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'...

"Our school does a session every year with a literacy expert so she can explain to parents that there are lots of different aspects to learning to read and phonics is just one of them. (I was of the same mind as y"

I'd seriously question the expertise of your literacy expert

Mrs in not going to copy and paste bits of this thread for you! It's very clear the few posters who have said "picture clues are good" or words to that effective.

And No good school fails to follow the statutory curriculum. what a load of balony! So there isn't a single 'good' independent or free school in the whole of the U.K. teaching their own curriculum? Wow. You'd better get on the phone to Ofsted, I don't think they've realised!!

"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*"

Extremely poor practice*

Mrz

..... A school MUST provide these books is like saying you MUST use punctuation in your sentence next time.

School budgets are not predicted by the teachers - speak to the Head if you feel her budgeting is discriminative.

Obviously independent schools can do as they wish and parents will happily pay for discredited methods

You see 'discredited', I see 'autonomous' and 'flexible'. It's a wonderful privilege. I would be utter mortified if my DCs had to go to a school where the teachers are as rigid and dogmatic as you seem to be.

Utterly

Picture clues are massively important. See word, not know, picture clue, work word out, remember it. I don't understand OP why reading can't be a combination of both. The teachers at my dd's school are concerned if a child doesn't have a go at discussing the story from the pictures and see it as an integral part or early reading, the significance of which drops off as they become more accomplished.

These 'tricky' words are taught from very early on there too and it doesn't matter if dd can't read every word, it's about confidence and trying regardless. We write down tricky words separately and try and make up interesting ways to remember them, which sometimes includes tying in with the pictures. This is still the case in year 1

Picture clues are an extremely poor reading strategy.

If you're happy to pay for autonomous discredited teaching method

I'd be utterly mortified if my children's teachers clung to discredited methods & ancient reading schemes

I'm not sure why this has turned into such a bun fight. Surely the advice to the OP is to go and have a chat with the teacher. We have no idea why they sent that book home, yet there's people here criticising their methods. Perhaps her son asked to take it home, perhaps a parent is supposed to read it to them for fun. My DD's school send home two books each week, one for the child to read, and one for fun. We'll soon start to get a list of 'sight' words for them to learn, which I believe are words that can't be learnt phonetically. I'm sure some will disagree with their methods, but it's an outstanding school so they must be doing something right.

"We'll soon start to get a list of 'sight' words for them to learn"

"which I believe are words that can't be learnt phonetically" all words can be read phonetically

It's sad, isn't it, that some people really do believe that damned what anyone else thinks their way is totally and exclusively right? I wouldn't mind reckoning that mrs hasn't been teaching for very long. How many methods and research have come and gone within education over the decades? If some posters are to be believed it's a miracle anyone over the age of 20 ever learnt to read!

OMG mrs seriously?! You don't even believe in sight reading high frequency / tricky words?

Are you actually a teacher? Who are these 'experts' you so verhemently support?

Is Ruth Miskin "discredited"?

mrz

When I first taught KS1, I was incredulous that although we taught reading using synthetic phonics, the school had virtually no decodable books to send home so that the children could practise using the skills we taught them in school. I was told by SLT that there wasn't enough money to replace the old reading schemes. I don't know if this happens everywhere, but in my experience, SLT are often dominated by staff who have never taught KS1 and don't really understand phonics or its importance.

Before I moved to KS1, I was sceptical of synthetic phonics as the only teaching method but having taught it I am now a complete convert. Before phonics was made mandatory, there were always a few children in each KS2 class who really couldn't read at all. I can honestly say that in the year 2 classes I taught that had regular phonics teaching, there wasn't one child who didn't learn to read, (although there were some who were less fluent than others).

Ruth Miskin does not advocate learning words as wholes. High Frequency isn't a synonym for "sight" words. "Tricky" words should be taught in the same was as any other word - decoding through the word with the "tricky" (alternative spelling for a sound ) part explained.

mrz, surely 'was' is a good example of a word that can't be read phonetically. My daughter tried this week and pronounced it incorrectly. Depending on accent, I would say it sounded more like w-o-s, or w-u-z, not w-a-s.

Mrz has been teaching twenty plus years fugg ...you?

Oh God, we really are still up against this 'isn't phonetic' nonsense aren't we?

Was is phonetic. Letter a is a spelling for the sound 'o' and letter s is a spelling for the sound 'z'.

I will be asking questions about the books. This school has been outstanding over many years and their curriculum is excellent. I am so disappointed about this.

As the new poster referred to, let me point out that I totally believe in phonics and the teaching of phonics.
I hate the old ORT books, which as pointed out, can not be decoded well. And when I say hate, I mean hate with an absolute passion.

But, the decodable ones are just as bad. They are as boring as hell and there is only so much discussion you can have around them.

But that doesn't change the fact that both children and adults use picture clues all the time, without even realising it. And to suggest otherwise is a nonsense.

It's probably not the solution you want, but I got given a box set of Usborne phonics books which my reception aged child has loved reading. And they've got a vague plot. And a yellow duck on each page.

Was is a very good example of a decodable word

The spelling is an alternative spelling for the sound /o/ watch, what, wasp, want, swamp, quad, swan, wash, quarry, swap, quality, quantum, waltz, waft etc etc

The spelling is a common alternative for the sound /z/ his, is, as, has, cosy, basil, music, museum, casual, legs, etc etc