Why are people so anti ORT?

[seeker]

They are often funny, they are often anarchic, they show children lots of different ways of living, the pictures have lots of interest and detail, the vocabulary is lively - you can usually find one that has something to interest an individual child, they are proper stories - what's not to like?

When I think about the Janet and John type of books people of my generation had - ORT is in a different universe!

I agree with you, I like them and my children like them, too.

Mine love them - but then they also like the rainbow fairies, and apparently that isn't good either....
actually, they like anything with words, even if it's the cereal packet, so I'm just happy either way!
I do think these ORT threads are fine fun though - if you're working to government policy and assessing children on their reading ability, you have to have set texts in order to do that - I do wonder if it's the whole grading thing that is worrying the most ardent anti-ORTers rather than the actual books per se. Of course they repeat words, of course there are lots of them in the same level, of course children have to work through them in order. ORT doesn't preclude parental choice and trips to the library - it's not an either/ or... but there are too many clever folk round here who are judging ORT from the 'able' reader point of view, and not enough looking at what happens when a child is really struggling. Yes, you go back to basics and play letter/ sound games etc etc, but there does come a time when they have to tackle a book with words in, and ORT has actually (gasp) been designed to lead children through the beginning reading stages. harumph. (shakes torygraph)
am enjoying the debate though!

seeker, who is anti ORT? I used to, in my pre-children days, work for Heinemann Educational, who concurrently released a reading scheme, and we were bowled over by the success of ORT.

DDs have used this at school, and had no problems with it. Is it just the 'Mum was cross' thing, or something else?

are some people anti-ORT? Maybe they are just those type of people who will always find something to critisize about our education system, forgetting that we are actually very lucky to have a reasonably good one.

Not anti-ORT - I am anti-teachers-thinking-they-are-the-only-books-in-the-world!

I think one of the problems is that when a teaching programme is widely available it becomes a bit overkill, you can buy ORT anywhere and I am sure the kids do get a bit bored of it especially when it is treated as teaching time, rather than sharing stories time. I always found it deathly dull but if it works hey ho,

colditz which teachers think that? none I've ever encountered that's for sure! Are they NQTs?

smug - no no, anti PARENTS thinking they are the only books in the world.

the teachers don't actually read ORT at story time y'know! It is only when working on specific reading with specific children... if I was a teacher I'd be mighty glad that I didn't have to start from scratch each time I was designing a reading programme for 30 individual children - and a s a parent I'm glad they have some time left to do some other lesson planning to fill the other 28 hours a week...

our school has ORT as the reading scheme, but once they hit level 3 they take home a selection of other reading books in addition - the ORT is the official tracker of progress, but the other (wide and varied) selection of books provides breadth and variety...

I think the ORT is great! The stories are good for boys to get into and they have a good narrative and the characters are real...

Worked a treat for my DS1 and will be looking forward to reading them again with DS2

I think that there is perhaps a problem when progression through the scheme involves slavishly reading every single one, rather than tailoring the progression to the needs and abilities of the individual child. I know of friends whose children have a massive list in their reading record and each book has to be ticked off before they can move to the next box.

I think ORT are ok but I hate the names Wilf, Wilma, biff, chip..why can't they have some normal names!!!
Our school uses a mixture of Ort and many other books, some non-fiction..I think more variety is best.

I've got a mate called Wilf, he's a nice looking bit of fluff

Hey, what's wrong with Wilf? Perfectly good name I'll have you know? Chip and Biff are cool too.

oops sorry!!! you are right wilf is fine .....not sure about some of the other ort names..but will not say any more in case someone called Wilma is lurking!!

i agree seeker

ort is such fun

i am teaching my fourth child to read with it and am still not tired of it

they are witty - fun and short!

I didn't like them in the beginning but that was because we read the same ones over and over and they were DULL, but now we're on level 8 and it's all magic key I think they're great, quite enjoying the stories, loving the magic adventures, dd genuinely excited to see where the children are going. We read other things at bed time but for her to get to grips with reading I think they're great.

Nothing wrong with ORT as long as they are not the only reading schee your child is followig. Ideally, IMO, children should be exposed to a whole range of schemes from the start to broadedn their vocabulary, comprehension and breadth of reading materials. From what I have seen recently childrne who only work through one scheme and sip through the levels qickly are not actually the most fluent, espressive and comprehensive readers - especially when faced with new books from outside the scheme.

That's true, I'd forgotten about the earlier ones and only remembered magic key type stuff. But they have to be dull don't they because you have to learn to read with, er short, easy words!?

Yes, that's true, anything very simple is boring to listen to when read haltingly by a four year old over and over again.

surely no teachers worth their salt would entirely rely on a reading scheme anyway? they're not daft?

we had an ORT book, plus one appropriate level thing they chose themselves, and of course the twelve million books we had at home...

Sadly some schools do seem to just stick with one scheme - have seen it happen. And the children involved are done no favours IMO.

We have ORT as a bit of back up reading for what ever they call the color band system they also use. I think they're very good. Dd likes them. You get to know the characters and the family.

I have heard that some schools don't let children move up a level til they ahve read every book. Interestingly, the only school I know of personally that does this is the "best" school in our area. Best in terms of results - I think it's a soulless place and I drive my children past it to their good-enough happy buzzing "satisfactory" establishment. But you can't help noticing that the reading levels, particularly in boys, are streets ahead at the read-every -book school. So maybe there is something in it. Wouldn't care for it myself, however.

Our school (well DS's!) does ORT and they prefer the children to go through each book at each stage. They also use Ginn to supplement.

I haven't had an issue - except with the very first ones with no words - torture!

I like that fact that DS is working through each level. I assume that the whole system is planned in away that goes together and means the the children work through an increasingly difficult vocabulary etc.

DS is on Stage 7 - a bit low for his age really but it doesn't bother me. He loves reading and loves books - partly as a result of ORT.

well, I can say I absolutely hate ORT!!!
At least at the very first stages. DC could read words like CAT PEN DOG, but words like "everyone, pancakes, scales" was just impossible. I don't believe in letting them guess or memorise.