Peter & Jane books

[AnneEyhtMeyer]

Just seen the latest Book People magazine and they have the Peter & Jane books available as a set for a very reasonable price.

Well worth a look.

"The problem with phonics though, as a learning tool, is that English is very irregular and doesn't obey its own rules. I actually think that too much emphasis on phonics can hinder the learning process."

English is complex but that doesn't mean it is very irregular. There aren't any rules to obey in phonics.

In English we have approx 44 speech sounds (depending on accent) but only 26 letters in the alphabet so some sounds are represented by two, three or even four letter spellings. The problem is that in English some sounds have more than one spelling - day, make, great, eight, they, paid etc and some spellings represent more than one sound - meat, steak, bread. This means we need to know around 180 different spellings to read any word in the English language (alternatively we could attempt to memorise over a million words as wholes ) .

Whether we've been taught phonics directly or worked it out for our selves this is the knowledge we need to use to read (and spell). As proficient readers we don't even have to think about it ...until we meet new words. Without phonics we wouldn't have a strategy for tackling these effectively.

Now we have a choice - teach that essential information about our written language or leave it to chance that children will be able to work it out for themselves, which they might be able to do but of course that will take many years.

Rudolf Flesch concluded in his 1955 book “Why Johnny Can’t Read” that English is 97.4% phonetic. Denise Eide, in her book “Uncovering the Logic of English,” states that English is 98% phonetic.

Blimey who knew that this was such a controversial subject?

Where can I find the peer reviewed paper please hesterton that supports your statement?

I'm a voracious reader and I remember reading Janet and John books at primary school. Plus the Ladybird series.

Perhaps this set has been updated to include the nostalgia along with 100% decodable words?

No, not updated at all. Same books as always. Of course the sexist stereotypes are a reflection of the times but this is another reason why they are better suited to adults - for the nostalgia - or to older children with whom you can discuss how and why society has changed.

Anything to make a buck then I guess.

The bus haven't changed in 62 years!

Books not bus!

https://www.cis.org.au/app/uploads/2016/07/rr11.pdf

Peter and Jane updated

mrz in a similar vein there are now Famous Five for Adults books, including Five go Parenting and Five go Gluten Free

But Feenie, you said Mrz was saying "exactly that" and then said it wasn't actually the case. So which is it?

Very much doubt there is any difference at all by the time they get to year 7, where is the evidence?

It is like maths - the way I was taught maths was changed and the old way was "wrong", but now I see DD is getting taught the way I was. It is just a fashion thing.

No it's nothing like maths ...

This is from the NRRF

"Historically, all American school children were taught to read. Teachers never considered that a child “could not” be taught to read, and remedial reading was unheard of. In fact, the first remedial reading clinic opened in 1930, soon after the results of the “look and say” (the so-called “Dick and Jane” program) reading methods were beginning to be felt.
Up until the early part of the 20th century, children were taught to read by first learning the alphabet, then the sounds of each letter, how they blended into syllables, and how those syllables made up words. They were taught that English spelling is logical and systematic, and that to become a fluent reader it was necessary to master the alphabetic “code” in which English words are written, to the point where it (the code) is used automatically with little conscious thought given to it.
Once a child learned the mechanics of the code, attention could be turned to more advanced content. It seldom, if ever, occurred to teachers to give children word lists to read, or to make beginning readers memorize whole words before learning the components of those words, or to memorize whole stories as today’s proponents of the “whole language approach” recommend.
Several recent studies funded by the U.S. Department of Education, including “Preventing Reading Failure: The Myths of Reading Instruction,” found that 90 percent of remedial reading students today are not able to decode fluently, accurately, and at an automatic level of response. In a March, 1989, Phi Delta Kappan article, Harvard Professor Jeanne Chall (author of “Learning to Read: The Great Debate”) cites a study by Peter Freebody and Brian Byrne, that confirms the same finding. Today’s students are not being taught the fundamental structure of language, but rather are engaged in what Dr. Kenneth Goodman (a proponent of “the whole

For the US substitute UK and for Dick and Jane substitute Peter and Jane or Janet and John ...the result is the same a large proportion of children unable to read well enough to complete simple forms.

The National Literacy Trust estimated (2011) that there were almost two million adults in the UK unable to read at the expected standard of an eleven year old and that over five million adults are functionally illiterate ...the success of Peter and Jane.

I learned to read with P&J and was complexly fluent by the end of reception, I read P&J with my dcs every night in reception and the same result, they were fluent readers way ahead of the rest of the class. I totally accept the method doesn't work for everyone and is not guaranteed but obviously for some it's hugely successful. We had a laugh at the sexism, it actually led to some very illuminating conversations.

I taught myself to read at home with White Fang,The Cruel Sea and Gray's Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard before I started school ... My son taught himself to read with the NATO magazine and the Financial Times before nursery but I'm not sure if that's relevant. Just because the fortunate few learn regardless should we condemn others to a lifetime of functional illiteracy? Remember until a child is floundering there is no way of knowing if your child will be one of the fortunate ones.

Did your son understand the FT aged 2 or 3, mrz? Did you understand Gray's Elegy? ? And please read posts properly, I said I understood the method was not for everyone.

Yes mum he was fascinated by checking shares

And yes I loved narrative poems ...and still do

In the OP's case her children will presumably be learning to read via phonics at school anyway, so Peter and Jane probably won't do them any harm. They're very dull stories, though, and as previous posters have pointed out v. sexist. There are so many great reading materials for children these days that I can't really see why anyone would buy them apart from the nostalgia factor, which is unlikely to appeal to your average five year old.

What's the odds on your child being one of the 5% ?

Those figures are from the year 2000 . Do you have recent figures please? There are lies, damn lies and statistics

Why does that pie chart add up to 100%? Doesn't that assume that all children do learn to read when we know that isn't the case.

I want some cherry pie now. Sorry as you were.