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!

mrsz, maybe you don't feel the need need to read 'strange words out of context'. Personally, I find if I'm reading, say, history or Greek myths, if I skipped every name or place name I was unfamiliar with, there might be little left to read. However, as I said, we aren't talking about adults. To small children learning to read ALL words are unfamiliar at first. Are you suggesting that unless they've learned the shape of the word they just skip it?

MsDemeanor if you have the time and inclination to read my previous posts in this thread and in this thread www.mumsnet.com/Talk/2403/536011 you will see from the start I have advocated that children should have a good knowledge of phonics and be "competent" readers before being subjected to books such as ORT (if they really must be given ORT to read)you may even see my post on this page explaining why words such as be and so are taught as tricky words when they are in fact decodable once children have the knowledge of phonics rules to decode them.

Incidentally my first degree is in Humanities (History/Literature/Linguistics) and I managed really well to avoid strange words out of context

mrz,
But if you had chosen to study medicine then you would need to learn loads of new words.

Tiny bones in the body often have obscure names. Imagine if a doctor guessed at what a particular bone was on a patient's notes and then operated on the wrong bone in the body.

I actually think that children should get on reading real books as soon as possible. I think that decodable books in the early stages allow children to get to proper books faster. I think that ORT have some good books, but some of their earlier books are not in line with modern ideas about teaching children to read.

My son loves the magic key books. But they are for children who can read already.

ReallyTired I agree if I had chosen to be a doctor or a technician or lots of other jobs I would have to learn loads of new words in context.

I agree. Give them the proper grounding in synthetic phonics right at the start, and then they can read anything, which means real books, not reading schemes ad infinitum (Actually I just had a memory blip with that word, so quickly sounded it out in my head!)

It's nothing to do with 'agonizing' it's learning the skill so when children do meet a new word they can quickly, almost subliminally sound it out, and hey presto, they know it.

My point was that as an adult I don't "agonise" over unknown words but it seems to have been lost as have my previous posts advocating phonics first

Yes, I know you don't agonise, but but saying "If it's not essential to the plot I skip it I certainly don't spend time agonising over how it is pronounced." you seem to be implying that the only way to work out a word by sounding it out is to 'agonize' over it. I was merely saying that with a proper phonics grounding, it is so fast to sound out words that it almost happens subliminally. No agonizing required.

Sorry didn't realise we'd abandoned phonics for semantics can I resubmit my previous statement with "If it's not essential to the plot I skip it I certainly don't give a seconds consideration to how it is pronounced."

Ok, ok, that's fine for you. Do what you like! But for small children learning to read that's not really an option, given that just about all words are unfamiliar. You seem to be very cross about this. Ho hum.

Perhaps if you had taken the time to agonise over the topic you may have been better informed over my opinion on reading instruction ...ho hum!

By mrz on Sun 25-May-08 19:13:31
ORT publish "Floppy phonics" and Oxford Union Press publish Songbirds which are phonics reading books written by Julia Donaldson (The Gruffalo) the problem is many schools invested thousands of pounds in ORT many years ago and just don't have the money to buy new schemes.

By mrz on Sun 25-May-08 19:42:11
Personally I wouldn't stick to a single scheme as children can be fluent readers in one and struggle when they meet unfamiliar texts because they have become reliant on the predictable style. In my school we use Rigby /Songbirds/Big Cat Phonics as our main reading schemes with some Get reading right books. Hopefully I will be able to broaden this with some Jelly and Bean books when there is more money in the budget.

By mrz on Sun 25-May-08 20:01:12
Sorry Anna should say that would be my choice for initial reading instruction more experienced readers Heinemann Literacy World Discovery world & Story World. W have also bought in some great non fiction books from National Geographic.

Ooh, you are cross
Mind you so am I. Crap weather and need to sort out the house in order to try to sell it. Pity me!

My son does find reading agonizing, and so did I when reading with him. Learning synthetic phonics has done wonders for us. I didn't even realise there were rules for the more complex sounds, but now we know them we stop "sounding it out" and can say ah, does that letter combination make this sound or that one, or for spelling we can say for example do we think that "ow" sound is an ou or an ow. It has helped immensly, books that work with the rules he knows build up his confidence, books full of challenging words destroy it. Simple really. I am a very fluent reader but terrible speller, and learning the rules has helped me too.

