3rd grade -the great equalizer

[Embassy]

I've heard several times that many children who learn to read early are pretty much on level with peers who didn't learn to read early by the time 3rd grade comes. Anyone know the source of this information? Has it been your experience?

 

I'm posting a poll that will allow for multiple choice options. I've differentiated among children who learn to read at different ages. Maybe it makes a difference? For the sake of this poll I'm defining a reader as a child who is able to read a first grade level book. I'm also defining a 3rd grader as a child who would be in third grade according to his/her age

Edited May 10, 2011 by Wehomeschool

[Ginevra]

Personally, I've never believed that. IME, the children (including one of mine) who learned to read early continue to have a strong aptitude in language indefinitely.

[*Lulu*]

Well, DS8 is in 3rd this year.

 

He is reading above a 3rd grade level. According to your definition of reader, he was 7 when he began to read.

[Parrothead]

I think the theory may be true for many public schooled or possibly even private schooled children. For homeschoolers which are able to build upon skills without all the issues of outside schooling I think the theory is a bit off.

 

Dd learned to read at 4, is a year ahead of her schooled peers (she should be ending 5th grade instead of 7th) and will start an 8th grade reading program in the fall.

[TheReader]

I need an other.

 

One learned at age 3 or 4, depending on your definition of 1st grade level, and was reading 2nd grade level by age 6 and I'd guess 4th-ish grade level by age 8 (isn't age 8 3rd grade?). His reading enjoyment and level tapered off after that, stagnated for a while, and he's now 13 and reading at grade level though he could read higher (8th grade) but doesn't enjoy reading.

 

One learned at age 6.5 and was reading 2nd grade level by the time he was 2nd grade and by 3rd grade was reading 4th grade at least and now at 10 yrs/5th grade is reading at a pretty solidly 7th to 8th grade level and beyond.

 

The youngest is 6 yrs, not yet reading at all (not even sounding out cvc words yet) so who knows. He does however make up stories like nobody's business, but of course too early to predict what he'll be doing in 3rd grade.

 

But I have seen that after 3rd/4th grade level it's just a matter of vocabulary and number of words on a page, length of chapter, etc. and it does seem to kind of level out.

[elizabeth]

Absolute total bs. That is what they promote in depts of education as a method to keep momma quiet and out of teacher's way. It is utterly and totally false. Don't take my word for it, read this little jewel of a document on gifted ed.

http://www.accelerationinstitute.org/nation_deceived/

I have made this concept of leveling out one of my hills to die on. I carry copies of this report in my car. Call me Beth the bs slayer on behalf of gifted students everywhere. Seriously I have given about ten of these reports away and opened the door to grade skips for several young people. It is my personal mission.

[Eleni]

During his 3rd year my ds learned to read well. He is now in 3rd grade and his tested reading ability is far above average. He mostly reads non fiction and frequents the adult section to find books.

[jewellsmommy]

My dd didn't really start reading well or independently until around 7*. But, once she did, she gained further proficiency fast. She is at the end of her 3rd grade yr, and she is reading above a 3rd grade level.

 

 

* She had some hearing issues that may have effected her early on. She had a hard time segmenting sounds before a surgery to build a new tympanic membrane. Her eardrum had been destroyed by a MRSA infection. I don't know if that changes the perimeters or not.

 

I don't know at what age ds learned to read. He decodes words very well. He is a natural speller as well. However, he lacks the necessary comprehension to read at a higher grade level.

[Spy Car]

Absolute total bs. That is what they promote in depts of education as a method to keep momma quiet and out of teacher's way. It is utterly and totally false. Don't take my word for it, read this little jewel of a document on gifted ed.

http://www.accelerationinstitute.org/nation_deceived/

I have made this concept of leveling out one of my hills to die on. I carry copies of this report in my car. Call me Beth the bs slayer on behalf of gifted students everywhere. Seriously I have given about ten of these reports away and opened the door to grade skips for several young people. It is my personal mission.

 

I've never heard a teacher express this kind of opinion, quite to the contrary as a matter of fact. The teachers I know all stress the importance of early reading, and I grew up as the son of an elementary school teacher.

