First Steps in Learning to Read...

[Pandora II]

Following on from some of the discussions in the redshirting thread, I thought I would open up one just on reading - in particular the early stages of reading as so many of us who have come through the PS bling/match/hatch stages will either have or shortly have children who are starting kindegarten, school etc.

My DD, Daisy, is nearly 3 and is showing a great interest in learning to read. She's always preferred books over toys (although not over pink nail-polish) and DH or I read her two books every night for bed and often several more during the day.

She knows the 'ay, bee, cee' alphabet to say, can recognise a lot of the letters if I ask her to 'show me the x' and I'm trying to help her with the 'ah, buh, cuh' alphabet. I'd hoped to leave it for school to teach her, but with the level of interest she has, it would be hard to put her off for another 18 months. So, I thought it best to do some research on how children are taught to read today as I don't want to go against what she'll probably be doing when she gets to school or get things totally wrong and confuse her!

I went to school in the 1970's and learnt to read by looking at whole words, nowadays it seems that 'phonics' are the in-thing. So, I'm interested to know what experts, BTDT parents or those with any opinion or view think.

Recommendations of early reading resources or schemes are also welcome.

Would also love to see what differences there are across the globe.

 

[mayerling]

Pandora, I'm not a reading expert so I really can't offer much advice on the matter, but I am a linguist and I wanted to point out that the "sound it out" method does not work for a language like English. The reason is that English does not have a one-to-one mapping between letter and sound (take for instance the sequence "gh" which could be pronounced like a "f" in words such as "enough", like a "g" in "ghoul", be silent as in "though", etc.) so telling kids to sound something out really doesn't help.

 

[amc80]

Pandora, I'm not a reading expert so I really can't offer much advice on the matter, but I am a linguist and I wanted to point out that the "sound it out" method does not work for a language like English. The reason is that English does not have a one-to-one mapping between letter and sound (take for instance the sequence "gh" which could be pronounced like a "f" in words such as "enough", like a "g" in "ghoul", be silent as in "though", etc.) so telling kids to sound something out really doesn't help.

Reminds me of the riddle- how do you pronounce ghoti? Fish. "GH" as in enough, "O" as in women, and "TI" as in nation. Shocking that anyone can learn English as a non-native speaker.

ETA- just found this as well-
Using the same method and reinforcing the original point, ghoti can be a silent word, where:

gh as in though (/ðoʊ/) ;
o as in people (/'piːpəl/) ;
t as in ballet (/'bæleɪ/) ;
i as in business (/'bɪznəs/)

 

[mayerling]

Pandora, I'm not a reading expert so I really can't offer much advice on the matter, but I am a linguist and I wanted to point out that the "sound it out" method does not work for a language like English. The reason is that English does not have a one-to-one mapping between letter and sound (take for instance the sequence "gh" which could be pronounced like a "f" in words such as "enough", like a "g" in "ghoul", be silent as in "though", etc.) so telling kids to sound something out really doesn't help.

Reminds me of the riddle- how do you pronounce ghoti? Fish. "GH" as in enough, "O" as in women, and "TI" as in nation. Shocking that anyone can learn English as a non-native speaker.

ETA- just found this as well-
Using the same method and reinforcing the original point, ghoti can be a silent word, where:

gh as in though (/ðoʊ/) ;
o as in people (/'piːpəl/) ;
t as in ballet (/'bæleɪ/) ;
i as in business (/'bɪznəs/)

Exactly, amc. I had to stop myself form bringing up the "ghoti" example but you argued my point very well.

 

[Pandora II]

That's what I always thought - and my natural instinct would be to do whole word or 'look and say' or whatever they call it, but I know it's heavily frowned upon here.

However I don't know enough about phonic and how they work to know if it is a 'sound it out' method or not. I speak French (okayish) and Italian (bilingual) and they are much easier in that what you say is what you get. English is a bugger!

I had a goldfish called 'Ghoti'...

