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?

I too am struggling with the idea that phonics needs to be followed so purely. First as you are clearly very well educated op you are likely to be able to support your child/ren in their education and they are going to benefit regardless of your knowledge of phonics. I hate phonics and am educated to Post Grad level, my children all learned to read despite having unrestricted access to children's books and a mixed method of taught phonics at school and free range at home. They were not held back in any way. It is probably complicated by my older children having aspergers, they learn in a very individual and quirky way phonics was just a distraction to them.

By the time they reach year 4/5/6 it is easy to lose interest in reading if they are not encouraged to choose books according to interest not reading level. I was more focused on keeping the love of reading beyond technical skill. I have found that is more effective long term particularly for vocabulary and story writing skills, protecting the enthusiasm and imagination.

But sorry if I am not helping with my layman's opinion.

I am perfectly prepared to believe that some children are struggling at school because of large class sizes, unrealistic targets which don't take account of the fact that some children are ready for formal learning at different times than others.

I am also prepared to believe that the anxiety parents feel because children may fail at targets which should never have been set in the first place - will lead them to some kind of intensive activity at home.

Whether the problems of children with reading at Key Stage 1 are because of inadequate teaching of synthetic phonics, or because they are children who would have just got there a bit later in their own time, or because those children actually would do better with a different (more mixed) teaching style, or because the whole educational system is designed to cause infants and parents enormous anxiety, I have no idea.

But they seem to me to be questions that are worth asking.

He didn't choose this book out of interest. It's way more boring than the previous decodable book he had which was full of fun rhymes. We read and talk about plenty of other books together. He will just get frustrated if he can't read, himself, what is supposed to be HIS reading book. He enjoys that he can decode books at his level - he accomplishes that for himself.

Loving reading books has nothing to do with phonics, it's loving reading, they are unrelated, DD who has only been taught phonics was laughing her head of at Dahl, and this morning told me all about the ten chapters of Walliams she was reading last night, she loves reading.

The phonics characterisations are just ludicrous, how is saying it's a word, read it, any different in terms of pressure or rigidity than saying here is a list of words to remember, remember them.

I could easily write some examples of how the memorising of sight words would destroy the love of reading, as some of the posters names, are doing here. I won't though as I see no relationship between how you learn to read from the love of reading other than if it becomes something that is too hard. Your attitudes to story will certainly matter, but these things are unrelated to the technical skill of reading.

or because the whole educational system is designed to cause infants and parents enormous anxiety

erm? School where I am appears designed such that anxiety is minimised, I can imagine that's similar as most, as anxiety is not good for learning success.

Any book stumbled across at that age can be a bit of brief fun. My son now loves a numbers of books I see as 'boring', and in turn dislikes 'fun' rhymes which my daughter loves, boring is pretty subjective.

The reason I'm presuming there is some narrowness here is because of the notion of completely rejecting a book, at a very young age, on the basis of it not fitting an ideology. I could relate to reading it, then a note in the planner explaining what would work better, but sending it back on the basis of spilt digraphs seems a little intense. I wouldn't be surprised if it was suddenly interesting, instead of boring, if the phonics were acceptable.

I agree with the poster below who lists the many factors that can contribute to weaker reading skills. Very well put. I'd also add my frustration as a senco (in a previous life, I left teaching after 11 yrs) at the decoders with appalling comprehension. It was a frequent topic at senco meets how to support them in lower ks2. I've never yet seen a child who enjoys books fail in reading. I now tutor and I have some who have lovely handwriting and fluency in yr7 but are really held back on comprehension having fallen through the gaps as they are decoders. It's not just in reading, but also a big factor in maths, comprehending the questions.

I believe phonics and intervention has a place, but it does not provide a magic bullet and reading widely for fun from a young age does not disadvantage.

It would still be boring if it was decodable. I would read some of the decodable books as story books, but this one's not worth it. If we got an interesting advanced book I'd read it to him and then point out he can't read it yet

So much for a break to get get on with paperwork [sigh]

"The reason I'm presuming there is some narrowness here is because of the notion of completely rejecting a book, at a very young age, on the basis of it not fitting an ideology. " it isn't a case of rejecting because it doesn't fit in with ideology ...
Can I ask what you would do if your child's teacher sent home quadratic equations homework in the second week of reception? I hope the answer is send them back and say they aren't suitable for his current knowledge (perhaps you wouldn't ) which is exactly what the OP is doing.
Children learning to read through phonics have access to a huge range of books (far more interesting than old Look and Guess reading scheme books) but they aren't expected to be able to read them independently until they have the skills and knowledge to do so just as we wouldn't expect a child to independently calculate quadratic equations until they know how.

