I want to set up a reading reward scheme in Yr 2 - any ideas ?

[Iwanttoseethesea]

Hi, I'm at TA in a year 2 class and I'm looking to set up a good reading reward scheme for the kids when they read at home. We tried one last year where the kids had stickers on a chart for how many times they read at home , then the child with the most got a dip in the teachers box of treats ( pencils, rubbers etc) .

The only problem was the same boy won every week and always got the treat so the scheme kind of withered away.

I'm looking for a fun way to reward reading at home - help!

TIA

Then basically the same applies nowhere in the NC does it stop you teaching across years or even KEy Stages.

Yes, mrz, I know.

I was hoping TeacherBob has different ideas, but sadly, what she/he says is exactly same as my ds's teachers.

But then, TeacherBob sounds like very enthusiastic and passionate. The outcome could be completely different from my ds.
For a parent, it's so great to know teacher like her/him is somewhere, out there.

Simple word problems for a bright year 1? A whole term to demonstrate they can do them? So nothing they demonstrated in reception counts? Home ed is suddenly looking attractive

I dont think I said 'simple word problems for a whole term'.

That was just an example out of loads of things we do.

Just read back also.
I answered a question about reading, by giving a maths example :p
It's been a long week

Nah, I think Irvine was asking generally not just reading. I do appreciate that it's not just this particular type of exercise. Your example wouldn't challenge my yr R though, and I thought she wasn't particularly mathematical. It just gives me a general feeling of we're doomed if that's an example of differentiation for a strong student in year 1. I think I need to shift expectation massively downwards. I thought it was just our school being rubbish that DS always says maths is too easy.

Depends on the child. Every child has gaps etc.
It is all about knowing the children

.......TeacherBob, that's what my ds's yr1 teacher said.... and she was worst teacher ever for able children. How much gap can yr1 child have compared to other children?

I don't think they ever will get to know DS if they never give him work to interest and challenge him. He positively sprouts engagement given a bit of challenge. Not personal TeacherBob, just generally feeling massively disillusioned at the moment that we're nearly at half term and no sign of either child learning anything except handwriting. They're so keen to learn, it seems such a waste. I keep wanting to shout "but they're not even that able".

Irvine
Depends on the child, and their strengths etc.

Best thing you can do is ask to see the workbooks. If it is just pages of ticks, you have a problem.

I think a lot of people don't see the difference between 'knowing' and 'understanding' too
As an example, place value (adding a zero when

(adding a zero when x 10)

We have a problem then. (But we knew that already from talking to DS.)
Yes if you have a child who doesn't understand place value you don't have mastery. That's not the sort of child we're talking about here. We're talking the sort of child who properly understands place value before they start school. The sort of child who understands first and only learns a method when they get to big enough numbers they can't hold in their heads.

Then I cant help you I don't think, it is not one of my areas of strength and I have never met a child that fully understands that even in year 1, let alone before starting school

Gosh. Mind you, starting year 1 with equivalent of old level 3 as upthread and /not/ understanding place value is kind of more impressive in a way. DS could just do a load of stuff when he "got" place value, he didn't need to be taught. To do all that without understanding sounds like a load of work.

(DS isn't the got place value before reception child btw, just realised it might have come across as a huge not very stealth boast)

Using place value as an example, when DS started Year 1 he already could add double and three digit numbers in his head at speed. But I noticed at home that once the result added to more than three or four digits he couldn't write the right number because he didn't know place value. He knew the answer, he could say the right number but couldn't write it.

The teacher (without me saying anything) noticed the same, and commented it to me at the first parents evening. We both agreed that the next step for him was to learn place value, even though the other children were probable at the stage of securing numbers bonds to 10 or 20. I taught him place value at home (because we always do a bit of school stuff at home in the minority language) and the teacher also did the same at school in English. DS got it quickly, and from there he continued to learn other things.

I never felt he was prevented from moving forwards just because he already knew the content of that year curriculum or was too far ahead from his peers. All the opposite, the teachers were the first to bring to my attention that he was quite able and they were thinking of ways to teach him at the level he was.

The thing is, some children just learn really quick. I remember that in reception he was given some pictures of ladybirds with dots to practise doubles (which is basically the two times table), and he loved playing with those. But within a week he already knew all the doubles up to twenty with accuracy and speed, and the same for any other concept he was taught. So, when I later see that the Year 1 and Year 2 children are still practising number bonds to 10 and doubles to 10 it amazes me because that was something that I thought it was taught ages ago. But obviously, not all children grasp concepts as quickly and others need to practise them in various ways for a length of time before they are secure in them. And that's fine too. I suppose the problem arises with the teachers that find it difficult to accept that what it takes one child years to learn and master, another can do it in less than a week.

But you can teach all that in mastery without jumping through to other year group work, tahts the whole point about mastery.

Let me be very clear too, mastery is about understanding the concepts in different ways.

If you find a teacher is differentiating work by just using harder numbers, that isn't good differentiation because the child is learning the same skill, and thus just practising what they know.

TeacherBob, how can someone understand the concept of "place value" in different ways?
These children don't need to be taught...they get it when they get it. It doesn't make any difference if it's 1000s or 1000th. They get the concept instinctively.
They don't need to be taught division is inverse of multiplication. My Ds knew 18/2 = 9, when he got 9x2 = 18. In yr1, he was forever obsessed with power/roots, BIDMAS and prime factorization. Yet his target was to learn 2, 5, 10 times tables, even though his reception report clearly said he is secure with times table up to x12.
I just wish teachers admit that they are out of their depth if they don't know how to deal with them, instead of trying to fob us off with talk of mastery and deepening.

If they (securely )understand it then they've achieved mastery and no reason not to move on

Only if they have truly mastered it, but yes, indeed.

Irvine, that would be incredibly rare

Sounds like you need to speak with senco about this

No, I don't think it's so rare among MN children.
And Senco won't be interested with able children at my ds's school. They've known him for last 4 years.

It is incredibly rare for a child to know all his 12 times tables and fully understand them, in reception. I've never known it in 20 years of teaching.

And gifted and talented is a special need. It is their job to be interested.

Well, MN is a big pool to be fair Irvine, so it wouldn't be surprising if there were a few kids like that among the G&T forum posters, with it still being very rare on a national level.

The "and fully understand them" disclaimer doesn't fill me with confidence. It seems to be used as a cover for teachers not really understanding their pupils at times. DS' teacher was of the opinion that he didn't fully understand doubling because he was slow/reluctant to do it with counters, in year 2! He would have been fine 2 years earlier. He'd moved on, he didn't see the point.