 

[Haven]

Pandora, I'm not a reading expert so I really can't offer much advice on the matter, but I am a linguist and I wanted to point out that the "sound it out" method does not work for a language like English. The reason is that English does not have a one-to-one mapping between letter and sound (take for instance the sequence "gh" which could be pronounced like a "f" in words such as "enough", like a "g" in "ghoul", be silent as in "though", etc.) so telling kids to sound something out really doesn't help.

Reminds me of the riddle- how do you pronounce ghoti? Fish. "GH" as in enough, "O" as in women, and "TI" as in nation. Shocking that anyone can learn English as a non-native speaker.

ETA- just found this as well-
Using the same method and reinforcing the original point, ghoti can be a silent word, where:

gh as in though (/ðoʊ/) ;
o as in people (/'piːpəl/) ;
t as in ballet (/'bæleɪ/) ;
i as in business (/'bɪznəs/)

Exactly, amc. I had to stop myself form bringing up the "ghoti" example but you argued my point very well.

This is all very true. However, many emergent readers in US public schools will be taught to sound out words using oral blending, segmentation, or onset/rime games, especially if the school uses a phonics approach. This approach believes in teaching children segmenting, blending, deleting, and substituting.

A good example of a lesson you might see an an average classroom can be found here:
http://www.scholastic.com/dodea/Module_1/resources/dodea_m1_tr_blendseg.pdf

While your examples are very true, the sound it out approach is widely used in this country. I won't get into my own personal beliefs about which approach is best, other than saying that I think, as with most things, we need to take the best of what each different approach has to offer and to use them together to support readers.

It's true that sounding it out doesn't work for certain words, but remember that young readers will use it to read words such as BAT HAT CAT MAT SAT FAT RAT. Many teachers find much success with onset/rime games in the classroom.

As readers develop, teachers introduce more sophisticated information about letters, for example: blends that can make different sounds in different situation. But as with all things, this comes with time and experience for readers.

It is very common for teachers to teach students sight words in addition to sound it out techniques. In fact, most schools in my area have sight word lists that are part of their benchmarks and learning objectives for students. Word walls are probably the most pervasive decoration in kindergarten and first grade classrooms around here.

Most use a blended approach.

 

[amc80]

I wish I could remember what was taught in my kindergarten class. I want to say it was phonics, but I"m not sure. Ummm, what was the fad in 1985?

 

[Haven]

I am by no means endorsing the Common Core Standards, but these are currently driving many education decisions in this country right now. Here are the reading standards for Kindergarten:
http://www.corestandards.org/the-st...rds/reading-foundational-skills/kindergarten/

You'll see that the sound it out approach is popular for a reason.

amc--It varies by region and individual school, of course, but I was in school around that time and in my area the approach was phonics-only. I entered school after a period of strong anti-whole language sentiment in my district.

Children vary, so different approaches will be necessary for different children. For example, when I started teaching graduate school I was surprised to learn that many K and 1st grade teachers found that a small percentage of their children were unable to identify rhymes every year. No matter how much they worked at it, the children did not get the skill. Still, some of these children were able to read very well, while for others, this really impeded their progress. As Kenny says: People vary.

 

[nfowife]

I taught first grade and kinder before having my oldest who is now in first grade. So it's been a while on the terminology but as Haven says, most teachers use a blended approach. English is not an easy language to learn, because there are so many exceptions to every rule. But you can't really "teach" whole-word reading very easily. It mostly comes from learning sight words (you can google dolch sight words and find the lists) which are the very common words that make up something like 80% of all text. Then you get to the words that are not sight words. The "sound it out method" is one thing to fall back on, one "tool in the toolkit" so to speak. Break the word down into recognizable sound bites and put it together. Then ask yourself, does it make sense as a word? In the sentence? One reason why this is difficult for struggling readers is that they don't have these tools ready to go when they come to a word they don't know. A good reader with a lot of background will lots of times be able to make an educated guess quickly when they come to an unknown word- they will be ready with a word to fill in there and can do quick checks to see if it makes sense, has the same sounds (beginning, ending, middle) as the one on the page, and they can make meaning from that and continue on. So while I don't think phonics is the end all, for some kids it is really necessary and it's just another tool in the toolkit. I myself did not learn to read through phonics and was reading at a very early age. I had to learn phonics as an education student in college so I could teach it!

