What do I do about reading books my daughter can't possibly read?

[Patchworksack]

Mr third child has just started Reception. The school have changed how they teach phonics AGAIN (3rd child through school, 3rd method= Read, Write, Inc) and I have dutifully attended the meeting to explain the method and gone out and bought the parent pack to support her at home. She is just starting to read CVC words and has been sent her first few books with words home. They are sending home ORT books which she can't possibly read with the method they are teaching - every page contains at least one word which has sounds she has not been taught, including split digraphs, y making an 'I' sound, ing endings etc. Given that these are books with 3-5 words to a page it's a significant amount of it she can't decode. I recognise they have budget constraints and maybe don't have enough RWI books for every child, is it too much to ask for books she can read with the method she is being taught, given that I'm expected to make her read it every night for a week? It is very definitely for her to read, they have another library book which is a story for the adult to read to the child.

what they're actually teaching is still mixed methods

I strongly suspect that this goes on in my DCs school. DS2 is in Reception now.

Officially they say they’re doing Jolly Phonics. We’ve had a parent information meeting about phonics and supporting our children’s reading at home.

But we keep getting home books that DS2 cant decode yet, given the phonics taught so far - we’ve had more than a few along the lines OP described above: So by page 2 I have explained that a few times and she has gathered that you just repeat "I like eating" and then name the fruit in the picture
Some of the parent notes in the back of the reading books even give advice on how to encourage guessing (e.g. get them to sound out the first letter so they can guess if it’s a satsuma or a tangerine) 🙄

And then in DS2’s reading record, where he’s been reading at school, about half the comments include something like “mini Garden used the picture clues to support his reading. Well done mini Garden”

I do help him with the phonics where they’re ones he doesn’t know yet, but I’m finding it quite frustrating because I don’t see how “picture clues” is a good strategy - sooner or later he’ll get books where there is no appropriate picture clue! How’s he supposed to figure out an unknown word then, if not with phonics?

I strongly suspect that a considerable proportion of the schools saying they use jolly phonics just mean they are using the actions because it makes it a bit more fun.

For some reason it seems to get picked up and used like this more than any other scheme.

I once went to a training session "on synthetic phonics" which was basically about Jolly Phonics. The trainer knew next to nothing about synthetic phonics (this became abundantly clear early on in the session) and the training session was basically all about how to do role play with these cute little puppets and how to do the fun little hand-waving and finger-clicking games.

I think it's important to remember many of those leading LA phonics training were previously promoting the multi cueing method and know very little about teaching phonics so cover with useless games and fluffy toys.

Yep, I mean, I think the puppets and little games are fine in themselves but it was obvious that the lady knew very little about how to teach a writing system so she was missing the fundamental point of JP. It's frustrating because just reading the Diane M. book alone more or less covers all the basics. Is this being taught properly in PGCE courses?

The puppets and little games are simply unnecessary fluff that distract many children from the real purpose of the activity.

"Is this being taught properly in PGCE courses?" Not in my experience talking to students.

I have to admit that I’ve been ignoring the suggested Jolly Phonics songs and movements when DS2 is sent home with letter cards and words of the week.

He’s doing fine with the letters / words sent home without adding in movements.

I guess the theory is that the movements may be helpful for a child who’s struggling to grasp phonics?

The theory is that the songs are fun, multi sensory and memorable but over the years I found many children remembered the actions but didn't remember the relationship between the letter and the sound.

Our school explained this to us and calls those words "Tricky words" our language as a whole doesn't fit into the phonetic pattern. There are many words like 'was' that phonemes can't be used to decode. Children do need to learn some sight/memory reading skills too and using the pictures as a guide also. It's not something I'd be complaining about although you could give feedback that it would be helpful to have more explained about 'tricky words" in the session they offer.

I’ll carry on ignoring the songs and actions at home then

Surely it is impossible to learn to read without using mixed methods? When the child no longer needs picture cues they will use the context of the words to help decode words they don't know. For example when reading a book about a swimming lesson they will know that that long word they don't recognise beginning with an L is more likely to be Lifeguard than Linesman. We still use these contextual clues as adults.

That's ridiculous. The whole ethos of RWI is about success. So they take home books they can already read, even on their own.

We still use these contextual clues as adults.

I’m not convinced adults do, at least not in the sense you describe. I know when I come across an unfamiliar word, I’m sounding it completely out in my head. I’m not going to be guessing at it based on the first few letters.

I will use contextual clues to help with the meaning of the word - taking your example, if I didn’t know the definition of “lifeguard” already, then based on the context i might guess at the meaning as “someone who saves drowning people” or “someone who makes sure people behave properly around swimming pools”. But that’s not the same as using contextual clues to actually read the word itself.

they will know that that long word they don't recognise beginning with an L is more likely to be Lifeguard than Linesman

And this sort of guessing is something that I’m trying to train DS1 (7) out of. He’s got a bad habit of reading his reading book, coming to a more difficult word, and just guessing at one that more or less fits with the context. As a general rule, he’s perfectly capable of sounding out the whole word to get the actual word written down. It just takes him a couple of seconds longer.

"Our school explained this to us and calls those words "Tricky words" our language as a whole doesn't fit into the phonetic pattern. There are many words like 'was' that phonemes can't be used to decode." Of dear! It's worrying that teachers are still repeating this nonsense. English is complex but all words are decodable if you know how spoken sounds are represented in our language. Was - w represents /w/ a represents /o/ ( very common spelling after the sound /w/ want, what, watch, quad, swan, qualify, quality etc etc) s represents the sound /z/ ( again think his, as, is , has, frogs, busy, easy, cosy, music etc etc)

I have three kids too and all have learned to read in different ways. In my experience - and I'm not a teacher - children will use a combination of methods. Yes phonics is important. As is "guessing" what the word you don't know might be/mean based on the other words you do know, and what you can decode. Also looking at the picture for cliues. Or anticipating what comes next based on the last page.

" children will use a combination of methods" they will if they've been led to believe that's how you read. It's actually a very ineffective way to read.

My ds is in year 1 and on the easiest level of reading book but he can't read any of the words yet. The teacher told me to read the books to him and ask him questions about what is in the pictures. You could try doing that with your dd.

"Scientific evidence strongly demonstrates that the development of skilled reading involves increasingly accurate and automatic word identification skills, not the use of "multiple cueing systems" to read words. Skilled readers do not need to rely on pictures or sentence context in word identification, because they can read most words automatically, and they have the phonics skills to decode occasional unknown words rapidly. Rather, it is the unskilled readers who tend to be dependent on context to compensate for poor word identification."^*

"^The use of context in comprehension refers to something quite different from the use of context in word identification."*

I don't think it is essential that every word in a book needs to be read by the child. If there is a word she cannot decode read it to her and explain meaning if needed. I think it's good that they come across more interesting vocabulary, a whole book of only CVC words would be boring.
On the other hand if every word it too tricky then that's a bit too much.

You seem to be missing the purpose of reading scheme books yellowcar. Children can meet new and interesting vocabulary in books they share with adults and that adults read to them whereas reading scheme books are intended to develop the child's ability to independently and accurately read. They can't do that if they have to guess because the book provided is based on flawed theories.

http://www.fivefromfive.org.au/decodable-readers/

.

That's a fantastic image which sums up the decodable vs look and say 'boring' argument v neatly - thanks, mrz, I shall be stealing!

The Five from Five site has some great images and articles

https://blog.allaboutlearningpress.com/decodable-books/