 

The BS I have heard is "better late than early" gurus telling parents their non-readers will catch up by 3rd grade (or even later) but this has been a strictly "homeschool" phenomenon and not an attitude shared in public schools.

 

Bill

Edited May 11, 2011 by Spy Car

[Crimson Wife]

About half the gifted folks in my family were early readers (age 3-4) and the other half were average readers (age 6-7). In 3rd grade, there likely would've been a discernible difference but by 5th grade, there wouldn't have been.

 

My 2nd is tracking almost exactly a year behind where his older sister was at the same age, but I feel confident he's going to catch up some time in late elementary or early middle school. I don't know if it'll be by 3rd grade, we'll have to see.

[Paige]

My DS did not want to learn to read. He actively resisted but was on a first grade level by about age 6. He's 9 now and can read anything and has been able to since the middle of 2nd grade. (He's in 3rd now.) I think there is a lot of truth to the theory that 3rd grade equalizes things somewhat. It's not that the early readers stagnate, it is that the other kids just leap ahead of where they had been dramatically. My son went from early readers to 6th grade level books within an extremely short time span and I don't think that is rare. I also really, really, think that "grade levels" are incredibly low for grade level. The only kids I know (even in my area's schools) who are considered on grade level for reading are those who are having trouble and behind. I think it is average and typical in mostly normal not failing schools, for kids to be at least 1-2 grade levels ahead in reading by 2nd or 3rd grade.

[chiguirre]

Dd learned to read well enough for a Level 1 reader when she was about 7. She's now finishing 2nd grade and reads above grade level, although she prefers Pathway readers over novels still.

 

Unless you add a bunch of options for kids who learned at older ages, I don't think your poll will work. Now if you said the first set of Bob books, I'd vote 5, but those are preprimers, not Level 1 stepped readers (which are actually larded with sight words and quite difficult for kids who learned phonetically).

[happypamama]

My DD is finishing up third grade and reads well above third-grade level; she was reading fluently at 4, chapter books at 5. I was the same way myself, as was my DH. My sister, otoh, didn't learn to read fluently until she was a little older (6, maybe?), but my mom kept lists of what we were reading, and we were both reading the same books in third grade. So I can see why they say that about third grade. (My DS1 is 6, finishing kindergarten, and just starting to read on his own; I don't think he's quite up to first grade level yet. We'll see what he can read by third grade though.)

[Crimson Wife]

The BS I have heard is "better late than early" gurus telling parents their non-readers will catch up by 3rd grade (or even later) but this has been a strictly "homeschool" phenomenon and not an attitude shared in public schools.

 

Except that some kids who are late readers *DO* catch up. There's a kid in my HS support group who didn't read at all until age 9. His mom is an "unschooler" so she didn't push the issue but just kept reading, reading, reading aloud to him. One day, he got it in his head that he wanted to read Harry Potter. That provided him the internal motivation to finally learn, and within a few months, he was reading the Harry Potter books.

 

Would *I* personally feel comfortable with such a laissez-faire approach? No way! But barring any suspicion of a learning disability, I would feel fine waiting until age 7 or so with a kid who wasn't interested before then.

[Spy Car]

Except that some kids who are late readers *DO* catch up. There's a kid in my HS support group who didn't read at all until age 9. His mom is an "unschooler" so she didn't push the issue but just kept reading, reading, reading aloud to him. One day, he got it in his head that he wanted to read Harry Potter. That provided him the internal motivation to finally learn, and within a few months, he was reading the Harry Potter books.

 

Would *I* personally feel comfortable with such a laissez-faire approach? No way! But barring any suspicion of a learning disability, I would feel fine waiting until age 7 or so with a kid who wasn't interested before then.

 

I don't buy it. Maybe an exceptional child starts late and catches up or even surpasses the grade level expectations. Maybe. But what could they have achieved if they had not been intentionally delayed by their parents? It is a dangerous educational philosophy for most children methinks.

 

Bill

[mom31257]

I don't buy it. Maybe an exceptional child starts late and catches up or even surpasses the grade level expectations. Maybe. But what could they have achieved if they had not been intentionally delayed by their parents? It is a dangerous educational philosophy for most children methinks.