A good way to help your child be able to make those types of educated guesses for unknown words is to give them some context and background to the story they are reading before they attempt to read it. As a teacher I would sit with a group (or even the whole class) and first we'd look at the cover of a book and surmise what we thought the book would be about after reading the title and looking at the jacket. We'd try to connect that to the students ("Snowy Day is the title of this book. What do you think the book is about? Have you ever been outside on a snowy day? What did you do? What was it like?" blah blah). Then we do a "picture walk" and look at each page's illustrations but don't read the words. Talk about what is happening on each page and connect it to the child. Then go back and read the story. This way, the child already knows what is happening in the story so when they come to an unknown word they have the context to help them be able to figure out what the word might be rather than just grabbing at straws, especially if a word can't be sounded out.

 

[mayerling]

Haven, I'm aware that the "sound it out" method is widely used in the US which is why I brought it up. DH told me how frustrated he was when his father would tell him to sound something out even though English is notorious for not working that way. Also, while true that beginners would only be using one-syllable words, even simple words like "row", "bow", "said"/"paid", are complicated because of the lack of one-to-one mapping. But it's up to each individual parent or educational system to teach as they see fit.

 

[Haven]

Haven, I'm aware that the "sound it out" method is widely used in the US which is why I brought it up. DH told me how frustrated he was when his father would tell him to sound something out even though English is notorious for not working that way. Also, while true that beginners would only be using one-syllable words, even simple words like "row", "bow", "said"/"paid", are complicated because of the lack of one-to-one mapping. But it's up to each individual parent or educational system to teach as they see fit.

Of course.

There is a huge body of educational research from which schools draw when making curricular decisions. It is always interesting to see how those who look at a subject from a strictly academic viewpoint view things as compared to what practitioners find to be effective in application.

I appreciate your expertise, Mayerling. As a linguist, how would you approach teaching emergent readers? I'd love to hear your thoughts. So, for example, if you think a sight word approach is best, how would you accomplish this? What steps would you recommend parents or teachers take to actually teach reading? I can't wait to hear more of your thoughts!

Maybe together all of us in this thread could develop a new approach--Faceted Reading?

Edited for clarity.

 

[Haven]

I taught first grade and kinder before having my oldest who is now in first grade. So it's been a while on the terminology but as Haven says, most teachers use a blended approach. English is not an easy language to learn, because there are so many exceptions to every rule. But you can't really "teach" whole-word reading very easily. It mostly comes from learning sight words (you can google dolch sight words and find the lists) which are the very common words that make up something like 80% of all text. Then you get to the words that are not sight words. The "sound it out method" is one thing to fall back on, one "tool in the toolkit" so to speak. Break the word down into recognizable sound bites and put it together. Then ask yourself, does it make sense as a word? In the sentence? One reason why this is difficult for struggling readers is that they don't have these tools ready to go when they come to a word they don't know. A good reader with a lot of background will lots of times be able to make an educated guess quickly when they come to an unknown word- they will be ready with a word to fill in there and can do quick checks to see if it makes sense, has the same sounds (beginning, ending, middle) as the one on the page, and they can make meaning from that and continue on. So while I don't think phonics is the end all, for some kids it is really necessary and it's just another tool in the toolkit. I myself did not learn to read through phonics and was reading at a very early age. I had to learn phonics as an education student in college so I could teach it!