I agree nooka, phonics learning seems pretty indispensable, I can't think how children learn all the twists and turns of the English language without it!

MsDemeanor I've no idea why you were winding up mrz earlier, he/she's been a complete font of wisdom on every thread I've come across on the subject of Reception / early reading. Keep posting mrz, you make such a lot of sense.

Oh stop being so aggressive. I wasnt' 'winding up' mrz. I was addressing her points entirely politely.

Personally I think accusing people of being aggressive when they are being perfectly agreeable is actually ... um, aggressive.

It is not at all 'agreeable' to accuse me, personally, of deliberately winding someone up when I was doing no such thing. It's rude.

Well I'm happy to agree to differ but I think you were being provocative and passive aggressive with all that 'ho hum' stuff. And the constant mis-reading of everything mrz was saying. It will always get someone's back up if they're writing passionately and someone mis-reads them then tells them they're 'aggressive' with a . I call it a wind-up.

However it's not the subject of the thread. And I really don't care if you think I'm being aggressive. I just wanted to be happy mrz hadn't disappeared in frustration at your posts.

I think you are terribly confused. I didn't call anyone aggressive, that you was you.
You owe me an apology as you are entirely wrong, but I don't expect people like you, who jump on threads just to be rude to one person, do apologies. Ho hum.

Ok, I called you aggressive, but that was after you aggressively accused me of deliberatly posting to wind someone up, which is absolutely and entirely wrong. I was responding, entirely politely to her remarks about sounding out being 'agonizing' and simply, mildly and politely pointing out that if a child has a good background in phonics it isn't at all agonizing, and a subsquent poster came on to agree with me. Was she 'winding up' too? The fact that I haven't read every single post that mrz has ever made on this website is hardly a crime. I would be a nutcase if I had.

Thank you imaginaryfriend I'm pleased you find my posts useful

You're entirely welcome mrz. I've followed your advice a number of times and, so far, all your suggestions have been really good ones. There is frequently so little information given out from school that it's like a breath of fresh air having it explained by you.

mrz - if you're around, could you give me a basic outline of what the colour levels for Rigby Rockets stand for? Don't worry if it's a pain. I can't work it out from the website and I'd like to buy dd a couple as they look quite fun. For what it's worth she's reading, generally, level 6 books in the dreaded ORT and the other schemes her school have like Storyworlds.

IF - try this link ;

rigby and suggested ages

scroll down to page 3 for the chart. FWIW, I recall that ORT Level 6 is roughly equivalent to Green level on Rigby, so 2nd half of Yr 1.

Hth, and I am no expert, so hope Mrz comes along too for additional insight

ORT level 6 overlap several bands of Rigby

Blue level
Stage 6 More Owls
Playscripts
Dad?s Grand Plan
Don?t be Silly
Mirror Island

Green level
Stage 6 Owls
In the Garden
Playscripts
Land of the Dinosaurs
Robin Hood

Orange Level
Stage 6 Owls
Kipper and the Giant
Land of the Dinosaurs
Robin Hood
Stage 6 More Owls
A Fright in the Night
Christmas Adventure
Rotten Apples
The Go-Kart Race
The Laughing Princess
The Shiny Key
Stage 6 & 7 Owls
Pack B
Dad?s Grand Plan
Don?t Be Silly
Mirror Island
Traditional Tales
Stages 5-7
Jack and the Beanstalk
The Donkey that Sneezed

Turquoise level
Stage 6 Owls
The Outing
The Treasure Chest
Stage 6 & 7
Owls Pack B
The Willow Pattern Plot
Submarine Adventure
The Joke Machine
Stage 6 Robins
The Dump
Stage 6 Woodpeckers
The Boy and the Tiger

purple level
Stage 6 More Robins
Max Makes Breakfast

www.edventurebooks.com/Rigby/Rocket/orange.htm

you can download sample pages
www.rigbystar.co.uk/teachers_resources.html