Now where's that stupid paperwork!

Well being an optimist, in your surreal example that couldn't provide for the teacher simply forgetting my child was just a little behind others in the class as the OPs is, I'd probably look at the numbers we knew and underline them then add them together or something. I'd then probably write a light- hearted note about mixing DS up with the high schoolers they obviously tutor. My DS would feel pretty smart having solved it...

high quality phonics teaching has around a 96% success rate.

Whilst this is true, teachers need to have an awareness of the remaining 4% - a child with auditory processing disorder, for instance, will struggle to learn to read using a purely phonic approach.

I'd also add my frustration as a senco (in a previous life, I left teaching after 11 yrs) at the decoders with appalling comprehension

I agree - I am being asked to assess an increasing number of children with literacy difficulties who have good decoding but poor Comprehension.

Norest, is it who I think it is? Your post made me cry with joy.(Literally.)

I hate phonics and am educated to Post Grad level, my children all learned to read despite having unrestricted access to children's books and a mixed method of taught phonics at school and free range at home.

How lucky for you not to have a child who falls into the 20% category! And how predictable of you to assume that, just because your child was read to, they obviously wouldn't be at risk.

And that's all it was - luck. There is no way to predict which children will fall into the 20% category. They can be children who've been read to since the day they were born or children who haven't seen a book outside the classroom walls. Children with a specific difficulty or not.

It's a typical view that pops up sooner or later that phonics teaching must therefore not promote enjoyment of reading - no idea why. Any method of teaching decoding obviously promotes enjoyment also, or what's the point? As for Rosen, he's a popular political figure who I'd go to to engage my Y5s/Y6s in wonderful poetry, but not someone I'd want to talk to absolutely about teaching children to read, since it isn't his role. It's mine, so I use my experience and the wealth of recent studies to support my teaching, and every single child learns to read.

I've never yet seen a child who enjoys books fail in reading. I now tutor and I have some who have lovely handwriting and fluency in yr7 but are really held back on comprehension having fallen through the gaps as they are decoders. It's not just in reading, but also a big factor in maths, comprehending the questions.
This kind of opinion has led to many a guilt tripped thread on MN, but the view that these lovely children who are surrounded by books from the day they were born will read anyway is a fallacy, I'm afraid. Osmosis isn't an accurate teaching method, and these children can just as easily fall into the 20% as anyone else. It's common to see this kind of 'I'm alright, Jack' attitude in a parent who is fortunate enough to have a child in the 80% category.

I now tutor and I have some who have lovely handwriting and fluency in yr7 but are really held back on comprehension having fallen through the gaps as they are decoders. It's not just in reading, but also a big factor in maths, comprehending the questions.

Again, all decoding methods must be taught alongside comprehension. How much more difficult would your tutoring be if they couldn't actually decode in the first place?

Less than 20% yes but my younger falls into the hearing impaired group. Where does whole class phonics fit? Yes, so easy to say 1:1 and small group but the funding isn't there. Also it's not as simple as just making her hear it, she doesn't have the same reference of sounds from everyday speech. Arguing her to be sacrificed to phonics is no difference to those let down by other methods. No method fits EVERY child does it?

The posters urging the OP to 'enjoy' the book nevertheless, and those who make conjectures regarding 'rigidity' etc from the OPs intention of sending the book back 'unread' clearly haven't seen a red band Look&Say book in a while.

at least read it to them and discuss it for comprehension purposes. Maybe make up a new ending, discuss a character or draw something from it of interest

Haha... reading it to them would probably last about 30 seconds. There is very little to 'comprehend'. There is most likely no story line at all, so now new ending to make up. There may be no character that is described in more than two words, so hard to discuss a character. There is most likely nothing of interest in the book and many children don't like drawing anyway. And what message does 'why don't you draw a picture instead of trying to read the book that you were given as reading practice' give to the child?

Yes, do enjoy books with your child that they are not yet able to read themselves. But do it with books that actually allow for making up alternative endings and discussing characters' feelings.