A good way to help your child be able to make those types of educated guesses for unknown words is to give them some context and background to the story they are reading before they attempt to read it. As a teacher I would sit with a group (or even the whole class) and first we'd look at the cover of a book and surmise what we thought the book would be about after reading the title and looking at the jacket. We'd try to connect that to the students ("Snowy Day is the title of this book. What do you think the book is about? Have you ever been outside on a snowy day? What did you do? What was it like?" blah blah). Then we do a "picture walk" and look at each page's illustrations but don't read the words. Talk about what is happening on each page and connect it to the child. Then go back and read the story. This way, the child already knows what is happening in the story so when they come to an unknown word they have the context to help them be able to figure out what the word might be rather than just grabbing at straws, especially if a word can't be sounded out.

Great post, NFOWife!

I love SNOWY DAY. My college students read it to the kids in our school's daycare for one of the nationwide reading days last year. (Can't remember which it was.)

 

[mayerling]

I guess this should teach me to open my mouth
I don't really have a method, which is why I threw my caveat in about not being a reading expert. I don't really favour the whole word approach either; I just know that sounding it out doesn't work. That's not to say it doesn't work at all; obviously it's taught all these people in the US to read. I just mean to say that it doesn't seem to be an appropriate method given the nature of the English language.
Also, given that my native language (Greek) has a fairly consistent letter-to-sound mapping, I'm finding it hard to pinpoint how I would teach somebody to read English. But I'd love to hear from all you native English speakers what you think would be a good way of approaching learning to read.

Edit: See, this is what us linguists are all about: telling people that what they're doing is wrong because it has no scientific basis in the study of language, but not really offering any solutions to the problem.

 

[Pandora II]

Mayerling, I'll warn you now... having checked, 'sound it out' is THE method taught in UK primary schools and from what I am learning, they have a blue fit if you start doing mixed methods or whole word and there are forums with primary school teachers complaining about 'know-it-all parents who won't teach their method'.

 

[50shadesofblack]

Oh wow.

Croatian is difficult for a foreigner to learn because we have seven cases and when words go through them they change! The root stays the same, sufixes change.

Example: Mačka (cat)

N mačka
G mačke
D mačku
A mački
V mačko!
L mačku
I mačkom


However, reading is easy! Once you know the alphabet and how each letter is pronaunced, you can read anything, because it is always the same!

M like m in milk
A like a in about
Č like ch in change
K like c in candy
A ... like a in about

 

[mayerling]

Mayerling, I'll warn you now... 'sound it out' is THE method taught in UK primary schools and from what I am learning, they have a blue fit if you start doing mixed methods or whole word and there are forums with primary school teachers complaining about 'know-it-all parents who won't teach their method'.

Thanks, Pandora. To be honest, I don't really care what method they use to teach baby English. It's up to his daddy to worry about that given that he's the native English speaker. I'll just concern myself with teaching him Greek...
As for teachers being upset with me, they probably will be given how I'll be annoyed with all the crap they'll be coming out with in terms of language as a system.

 

[Haven]

I guess this should teach me to open my mouth
I don't really have a method, which is why I threw my caveat in about not being a reading expert. I don't really favour the whole word approach either; I just know that sounding it out doesn't work. That's not to say it doesn't work at all; obviously it's taught all these people in the US to read. I just mean to say that it doesn't seem to be an appropriate method given the nature of the English language.
Also, given that my native language (Greek) has a fairly consistent letter-to-sound mapping, I'm finding it hard to pinpoint how I would teach somebody to read English. But I'd love to hear from all you native English speakers what you think would be a good way of approaching learning to read.

Edit: See, this is what us linguists are all about: telling people that what they're doing is wrong because it has no scientific basis in the study of language, but not really offering any solutions to the problem.

No, I'm actually really interested in hearing your thoughts! I wasn't trying to be confrontational.

You might be interested to learn that many reading specialists are linguists. Most programs are filled with courses in linguistics, at least around here. The best programs have a strong balance between theory and application, which of course we need if we are actually going to help anyone read. Some of my grad profs were PhDs in linguistics, actually. We'd welcome you into our circle any day!