 

Bill

 

:iagree:

[Carrie12345]

I don't buy into the leveling out stuff (on either end). Kids struggle, kids excel, kids coast... and in various combinations and different times.

 

In my house, I have a kid who read at 3, who can regurgitate a college textbook but not synthesize the information. I have a kid (current 3rd grader) who read at 4 and now reads a bit above average. I have a kid (current 2nd grader) who refused to read until she was closing in on 6, and probably reads a tad bit over 3rd grade level. And I have a newly 4yo who is perfectly content to know his letters and letter sounds with no interest in putting them together. I have no preconceived notions about where he will land.

[elizabeth]

I've never heard a teacher express this kind of opinion, quite to the contrary as a matter of fact. The teachers I know all stress the importance of early reading, and I grew up as the son of an elementary school teacher.

 

The BS I have heard is "better late than early" gurus telling parents their non-readers will catch up by 3rd grade (or even later) but this has been a strictly "homeschool" phenomenon and not an attitude shared in public schools.

 

Bill

 

Well you should meet the goons that were teaching my dd...they let her read to the other kids then had the audacity to tell me the others will catch up. She learned nothing. Nothing. Except to read to the other kids. Uh nope. I got wise and had her tested sure enough they were full of it waist high. I know quite a bit about gifted education and it is a wasteland. The women teaching 30-100 years ago were doing so not because they could not do anything else rather it was one of the few professsions in which they were admitted and welcomed. Not so today.The evidence in these times about who goes into elementary ed is best summed up by the following statistic. Guess what major has the lowest GPA??? In your district it might well be far different but in Iowa they have dropped the ball. My nieces and nephews attend Hi Tech High in San Diego and it is another world compared to the rotting buildings and incompetent teachers that we have here. FWIW every profoundly accelerated child I have met professionally and personally has a parent who has been given the leveling out line. It is just without merit with regard to highly gifted kids. There is reading picture books and there is reading Harry Potter at just under 5. There is no comparison but sadly for accelerated/gifted learners someone who is frankly not as bright as they are cannot challenge them. Elitist? Nope just fact. I apologize to those who are elementary teachers here or who have relatives who were but the old saw about police is true for teachers at the elementary level. The pay sucks, it is risky (at least to your sanity) so who will go into the field?? Some saints, and there are few indeed. The rest are not able to do anything else or they enjoy their employment for the power trip. Incidentally, some of the brightest most amazing women I have ever known were grade school teachers in their youth. They are now 75-80. Say what you will but there is no comparison between the caliber then and now. None.

[Carrie12345]

Well you should meet the goons that were teaching my dd...they let her read to the other kids then had the audacity to tell me the others will catch up. She learned nothing. Nothing.

 

:iagree:

We heard much of the same with ds from K-4th. Yes, 4th - past the "magic" 3rd grade period.

[kokotg]

Hmm....well, I wouldn't really classify my second DS as a late reader, but he certainly struggled more in learning to read than his brothers did. My oldest was reading Magic Tree House books at 4; his younger brother was struggling through Frog and Toad at 6 1/2. Now he's almost 8, reading well above grade level, and I can't begin to tell the difference between his reading ability at this age and his older brother, the early reader. I'm not sure what that means for the poll....I guess 2nd grade was the great equalizer here...but my older son still reads well above grade level; it's just that now his brother, who started much later, does too. I tend to think there's a very big difference between the skill set involved in learning to read--actually learning to sound out and recognize words--and what's involved in being a reader. I'm not sure if that makes sense...my oldest and middle kids learned to read very differently, I think...my oldest has a great visual memory and could see a word once and remember it forever, whereas my younger had perfectly age-appropriate decoding skills, but for a long time needed to sound out words every time he came to them, even if he'd seen them a million times before. So THAT part of the process took him a lot longer, but once he had that down he was golden; his comprehension was always great. I've found watching my kids learn to read in different ways completely fascinating (although I have to say that I'm relieved that my youngest is of the self-taught great visual memory variety; it was a lot more tiring teaching DS#2 to read...but also very gratifying).