Well being an optimist, in your surreal example that couldn't provide for the teacher simply forgetting my child was just a little behind others in the class as the OPs is, I'd probably look at the numbers we knew and underline them then add them together or something.

So the children receive books that they know they are meant to read themselves. And they are doing ok with them. Now they receive a book where the method they have been taught doesn't seem to work. The letters don't transform into words when they decode them according to what they know. Immediately this could rock many a child's confidence - they would feel that perhaps they haven't grasped reading as well as they'd thought, and all previous successes may be overshadowed by suspicion that they just turned lucky. (Not all children have that easy confidence in themselves that many posters seem to assume.) Then mum comes along and says, let's not try to read these words (in the book the child was given in order to read for themselves), let's just look at some of the letters you know instead. Child feels their conclusion that they are just not smart enough to read confirmed by their parent.

So, no, I would not try to enjoy such a book with my child (nothing to stop me from enjoying another, non-scheme book with them instead); and I would not try to focus on the easy bits within the book either.

(Also in terms of the perception of lucky as well as H.I she has epilepsy and hemiplegia-I'd rather she struggled to read)

The sense I have from my daughter who is a primary school teacher and others I know who work in schols, is that teacher training enables them to train children to jump through a set of a hoops and/or get to a point where they can take tests that will measure skills that are felt to be measurable (eg decoding ability). This will enable the school to pass inspections and may prevent the school from taken over.

Undoubtedly Michael Rosen is a political figure. But then all schools policy is heavily politicised. Education is concerned with international league tables, and with longterm economic goals.

Going back to reading/the testing of synthetic phonics, it may be that children who pass these tests will nonetheless struggle at subsequent tests, because - for example - decoding is falsely equate with comprehension.

It is particularly interesting to hear contributions from those who teach children who have special educational needs, because this is a field where synthetic phonics is felt to have significant advantages. However, if there are drawbacks because it doesn't teach children to understand the whole text, but simply to identify the individual words correctly, the question might be whether other methods - that might be slower to begin with, but which had benefits further down the line - might be better in the long term.

I am particularly interested in the relationship between reading and speaking. My guess would be that in homes where children are talked to and listened to and where there are family discussions, it may be a lot easier for children to read because they already have a sense that language is something that enables you to be an active part of a community.

roloisking, I think that's why they have PSC, to find those 4%.

"My DS would feel pretty smart having solved it..." but he hasn't solved the quadratic equation he's solved something that matches his current knowledge and ability. Just think how smart he'd feel if he'd been assigned something suitable in the first place and hadn't needed you to adapt it so he could access it and could demonstrate his knowledge totally unaided.

Irvine thanks for the welcome but I'm not staying long. I really need a break without the distraction of MN.

Letdownalittle, there's some excellent advice from maizieD and mrz on this thread (as usual):

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/primary/2321196-Phonics-with-hearing-loss

The point is that at 4 he wouldn't know that. It's about not teaching your child they can't do things, about teaching them you can have a go at anything. Life doesn't only throw at you what you can already do. That child is used to reading a book a week, saw it go in his reading bag, but it's too hard and goes back (children pick up on things).

"Going back to reading/the testing of synthetic phonics, it may be that children who pass these tests will nonetheless struggle at subsequent tests, because - for example - decoding is falsely equate with comprehension." Interestingly when comparing results of the phonics screening check with SATs result in KS2 this year we are seeing a strong correlation in results.

If you can't accurately read the words and the words aren't in your receptive vocabulary then comprehension is severely compromised I'm afraid.

I also think there seems to be some analogy between modern (synthetic phonics) methods of teaching reading and the way in which I was taught French many years ago. There was a great emphasis on slow controlled learning, so that mistakes would not be made. I learned grammatical French and passed exams in it and I am able to read a certain amount of basic French. However, the whole experience was so boring and unpleasant (as well as fraught with the danger of being told that I'd done something wrong) that the idea of speaking the langauge or voluntarily reading books in French was anathema to me.

So I suppose the question remains was I taught French successfully or not?

However, if there are drawbacks because it doesn't teach children to understand the whole text, but simply to identify the individual words correctly, the question might be whether other methods - that might be slower to begin with, but which had benefits further down the line - might be better in the long term.

No method of teaching decoding teaches understanding as well, which is why it is essential that comprehension is taught alongside any method.

Like anything, it's only as boring as the teacher makes it, Alberta.