And you are right in that last line--educators have to find solutions if we are going to be able to do our job. However, I'll be the first to say that there is always room (and need) for change. So please, share your thoughts.

 

[Pandora II]

Mayerling, I'll warn you now... 'sound it out' is THE method taught in UK primary schools and from what I am learning, they have a blue fit if you start doing mixed methods or whole word and there are forums with primary school teachers complaining about 'know-it-all parents who won't teach their method'.

Thanks, Pandora. To be honest, I don't really care what method they use to teach baby English. It's up to his daddy to worry about that given that he's the native English speaker. I'll just concern myself with teaching him Greek...
As for teachers being upset with me, they probably will be given how I'll be annoyed with all the crap they'll be coming out with in terms of language as a system.

LOL, I'm already coming to grief with the UK state school system - discovered that I'm unlikely to get a single offer of a school place for DD as where we live puts us out of catchment for every school except the church ones, which despite my taxes paying for the darn things and one being 300 ft down the road I can't get a place at because we don't go to church...

I will be thrilled when she turns 7 and we can send her private, but there are no private options for younger near here so I have to manage at least 3 years of whatever ghastly school (for round here all but 1 is ghastly) DD is sent to and of gritting my teeth and trying not to fight with the teachers. Am currently training myself to 'think positive'

 

[mayerling]

I guess this should teach me to open my mouth
I don't really have a method, which is why I threw my caveat in about not being a reading expert. I don't really favour the whole word approach either; I just know that sounding it out doesn't work. That's not to say it doesn't work at all; obviously it's taught all these people in the US to read. I just mean to say that it doesn't seem to be an appropriate method given the nature of the English language.
Also, given that my native language (Greek) has a fairly consistent letter-to-sound mapping, I'm finding it hard to pinpoint how I would teach somebody to read English. But I'd love to hear from all you native English speakers what you think would be a good way of approaching learning to read.

Edit: See, this is what us linguists are all about: telling people that what they're doing is wrong because it has no scientific basis in the study of language, but not really offering any solutions to the problem.

No, I'm actually really interested in hearing your thoughts! I wasn't trying to be confrontational.

You might be interested to learn that many reading specialists are linguists. Most programs are filled with courses in linguistics, at least around here. The best programs have a strong balance between theory and application, which of course we need if we are actually going to help anyone read. Some of my grad profs were PhDs in linguistics, actually. We'd welcome you into our circle any day!

And you are right in that last line--educators have to find solutions if we are going to be able to do our job. However, I'll be the first to say that there is always room (and need) for change. So please, share your thoughts.

Oh Haven, I know you weren't trying to be confrontational. Neither was I; that's why I threw in all the smiley faces. I respect your opinion and I know you respect mine.

I know that lots of reading specialists are linguists; they are applied linguists. I won't get into the politics within the field, but theoretical linguists (such as myself) who basically deal with trying to figure out how language a system works, kind of look down on applied linguists who try to apply what we learn from the study of language to real world situations. I know looking down on them is stupid; they do their work and we do ours.

Anyway, so since I'm no applied linguist I really wouldn't know where to begin with figuring out a solution to the problem. As a theoretical linguist, all I can say is that there is a problem and I can tell you why (for instance lack of one-to-one mapping). But as to solving the problem, I wash my hands.

 

[mayerling]

Pandora, that's so annoying. Is there no way she could be placed in a school in a different area?
I can already feel that I'm going to be really annoyed once DS starts school (in a few years), with all the crap he might be exposed to. I find it really hard holding my tongue when I hear some of the stuff teachers say in terms of language in school. I know I should butt out; they're doing their job and obviously they know how to teach whereas I don't, but I wish they would base some of their opinions about language on fact rather than opinion and old wives' tales (by the way, this isn't something that happens only in the English-speaking world; even though Greek has a one-to-one mapping, teachers still manage to screw up language discussions in the classroom).

