Read Write Reading groups (Reception)

These may be of use http://www.oup.com/oxed/pdf/ORTReadingAges.pdf http://www.oup.com/oxed/pdf/ORT_bookbands.pdf So six in a bed is Pink First Words which reading age equates to 3yrs 6mths to 4yrs 6mths, which is within the Reception year. It is interesting to have an understanding of how your child is doing I agree, but they change so quickly, one minute it's pink the next it's Orange. And it does change very quickly. HTH's

honestly, I'm just curious.... I know its not productive to compare and I dont' plan on launching a campaign to move her up. I simply wanted a gage - to be honest, the teacher told me she is doing great and to continue doing what we've been doing so I'm not overly concerned. I just get weary when kids are pigeon holed b/c I worry that might set false ceilings for themselves. Glad to hear in some ways they were oblivious to the differences. Denise, thanks for the offer, I will be in touch if its the same program. Tally-ho - that is just grand!! edited to add more elaboration. edited by xmasbaby on 11/01/2011 I don't think kids set false ceilings for themselves i think parents do and the danger in being Pigeon holed is that in some large schools once put in a low set they will never come out of it. You have to work with your child at home not soley rely on what happens in school.

That article was from June 2007. Some swear by phonics, some do not. No matter what material is used to teach children to read and write, it's all down to how good the teachers are in delivering. How right you are!!!!

honestly, I'm just curious...really just curious. I know its not productive to compare but I am genuinely curious -nothing wrong with that I don't think. Denise, thanks for the offer, I will be in touch if its the same program. Tally-ho - that is just grand!! Nothing wrong with it at all - I thought I would be really interested but as I could see such a quick progress with both I never really looked past where they were. Maybe that's not right!!!!!!! Feeling like perhaps I should now!!!!

That article was from June 2007. Some swear by phonics, some do not. No matter what material is used to teach children to read and write, it's all down to how good the teachers are in delivering.

I found this quite interesting... Last week, synthetic phonics champion Jim Rose was knighted and materials in the scheme arrived at every primary in England, while Michael Rosen became children's laureate and denounced "the fraud of synthetic phonics". Quite a week. So who's right? Our staff were recently held captive for two days by a synthetic phonics trainer and her toy dog, Fred, who talks in phonemes ("Fredtalk"). The trainer led us into a world of literacy where English is reduced from a rich mix of cultures and history to mere units of sound, where children are kept away from confusing letter names they can't "decode". Children read not through books but by assimilating "speed sounds". They progress to banal ditties ("hot chips from the shop"). We were inducted into the moral universe of synthetic phonics and its mantras: "a child's reading age should be three years ahead of comprehension age"; "the most important words in our language cannot be got from context". Incredibly, the notion of streaming four-year-olds passed almost unnoticed, but a momentary rebellion occurred when our trainer modelled a Fredtalking teacher writing "Can I hav" without the final "e". "Should we avoid words like 'live', 'give', 'glove' and 'shove'?" I asked. "Let's pigeon-hole that discussion and come back to it," said our trainer. It's still tucked away. How I wish I'd asked Fred to spell "pigeon". I love the cosmopolitanism of English, whose melange (French) or mish-mash (Yiddish) of foreign words reveals unexpected connections. But synthetic phonics doesn't do connections or roots: it despises complications as disfiguring the language. Following the Rose report, all schools must adopt a phonics scheme. And zealots are seizing the moment. I weep at their violation of our language with their "one size fits all" approach. When school managers calculate the cost of the training and paraphernalia (friezes, magnetic letters, handbooks, software), they might weep too. My cousin, a professional comedian, tells a cruel joke about Alzheimer's. The upside, he says, is you meet new people every day. With synthetic phonics, you meet every word for the first time. All primary teachers use phonics, but as a tool, not a philosophy. We want to nurture critical readers who love literature and can adapt reading skills to the diverse structures they will meet beyond dull scheme texts. Real children use their experiences, play with language, pick up clues and think about context to read for meaning. Good teaching builds on what children already do and harmonises their efforts. Let's keep it real, not synthetic. Ooooooh very thought provoking!....