[*Lulu*]

I don't buy it. Maybe an exceptional child starts late and catches up or even surpasses the grade level expectations. Maybe. But what could they have achieved if they had not been intentionally delayed by their parents? It is a dangerous educational philosophy for most children methinks.

 

Bill

 

Just because my son did not read before age 7 does not mean that he was being intentionally delayed.

 

We used phonics programs, Bob readers, and read constantly to him. He could perform the individual tasks that are part of reading, but could not seem to put it all together. Rather then have him hate what I love most, I backed off. We kept reading and kept touching lightly on the skills, but I followed my instincts about my child, his abilities and his temperament.

 

Just prior to his 7th birthday he began to really show an interest in reading for himself. By the time we finished 2nd grade he was on grade level, and he has been reading at early 5th grade level since Christmas.

 

And, as a child who learned to read at 5 and was reading at a 10th grade level in the 4th grade, waiting for my son to be ready to read was TORTURE!! :glare:

[Farrar]

Except that some kids who are late readers *DO* catch up.

:iagree:

I think the idea that kids who read early will always slow down and even out with their peers is absurd. I'm sure a few will, but I doubt that's the norm. On the other hand, I also don't doubt that kids who read late, even at age 8 or 9, can catch up to the "average" or even surpass many of their peers, especially looking long term at an individual's whole life as a student. I've known too many kids when I was teaching who were profoundly behind who really moved ahead not to believe that this is completely possible.

 

But is 3rd grade specifically some great equalizer? Eh. I doubt it. Like the OP, I'd be curious to see some actual studies about this.

[kokotg]

Just because my son did not read before age 7 does not mean that he was being intentionally delayed.

 

We used phonics programs, Bob readers, and read constantly to him. He could perform the individual tasks that are part of reading, but could not seem to put it all together. Rather then have him hate what I love most, I backed off. We kept reading and kept touching lightly on the skills, but I followed my instincts about my child, his abilities and his temperament.

 

Just prior to his 7th birthday he began to really show an interest in reading for himself. By the time we finished 2nd grade he was on grade level, and he has been reading at early 5th grade level since Christmas.

 

And, as a child who learned to read at 5 and was reading at a 10th grade level in the 4th grade, waiting for my son to be ready to read was TORTURE!! :glare:

 

:iagree:

 

DS7 was very similar...a big, sudden leap just before he turned 7, and now (just before 8) he's a voracious reader who's been reading stuff like Narnia and Harry Potter for months. We started reading lessons when he was 4 1/2 or 5, and I kept at them, but I kept them light and very brief, because I didn't want him to associate reading with misery. Slow and steady wins the race sometimes.

[Word Nerd]

It wasn't true for me as an early reader, and at least so far, it isn't for my daughters either. I don't buy the argument—at least if a child is being encouraged to learn at his or her own pace. I can see how leveling out could happen because of overt or indirect pressure not to have any student move too far in front of the pack, though.

[Aubrey]

I've never heard a teacher express this kind of opinion, quite to the contrary as a matter of fact. The teachers I know all stress the importance of early reading, and I grew up as the son of an elementary school teacher.

 

The BS I have heard is "better late than early" gurus telling parents their non-readers will catch up by 3rd grade (or even later) but this has been a strictly "homeschool" phenomenon and not an attitude shared in public schools.

 

Bill

 

I've heard both "better late than early" (mostly in hs circles) AND the idea that Elizabeth is referring to (more in public ed circles). When public ed teachers talk about "early reading," ime, they're talking about children *being read to,* NOT learning to read.

 

Wrt the poll...I'm trying to decide how to post. My kids have all *started* reading at 3yo so far. But that's just CVC. Independent reading? I know my oldest was reading Magic Tree House on his own when he was 6, but I know he could read simpler things before that. When he was 5, we'd take turns reading MTH--he'd do a p, & then I would.

 

But before he was 5, the pic books he read to dd...sometimes he was reading, sometimes he was reciting the text he'd memorized. I didn't pay attention to the shift. And I'm not sure what qualifies as a 1st g book. And I have no idea what level he's at now...I know he was reading The Lion, the Witch, & the Wardrobe w/ glee in 3rd g. Now? Well...he just...reads.

