Learning to read books- 4yo

[LilaGrace]

My DD (who'll be 4 in May) is showing great interest in learning to read. Can anyone recommend a great series of books which have simple words for her to read herself (with my help) along with a story? Ideally ones where the books in the series gradually get harder. I remember the Peter and Jane ladybird books from when I was a child and was hoping for something like those (but more modern!)

Really?
http://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/fms/Massey%20News/2013/8/docs/Report-National-Literacy-Strategy-2013.pdf

• "Of the six English-speaking comparison counties, all but one significantly outperformed New Zealand. "
Trend data revealed that, although there were more increases than decreases in mean reading achievement scores across countries from 2001 to 2011, New Zealand showed no signi cant increases in reading performance. "

Byron,

80% of children will learn to read using non-phonic methods (basically, they will eventually work out their own version of the phonic code for themselves and use it to decode unknown words). 20% will struggle.

95% of children will learn to read with systematic phonics teaching, because iot teaches the phonic code directly so children don't need to work it out for themselves in order to read unknown words.

So if 80% of children in New Zealand learn to read, in the absence of phonic teaching, is that 'good enough'? Or should one actively seek out methods that work better?

One of the real difficulties, even in England, is that because teachers saw that 80% did learn to read using mixed methods, they think that's OK, and that mixed methods are fine. This mixed teaching - or half-hearted nod towards phonics, unsupported by suitable reading books etc - is what means that England's reading teaching still isn't good enough in most cases, and the results even when phonics is 'apparently' taught don't show the gains that they should.

DS taught himself to read through using his memory of what had been read to him to unscramble the phonics code. Why should iI as a teacher require others to do it 'the hard way' as he did, when a much more direct method is available?

Throughout reception my dd did phonics, half way through the first term of year one it all clicked, she took Winnie the Witch out of my hands at bedtime and read it using all the phonics she had learned .... as someone who did not learn via phonics I was astonished! She could read words she had never learnt seen before. It is truly amazing.

"Thousands of children begin secondary school each year without the reading, writing or maths skills needed to make it through. In a new series 'The Primary Issue' we look at what more can be done to raise achievement for all Kiwi kids.
^Primary school pass rates have virtually flatlined despite an six-year government literacy and numeracy "crusade" costing more than $250 million.
Data shows a quarter of children entering high school are below the National Standards in reading, writing and maths.^"

As a schoolchild in the 1970s, explicit phonics teaching was never part of my learning to read - but faced with an unknown scientific term or other new vocabulary, I sound it out. Perhaps in longer 'chunks' than phonics is first taught in (I read 'tion' as a whole, rather than as its separate phonemes, for example). However, I do sound it out, using the phonic code I have built up - why wouldn't I teach that phonic code directly rather than relying on a child working it out??

I am not getting into a bold print bunfight and completely derailing the OPs original question in the meantime. I know that phonics are important in teaching reading and most particularly for second wave learners and I have close regard to the work of Louisa Moats and the practice of Yolanda Soryl in my work. However it is interesting that the cognitivists find it so difficult to accept the benefits of constructivism as a valid part of literacy learning, but no the other way round. Even Cambourne advocates for the teaching of the graphophonic system as an important focus. There is so much more to literacy learning than phonics and in my setting it would be criminal to neglect sociocultural concepts of literacy, given a Treaty of Waitangi obligation to reflect and provide a window into our bicultural society.

As for information from The Primary Issue, you need to think about the source of this information. The NZ Herald - that's right! An Auckland based newspaper with no agenda at all - oh no! NZs biggest issue is the long tail of underachievement and always has been. Ethnicity and wealth have a huge bearing on this and in many ways this is a uniquely NZ issue. This is about cultural capital and families living in often shocking poverty.

You might want a closer look at PISA, rather than simply consulting Dr Google. Yes, there has been a decline in reading literacy between 2009 and 2012 but this is not unique to NZ and in fact Finland, Iceland and Sweden suffered greater declines. In fact, in the latest full reports, NZ sits at number 13, ahead of Australia and the UK (by a significant margin in the case of the U.K.). What is worrying and what contributes to NZ's decline, is the growth of the long tail, which is not only worrying in plain educational terms, but also in terms of Treaty obligations to Maori and serves as an indicator of the growth of child poverty.

I'm not sure that a 3yo needs to be actively taught phonics. Surely all that's needed before school is fostering an enjoyment of books. If whole word recognition develops as a result is that really a bad thing?

My DD started "reading" at 2 in that it became apparent she recognised words. By the time she started school she'd amassed quite a big sight vocabulary but I'd purposefully kept away from phonics for fear of not introducing them properly and wanting it to be fresh for her in school.

