Non-decodable book sent home

[drspouse]

DS has just started Y1, he's decoding nicely and building up fluency. He is still on Red partly I think because he tends to mix up some of his digraphs.
I've done the Yellow digraphs on Hairy Phonics and read a few bits with him too. But if they feel he needs more practice on Red that's great.
However we've just had a non-decodable book from school. New Zealand publisher, 1997, all repetitive/guessable, and on every page is the word Time. He's not done i-e. The title contains i-e too.
Shall I send it back and say maybe it's in the wrong band?
He's started trying to guess words which we have firmly discouraged and I try not to say "you've seen this word before" unless it's an official "tricky word" but that's how he'd have to read this book.
Maybe advice from @mrz?

Anyway as I said above part of the problem has turned out to be DS not remembering the digraphs he has been taught and me not knowing how to reteach them. And him denying he knew them in the first place.

But I do feel that the books sent have been mainly of the "frame and slot" variety with a LOT of words that are beyond him. Plus the massive over reliance on tricky words.

poster Norestformrz yes a pp actually said 1000 words. And I taught myself to read by listening to tapes with books. Maybe I was seeing the patterns in words and using those to help me but I was so young I don't remember. I just think that there is a huge focus on phonics and some dubious research round the efficacy of the teaching (as in the resources were all purchased in the US which is where we got synthetic phonics from, before the efficacy was actually "proven". I also know that once readers get to a certain stage phonics can hold them back. It's known that good readers partaking in the phonics screening test under perform because they are beyond decoding every word and their brains are beginning to make leaps and create "real" words from the made up words.

“Maybe I was seeing the patterns in words and using those to help me”
So you worked out the relationship between spoken and written words without explicit teaching ...phonics

“as in the resources were all purchased in the US which is where we got synthetic phonics from” or the US where we got whole language from

Synthetic phonics actually originated in France in 1655

Re reading your post there are so many holes it’s leaking.

I also know that once readers get to a certain stage phonics can hold them back.

I think that would be your version of teaching phonics - simple code, words which you probably claim can't be decoded, few alternative graphemes because you don't want to 'hold your good readers back'. Mixed methods, not exclusive phonics teaching. You've no idea whether phonics works or not, because you've never taught it or read any studies. That's quite obvious. But I expect you'll just say we don't listen and flounce, instead of doing so. Seen it all before.

Blimey, it's been a long time since the 'good readers underperform on the phonics test' myth has reared its head. I didn't think anybody was still pushing that one.

“ I just think that there is a huge focus on phonics and some dubious research round the efficacy of the teaching (as in the resources were all purchased in the US which is where we got synthetic phonics from, before the efficacy was actually "proven"” false - the US are years behind the UK in adopting synthetic phonics and have no resources for us to purchase (the opposite is true they buy resources such as decodable books from the UK) the UK did however buy into unsupported whole word and multi cueing methods that have never been proven.
“I also know that once readers get to a certain stage phonics can hold them back.” False although there is plenty of evidence that children taught whole word or multi-cueing methods begin to struggle around third grade.
“It's known that good readers partaking in the phonics screening test under perform because they are beyond decoding every word and their brains are beginning to make leaps and create "real" words from the made up words.” False - it’s known that poor readers guess words and therefore read inaccurately. A child who substitutes a pseudo word for a familiar word will do the same with unfamiliar words silver for sliver, spilt for split etc.