 

I do not believe that 3rd g is the great equalizer, though, in the way that this claim is made. I think public school banality is the great equalizer. ;)

[elizabeth]

I think public school banality is the great equalizer.

Aubrey this is beautiful. Amen.

[Aubrey]

Just because my son did not read before age 7 does not mean that he was being intentionally delayed.

 

We used phonics programs, Bob readers, and read constantly to him. He could perform the individual tasks that are part of reading, but could not seem to put it all together. Rather then have him hate what I love most, I backed off. We kept reading and kept touching lightly on the skills, but I followed my instincts about my child, his abilities and his temperament.

 

Just prior to his 7th birthday he began to really show an interest in reading for himself. By the time we finished 2nd grade he was on grade level, and he has been reading at early 5th grade level since Christmas.

 

And, as a child who learned to read at 5 and was reading at a 10th grade level in the 4th grade, waiting for my son to be ready to read was TORTURE!! :glare:

 

Bill isn't referring to kids who naturally start reading at 7yo (from what I've read); he's referring to a popular educational philosophy that *tells* parents to *on purpose* delay their kids' reading. Because it WILL be better for them in the long run. Bill is disagreeing w/ that concept, not suggesting that kids who read later are all delayed by their parents. :001_smile:

[Aubrey]

I think public school banality is the great equalizer.

Aubrey this is beautiful. Amen.

 

Ask me how I really feel! ;)

 

(Thank you.)

[woolybear]

Well, I didn't find an answer in the poll that fit my older ds. At the beginning of third grade, he was maybe at about first grade level. By the end of third, he was close to level, but struggling with it. A year later (now) I tested him and he is close to seventh grade level. He reads Shakespeare easily, Time magazine, The New York Times.

[Dana]

The women teaching 30-100 years ago were doing so not because they could not do anything else rather it was one of the few professsions in which they were admitted and welcomed. Not so today.The evidence in these times about who goes into elementary ed is best summed up by the following statistic. Guess what major has the lowest GPA???

 

Interesting.

 

I'd never thought of the limitations in professions for women and how that affected my educational experience vs what my son would be getting.

I know that when I was getting my masters degree and teaching credential, the education courses were pretty useless and the students I saw who were education majors were unimpressive (mid 90s). On discussion boards for higher education, I think there are more complaints about student entitlement for education majors than even for athletes.

 

We bought our house in a district that was considered a good district when I was growing up here and it still ranks well in the state. I have friends who taught in the high schools here - very competent teachers - and they have moved on to teaching at the community college.

[creekland]

I can't answer your poll. Middle son was officially listed as learning disabled from age 4 to 2nd grade. He was in speech therapy and could hardly read. In 2nd grade (age 7) it "clicked" for him and he went from the lowest reading group to the highest one that year. He also learned how to say the sounds he couldn't say before and "graduated" from speech therapy. It came with a bit of work on his part - it didn't happen overnight. We couldn't do it at home as he'd get too frustrated and cry (and the therapist didn't want home life to be hard on him, so we only got to read to him).

 

Now he's a junior and could have started a 4 year college this year had we let him. He tests into the top 1% on the ACT and got a perfect score on the English part - one point shy of perfect on Reading.

 

His early delay didn't hurt him, HOWEVER, not having him in therapy then could have hurt him. Starting him later than 4 could have hurt him too. The therapist told us he wasn't processing info correctly and they worked to "fix it." The earlier the better results-wise. I'm VERY thankful a good friend suggested we have him tested and we did.

[Perry]

Here's an article discussing early reading.

 

 

Excerpt:

 

A classic study in the 1930s by noted researcher and Illinois educator Carleton Washburne compared the trajectories of children who had begun reading at several ages, up to 7. Washburne concluded that, in general, a child could best learn to read beginning around the age of 6. By middle school, he found no appreciable difference in reading levels between the kids who had started young versus the kids who had started later, except the earlier readers appeared to be less motivated and less excited about reading. More recent research also raises doubt about the push for early readers. A cross-cultural study of European children published in 2003 in the British Journal of Psychology found those taught to read at age 5 had more reading problems than those who were taught at age 7. The findings supported a 1997 report critical of Britain's early-reading model.