Her foundation teacher said that she was unusual in that she could read but didn't know any sounds - is it that unusual for children not to be hot housed in phonics before starting school?!

Anyway she took to phonics and now in year 1 is doing very well, currently on gold band. She reads through a combination of word recognition and phonics. I'm glad I left it to the teachers and just shared books with her when she was younger.

Byron the primary source is Massey university

"Her foundation teacher said that she was unusual in that she could read but didn't know any sounds" it's unusual in that she hasn't managed to work it out for herself. The majority of children who learn to read in the way you describe are able to apply what they know to match spellings to sounds in order to use this knowledge when meeting unknown words and for spelling.
My son was a very early precocious reader but like your daughter didn't work out the relationship between sounds and spellings ...it was a huge handicap as he progressed through school

Try (1) reading eggs website. It does phonics in a fun way.

So much more effective than any reading books set I think.

I agree with Feenie on sight words on flashcards.

Mrz is correct but I think Mrz is referring to a spelling tool for older children. Our school here in Australia uses an overly complex system called Thrass - it is introduced as part of learning to read but is really useful for spelling.

FWIW, My first child I earnestly 'taught' him using flashcards that my mother had saved since the 1970s. Almost killed his joy in reading. My second just picked up reading through exposure to the eldest's classroom as I went in to help every week. Then I returned to the (paid) workforce and my youngest taught himself when he was 4 - I let him 'play' minecraft alongside his big brother. He was desperate to read the chat.

It's also teaches phonics using the US methods which are poor

I'm certainly not referring to THRASS which isn't Phonics!

brasseye, my ds was one who learned to read without proper phonics teaching. I am a foreigner and had no clue about it. Only thing we had was phonics sounds poster we bought from library.
Some children are lucky enough to find out mechanism behind decoding without being taught.
Others, may not possess that ability but keen to learn to read early. If taught by parents, it's better to start with proper phonic skills.

I think if your child have the ability to decode without teaching, you would know, because they will be sounding out everything they see everywhere, or trying to read any book they can put their hands on. (Mine was D.H. Lawrence from my bookshelf, when he was around 2.)

Mrs she may well have instinctively been reading new words by recognising they were formed the same. I think what the teacher was getting at, as this was at the beginning of foundation before they'd started phonics, was that when presented with letters of the alphabet she didn't know the sounds. Whereas I guess there were a lot of children who knew the sounds but couldn't actually read much yet.

I just think that caution needs to be exercised if embarking on phonics before school. I would need to know exactly what scheme the school would be using and research exactly how it should be taught. Once she started phonics (RWI) she took to it very well but it was fresh to her and they make it fun for them - I'm not sure how much I could have replicated that at home without all the materials and experience.

Interestingly she is by far one of the best readers in her year group so I'm glad I let her start as a clean slate phonics wise so to speak as there was nothing to be potentially be corrected.

I can see that the discussion has moved on a bit but I bought these for my son last term and he loved them.

My kids school provides lots of suggestions of how to help children, mainly reading with them and getting them to figure out words that they may be able to. The Apple Tree Farm books are working very well for this - I read about half the words and get dd to do the bits she can sound out. And there's a duck to spot on each page.

Read Write Inc phonics flash cards with letter sounds on one side and saying in the other eg ow blow the snow.£ 5 on Amazon.

" I think what the teacher was getting at, as this was at the beginning of foundation before they'd started phonics, was that when presented with letters of the alphabet she didn't know the sounds."

It would be highly unusual for a child who has managed to work the code out for themselves to not be able to match letters to sounds

I didn't say she'd worked any code out though, that's my point, she started school reading but it was whole word recognition rather than phonics. And the teacher found that unusual.

brasseye,

Do you mean that she could only read words she had seen before, and made absolutely no attempt to read any unfamiliar word at all, just guess the word that was nearest to it in her limited 'word bank'?

I would say it is unusual
a) not to make any generalisations about the code at all from words she recognised and
b) to be able to memorise enough words to pass as 'reading' anything other than the most basic and well known of books.

Mrz's son is an example where b) was true without a) - but as she says, it did cause him problems in the long run. I'm glad that your DD has also picked up phonics in the early years of school - particularly because memorising without generalising to the code is a known issue in proper long-term reading if taught only through whole word models.

I know you didn't ...which is what is very unusual.

It maybe unusual, but I don't think it's impossible with someone with super memory. She was able to pick up phonics and made her even better reader, which suggests she is truly gifted in reading ability, imo.

My son proves its not impossible but in thirty years I've only encountered four or five ... all autistic