learning by sight the high frequency words and basically guessing the rest based on the pictures and maybe initial letter (and to not be corrected if it's wrong) ie 'The snowman' with big picture of a snowman!"

They might be but they shouldn't be

[mrz]

"Using pictures is what they are supposed to do". No they aren't they are meant to be reading the words as the OP has said!

[mrz]

"As someone who worked in children's books for years I have to say pure phonics books are misery to read, even the Songbirds ones." As someone who has taught reception for years there is no greater misery than Look &Say books. Children and parents love decodable books that they can actually read without guessing from pictures because the words are beyond their ability. A great sense of achievement.

1st page of Songbird I am top cat. 1st page of Ginn Look 2nd page of Songbirds Am I top cat? 2nd page of Ginn Look

[mrz]

"No school is going to alter their methods on the say so of one parent."

No good school fails to follow the statutory curriculum.

[mrz]

"And actually, reading this thread I'd say it's pretty conclusive that most of the 'respectable teacher mners' on this thread are disagreeing with OPs ideal of pure phonics."

Where?

[WhatTheActualFugg]

Shouldn't be says who? It's a vey successful independent school known locally for their a high % of children leaving the school with academic scholarships. The joys of being independent is that they don't have to follow the NC. Instead they have the flexibility to work to the teachers' experience and talents and mould their own curriculum to suit the learning styles and abilities of the children - which is one of the reasons I'm happy to be paying them.

My DS bringing home books this week is helping him with his high frequency word recognition whilst he concurrently learns phonics. It has also done wonders for his confidence.

I think some of you are getting your knickers in a twist. And I've no idea why you're trying to pick a bun fight with me. The OP asked a question, I gave my opinion.

And if you actually read the thread you'll notice that no one on here is saying phonics shouldn't be taught in favour of sight reading. In fact no one is saying anything other than a total of 5 posters expressing an opinion that actually, picture clues are a very important part of the process of learning to read.

I'm sure there is lots of research. I'm sure phonics is a lot easier than how I was taught to read 30+ years ago. But I can read. And spell. And I'd never heard of phonics until my LO went to nursery. My 6 yo DD has a reading age of 12 - she wasn't taught using only phonics. That's my anecdotal evidence. Listen to it, or not. I'm really not bothered.