 

More at the link.

 

I disagree strongly with the conclusions.

[Joyofsixreboot]

Three of mine didn't start reading until late 6 or early 7 and then took off and surpassed grade level by 3rd grade. 1st grade/age 6 is the earliest any of them read. All my kids have been late talkers and I'm not sure if that factors in.

[EKS]

I don't buy it. Maybe an exceptional child starts late and catches up or even surpasses the grade level expectations. Maybe. But what could they have achieved if they had not been intentionally delayed by their parents? It is a dangerous educational philosophy for most children methinks.

 

Bill

 

My son has dyslexia and did not read well enough to call it reading until he was almost 9. At age 10 he was reading several years above grade level. Of course, I didn't intentionally delay his reading; he did that all by himself!

[babysparkler]

Of my 4 who have reached grade 3 to date, I have:

 

 

• One who learned to read earlier than 3 - much higher level when in grade 3
  
• One who learned to read at age 5 - right on grade level in grade 3
  

 

[Ginevra]

The BS I have heard is "better late than early" gurus telling parents their non-readers will catch up by 3rd grade (or even later) but this has been a strictly "homeschool" phenomenon and not an attitude shared in public schools.

 

I've heard the bs to which you refer, but I've also heard the bs about not teaching them to read "before they're ready" because there is "no benefit to early reading" and "they all level out by 3rd grade." This is mostly from the ps camp who would rather all the kids plod along together at roughly the same pace. There's no benefit in the classroom to be able to read circles around the classmates, except that it makes the student into a handy teacher's aide.

[FO4UR]

I can't really answer the poll b/c I don't have a 3rd grader yet.

 

 

 

I don't buy it. Maybe an exceptional child starts late and catches up or even surpasses the grade level expectations. Maybe. But what could they have achieved if they had not been intentionally delayed by their parents? It is a dangerous educational philosophy for most children methinks.

 

Bill

 

I agree, and yet...I've got an 8yo who has been taught and taught and taught...and is reading solidly "on grade level." For him, I wonder if he would have been better off to wait until he was 7yo to start with the real teaching. That is about the time he started making real progress.

 

Then there is my dd6. She was reading BOB Books at 3yo, and I've never ever pushed her (rarely even gave her her own lessons LOL), but she gleaned from ds8's lessons and though she lacks the stamina to read for long periods of time (she is 6yo), she can pick up Little House on the Prairie and enjoy a chapter before we get to it in our read alouds.

 

So, in my case...the child was given the most instruction early is the slowest to progress. dd6 was "exposed" to phonics and reading at age 3, but never specifically "taught." I think it might be somewhat common with 2nd born HSers...idk...

 

I partly agree with the "Better Late Than Early" philosophy, I guess. For a 4/5/6yo child, it is a better use of time to teach things like good habits, how to work with a happy heart, and general "how we get along in the world" kind of real-life lessons. Where I part with BLTE is that I don't think learning early is bad if it happens naturally. Give me a time machine, and I'd go back to when ds8 was 5yo with what I know now and teach him with less anxiety on my part, slow and steady...lucky little ds4 benefits atleast.:tongue_smilie:

 

 

I think public school banality is the great equalizer.

Aubrey this is beautiful. Amen.

 

:iagree:

 

Before even reading the thread, my thought was leveling out happens mainly b/c they are in a ps environment. Also, leveling-out is for the lucky kids who are able to steer clear of those infamous "cracks" that others seem to fall through. Seeing a trend...

[justasque]

I've never heard a teacher express this kind of opinion, quite to the contrary as a matter of fact. The teachers I know all stress the importance of early reading, and I grew up as the son of an elementary school teacher.

 

I've heard it, from our local public school. It's one of the main reasons we began to homeschool. Ds began reading before 2, and is still a strong reader and now a strong writer. Words will probably in some form be his profession.

Of course all teachers encourage reading in theory, but by "early reading" I mean something different than what they're usually referring to. When faced with an actual, real-life, super-early-reader whose reading level was years above his age-peers', my school Did.Not.Want.To.Deal.