 

[Haven]

Mayerling--Interesting. Those damn applied linguists, trying to actually *use* the information we have about language to improve education.

Do you happen to read David Crystal's blog? I love it. I like many of his books, too.

What kinds of things do you hear teachers say that really bothers you? I feel like this could be eye-opening for me. I also wonder if perhaps we are coming from two different fields that study the same subject from very different perspectives, and thus draw different conclusions about it. Perhaps neither side is as misguided as the other might believe.

I will say that the best-laid plans can go pear-shaped when you take them from theory to practice. It is one thing to know how things should work, and an entirely different thing to see how they actually work. (How's that for a terrible sentence? )

ETA: Mayerling--I meant to share that the same sort of snobbery exists here in the US, as well. I would love to engage in it and join in on the fun, but I am too busy putting all of this information to good use to take the time.

 

[Haven]

Pandora--Will it comfort you to be reminded that you are still going to have the largest influence on DD's development? The schools don't educate your children nearly as much as you do in your home. This is especially true in the earlier years. She'll be just fine.

 

[mayerling]

I didn't know David Crystal had a blog! But I do like this book. His encyclopedia of language is excellent.

As to things I hear teachers saying, it's not really related to reading most of the time; it's about language in general. For instance, a child will use a dialectal feature (not slang, just dialect) and will be told it's 'wrong'. As a linguist, I'm strongly opposed to people saying that dialectal features are wrong and we need to use "proper language". Of course this is due to the fact that in linguistics no dialect, or variety as we like to call them, is inferior to any other variety.

Now, some of you might say 'what are dialectal features'? For instance, in British English use of the subjunctive is limited to non-existent. What's the subjunctive? It's what you have in sentences like "I require that he go home right now!". This is something that Americans can do very well, in my experience, and it's also what "proper" English is supposed to be like. But in British English people would say "I require that he goes home right now!". I hate situations where teachers say that this construction is wrong! It's not wrong. It's perfectly correct in British English irrespective of whether English (as a language) requires the subjunctive in those constructions. Of course it's unlikely a teacher in the UK would say that the phrase is wrong given how most people don't know how to employ the subjunctive anyway, but I can't think of a more straightforward example right now.

Edit: I just thought of a better example (not related to the dialectal issue)! I hate it when teachers tell kids that it is wrong to split infinitives. It is most certainly not wrong given how in English an infinitive consists of two words; if you have two words you are most certainly allowed to insert something in-between. This is something that stems from prescriptivist views of language. Basically people draw from the classical languages - Latin and Ancient Greek - which had one-word infinitives and claim that it is wrong to split infinitives. Ridiculous!

 

[Haven]

Mayerling--YES! YES YES YES YES YES! I completely agree with you. Thank you for those examples. I'd love to hear more as you think of them over time. I'm sure I'm guilty of something that really irks you, and I'd like to stop doing it once I identify what it is.

I find that some people also believe that language is a static thing, and they refuse to accept that language evolves over time. Old school grammarians come to mind. If you've been teaching for 40 years, chances are there have been some changes.

Oh, DC's blog is excellent:
http://david-crystal.blogspot.com/

 

[mayerling]

Yes, it's definitely old-school grammarians. And they spoil it for our kids and the rest of us.

I'm sure I'll come up with more examples soon. Another one that springs to mind right now is teachers telling kids not to end sentences with prepositions. Again, it's perfectly correct to end a sentence with a preposition; at least when it comes to language. It wouldn't annoy me as much if they said something like "stylistically, it doesn't sound as nice", "doesn't seem as refined/cultured/educated", "something you shouldn't do when using the written word", etc. (basically something that shows that it's their opinion), but I don't appreciate their saying that it's not "proper English". It most certainly is proper English and I don't understand what the fuss is all about (she said, ending her sentence with a preposition).