That is brilliant Tally-ho!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I found this quite interesting... Last week, synthetic phonics champion Jim Rose was knighted and materials in the scheme arrived at every primary in England, while Michael Rosen became children's laureate and denounced "the fraud of synthetic phonics". Quite a week. So who's right? Our staff were recently held captive for two days by a synthetic phonics trainer and her toy dog, Fred, who talks in phonemes ("Fredtalk"). The trainer led us into a world of literacy where English is reduced from a rich mix of cultures and history to mere units of sound, where children are kept away from confusing letter names they can't "decode". Children read not through books but by assimilating "speed sounds". They progress to banal ditties ("hot chips from the shop"). We were inducted into the moral universe of synthetic phonics and its mantras: "a child's reading age should be three years ahead of comprehension age"; "the most important words in our language cannot be got from context". Incredibly, the notion of streaming four-year-olds passed almost unnoticed, but a momentary rebellion occurred when our trainer modelled a Fredtalking teacher writing "Can I hav" without the final "e". "Should we avoid words like 'live', 'give', 'glove' and 'shove'?" I asked. "Let's pigeon-hole that discussion and come back to it," said our trainer. It's still tucked away. How I wish I'd asked Fred to spell "pigeon". I love the cosmopolitanism of English, whose melange (French) or mish-mash (Yiddish) of foreign words reveals unexpected connections. But synthetic phonics doesn't do connections or roots: it despises complications as disfiguring the language. Following the Rose report, all schools must adopt a phonics scheme. And zealots are seizing the moment. I weep at their violation of our language with their "one size fits all" approach. When school managers calculate the cost of the training and paraphernalia (friezes, magnetic letters, handbooks, software), they might weep too. My cousin, a professional comedian, tells a cruel joke about Alzheimer's. The upside, he says, is you meet new people every day. With synthetic phonics, you meet every word for the first time. All primary teachers use phonics, but as a tool, not a philosophy. We want to nurture critical readers who love literature and can adapt reading skills to the diverse structures they will meet beyond dull scheme texts. Real children use their experiences, play with language, pick up clues and think about context to read for meaning. Good teaching builds on what children already do and harmonises their efforts. Let's keep it real, not synthetic.

Is it the Oxford Read Write Inc programme that your daughter is following? If so drop me an email as I work for the publishers and schools on the programme. I cannot comment on your particular daughter, as this should rightfully be taken up with her school teacher, but I can give you details of the course. Email me on [email protected]

Child in reception and was told that the class will be divided by reading level into groups. Does anyone know how to determine the reading level based on the books. I suppose its not important but I'm curious to see how my LO fares against their classmates? Also, I know they say this program doesn't pigeon hole children as they can move up and down but do the children *know* what is up or down. Ie. do they know that one group is more advanced then the other for example, or one is less advanced then them? For example her book last week was Six in a bed, with short sentences. edited to remove school name as not really relevant I suppose edited by xmasbaby on 11/01/2011 edited by xmasbaby on 11/01/2011 both of mine have done ths reading programme and both have been blissfully unaware of where they are with regards to upper or lower levels - they are placed in the group according to their ability and they work in little groups - both of mine have loved that and they get to see and spend time with other children which my 2 loved. At such an early age why would you want to start comparing your child with others as there can be such a huge difference in capabilities - after all some are just 4 and others are turning 5. As long as she is enjoying her reading books and showing good progress I would be happy. As JJ says - if you really feel you need to know where she is have a word with her class teacher or for a better understanding of the programme get the head of EYs to go through it with you. I must say I have only good things to say about it as my little boy joined in year 1 with only phonics and has become a prolific reader and adores books. <em>edited by Clairehdp on 11/01/2011</em>

http://www.childrens-stories.net/reading-age/reading-age.htm You can get a rough guide to your childs reading age from the link I have posted.

You should speak to the Head of EY, she will explain it in more detail to you. The top groups will be working up a few levels from that stage. And of course it pidgeon holes them! <em>edited by Jumeriah Jane on 11/01/2011</em>