[HeidiKC]

I'm not sure where my first son would fit in your poll. I would think that any of those choices - ages 3, 4 or 5 would be an early age to be reading a 1st grade level book. Even most 5-year-olds are in preschool.

 

My first son began reading simple words just before he turned 5 during pre-K. By the time he began kindergarten (just before he was 6) he was reading pretty simple books, maybe 1st grade level at most. By Christmas his kindergarten year he was reading simple chapter books and was one of the best readers in his class (at school). By the summer after kindergarten he was probably reading 3rd grade level books. In 3rd grade he was tested throughout the year for the AR program, and was at an 11th grade reading level (although he wasn't reading books at that level - probably 5th-6th grade level at that point).

 

Point is, he began reading earlier than most kids in his class (although not 1st grade level at age 3 or 4 and probably not even 5), and from then on through 4th grade was always reading at a much higher level. So I've also always been curious about this whole "3rd grade" thing. I think maybe it means that if your child is not reading early, he/she can still be at/above grade level in 3rd grade. But I'd be surprised if you had someone reading early who was not way above grade level in 3rd grade. It just makes sense because they'll have had so much more experience reading by then and will continue to improve. Or at least that's the way it seems to me!

Edited May 11, 2011 by HeidiKC

[asta]

I've never heard any of this.

 

I heard the 3rd class argument in regards to "many kids seem accelerated or 'gifted' prior to then, but that 3rd class is the 'great equalizer'.

 

Meaning, some kids aren't any "brighter" than the kid sitting next to them - they are just on a different timeline. And that, by 3rd class, this process tends to "be equalized" for whatever reason.

 

From Hoagies' Gifted:

 

By age 8 most gifted children already need to have accommodations in place for their appropriate education. Negative effects, such as underachievement and withdrawal, can start in the early elementary years in gifted children. Twice exceptional gifted children's learning disabilities can seriously affect test results by age 8. Early identification is key to proper social and academic placement for the gifted child.

 

Schools, on the other hand, suggest testing later, often not until 3rd grade or age 8 or 9. Research shows that for the average child, IQ test scores are reliable around age 8. Observations of gifted children (real research is needed) indicate that reliability in IQ scores is obtained much younger in the gifted population. Not coincidently, most schools recommend gifted testing for the year their gifted program begins.

 

Meanwhile, there is truth to the oft-heard statement that "kids level out by 3rd grade." No, gifted kids don't level out, they continue to learn faster, and gain quicker, getting further ahead of their age-peers. But... Those kids who are "hot-housed," attend the most academic pre-school, are taught at home, flash carded (no, not those gifted parents who's kids *demand* flashcards, the other kind), and generally reach school already reading some sight words, perhaps even reading, doing some math... those kids often do fall back to "average" by 3rd grade, when the other kids have also learned to read.

 

Perhaps that is what you were thinking about?

 

 

asta

[In The Great White North]

The BS I have heard is "better late than early" gurus telling parents their non-readers will catch up by 3rd grade (or even later) but this has been a strictly "homeschool" phenomenon and not an attitude shared in public schools.

 

 

This is very common in Waldorf schools.

 

I don't buy it. Maybe an exceptional child starts late and catches up or even surpasses the grade level expectations. Maybe. But what could they have achieved if they had not been intentionally delayed by their parents?

 

One of mine learned to read at 8, one at 9 and one at 10. There were not "intentionally delayed." There were in a school that taught phonics and were read to every day of their life from infancy (pretty much the same as the 3 year olds who learned to read.) They are all highly proficient today.

 

 

The idea that everyone's reading level would even out at 3rd grade is very optimistic but theoretically possible, if all students were actually proficient by 3rd grade. What they are usually trying to convince you of is that everyone's intelligence would level out by 3rd grade and that's not even theoretically possible.

[BlsdMama]

DD #1 learned at age five and was well above third grade level.

DS #1 didn't learn UNTIL third grade, but by the end of the year was on level and by the next year he was beyond his "level."

DD #3 learned at about age 6/7 and she is approximately on level and is a third grader currently.

DD #4 taught herself about the same time she turned five and she reads above a third grade level currently and she is in 1st grade.