I'll go check out that blog now...

 

[zoebartlett]

Great posts, Haven and Mayerling! We do picture walks all the time in my second grade classroom and it makes the kids feel so good when they see how much they know about a book before reading one word. We also do a lot of reader response types of activities, which my kids love.

I taught 1st grade for 3 years and one site they used, especially in the beginning of the year, is starfall dot com. Also, have you heard of TumbleBooks or storylineonline dot net? They're great sites! Popular children's books are read aloud and the kids can follow along. We use both as centers during small group reading instruction.

I found these after looking up best practices in reading. http://www.k12reader.com/best-practices-in-phonics-instruction/ and http://www.k12reader.com/teaching-reading-comprehension-in-kindergarten/.. They might help. They're quick reads. Sorry, I don't have time to do more research right now.

Patricia Cunningham and Debbie Miller are two of my favorite authors of teacher books. I learn so much from them every time I use one of their strategies.

 

[amc80]

Does anyone remember doing SRA? They were these little books you would read, then answer questions about the story. Each level was a different color. God, I hated those things. I remember moving to a new school, in a different district, and I was so bummed to learn the new school had SRA as well. I think I had to do them 1st-3rd grade, if I remember correctly. I remember the day I finally finished with the last level, red. Pure joy.

On a related note, I've always been bad with reading comprehension. I remember as a 2nd or 3rd grader being able to read really fast...but I was just seeing the words, not really soaking them in. I finally realized the problem- I would think I was reading but would really be thinking about all sorts of other stuff. In order for me to really comprehend I have to force myself to pay attention to the words. It's probably why I'm not much of a reader today.

 

[Pandora II]

Mayerling - you are assigned a school based on the distance you live from the school gate - in place like London even being 200m from the gate can be too far. You can apply for schools in other areas but if they are any good you will stand even less chance of being allocated one. Or you raise the £14k or so to send them private - if you can get them through the hideous 10:1 selection process!

Haven - that is EXACTLY why I am taking such an interest!

One of the things that does annoy me is that proper grammar or sentence construction isn't taught in the UK, We know about past, present and future tenses, nouns, verbs, adverbs and adjectives... but it stops there. It's a big disadvantage when learning other languages!

 

[Haven]

Does anyone remember doing SRA? They were these little books you would read, then answer questions about the story. Each level was a different color. God, I hated those things. I remember moving to a new school, in a different district, and I was so bummed to learn the new school had SRA as well. I think I had to do them 1st-3rd grade, if I remember correctly. I remember the day I finally finished with the last level, red. Pure joy.

On a related note, I've always been bad with reading comprehension. I remember as a 2nd or 3rd grader being able to read really fast...but I was just seeing the words, not really soaking them in. I finally realized the problem- I would think I was reading but would really be thinking about all sorts of other stuff. In order for me to really comprehend I have to force myself to pay attention to the words. It's probably why I'm not much of a reader today.

I could give you some strategies to help you focus, if you're interested. Maybe even convert you into an avid reader in the process.

I'm going OOT for the weekend, but I'll check back and see if you're interested. You describe exactly what plagues most of the college students who end up in my classroom. The good news is that the ones who take my class seriously, and apply the skills and tools I give them, end up much better readers. It can be done! It's never too late!

 

[Haven]

Mayerling - you are assigned a school based on the distance you live from the school gate - in place like London even being 200m from the gate can be too far. You can apply for schools in other areas but if they are any good you will stand even less chance of being allocated one. Or you raise the £14k or so to send them private - if you can get them through the hideous 10:1 selection process!

Haven - that is EXACTLY why I am taking such an interest!

One of the things that does annoy me is that proper grammar or sentence construction isn't taught in the UK, We know about past, present and future tenses, nouns, verbs, adverbs and adjectives... but it stops there. It's a big disadvantage when learning other languages!

And your beautiful daughter is lucky for it!