DS #2 - is currently learning (reading three letter words) - AGE SIX

DD #5 - is currently learning (reading three letter words) - AGE FOUR

DD #6 - is currently learning (just beginning to blend 2-3 sounds together) - AGE TWO

 

Frankly? All children learn differently, at different times, and progress differently.

 

My DS #1 had me worried he'd NEVER learn to read and three years ago I would have told you he would NEVER read at the level that my oldest DD does. I would have been wrong.

 

I would have said, because of DD #4's attention span, that she would not read as well as DD #3. DD #4 has surpassed DD #3 despite a two year age gap. (They turned 7 & 9 a few months ago.)

 

I will be VERY interested to see how our two year old progresses. She picked up phonics by being around Abigail and Timothy. She has a long attention span and wants to read every day.... As long as she possibly can. I'm floored Timothy is reading at all. We'll see... Each is so very different and I would have been sure I could have pegged progression not only from the age they began to read but by their personalities and natural bents. I would have been wrong.

[Rivka]

I think that it's a misconception, and several factors probably contribute to it:

 

1. Research shows that children who go to an academic preschool are initially advanced over children who go to a play-based preschool. However, the advantage wears off rather quickly and sometimes reverses.

 

2. Research on reading acquisition does not support the idea that children would be better readers if they were all started on formal reading instruction at age three or four.

 

3. There is a huge, huge range in reading skills at age five or six, and that range is not particularly meaningful for where kids are going to end up. Many many kids who are struggling to sound out words in second grade are reading Harry Potter in third grade. So there is a sense that, once everyone is over the learning-to-read hurdle, differences are less pronounced than they were while they were learning to read.

 

4. Many schools don't provide any enrichment or acceleration to gifted/advanced students until that magical third grade. For some kids, denying them instruction on their level will slow them down and make them less ahead of the other kids than they might have been.

 

I think it's hard for the research to take into account differences between kids who have had early academic instruction and kids who are gifted/advanced learners. I'm not a fan of better late than early, but I do think that when you try to "make" a kid advanced with a lot of very early drill (e.g., Kumon tutoring centers at age 3) the effect is likely to wear off. A kid who self-teaches reading at three because of an intense, driving inner academic fire is probably not going to follow that same trajectory, though.

[Mom22ns]

I didn't teach either of mine to read, they figured it out on their own. They still received phonics instruction in ps for a couple of years.

 

Ds started reading at 2.5 (really) and by third grade was reading at a high school level according to ps testing.

Dd started reading at 4 (read at second grade level when entering K) and in third grade she was well above grade level, but not quite as high as ds.

 

Both were in ps at that time, so that was their testing results, not my opinion.

[Donna]

I've never heard a teacher express this kind of opinion, quite to the contrary as a matter of fact. The teachers I know all stress the importance of early reading, and I grew up as the son of an elementary school teacher.

 

The BS I have heard is "better late than early" gurus telling parents their non-readers will catch up by 3rd grade (or even later) but this has been a strictly "homeschool" phenomenon and not an attitude shared in public schools.

 

Bill

 

I have heard a teacher spout this bit of nonsense. When my oldest began reading at 4yo and her same age dd wasn't, this was the comment she made..."no matter when they start reading, they all level out by 3rd grade." (Um, thanks for the encouragement.) It hasn't been true in any of my children's cases.

 

I did read a study once (while waiting for dd's IQ testing to finish) that looked at kids later in life who began reading early. Some of the kids had high IQs and others had simply had an enriching environment. All were in a school setting so not homeschooled. The few with high IQs remained above their peers later but those whose reading ability had been highly scaffolded by adults did level out. Maybe this study is where people get that comment.

 

My thinking was maybe it takes 3-4 years in public school for all that early work to be lost and the kids to be dumbed down to an acceptable average. (Ha! sorry just be sarcastic!:lol:)

[HayesW]

My oldest wasn't a fluent reader until January of her 1st grade year, so she was 6.5 y ears old. After 2nd grade, she was placed in a gifted program.

[brownie]

Both DS10 and DS8 self-taught at 4. DS10 got help at that point. DS8 wanted no help...never would read to me and was reading Harry Potter in kindergarten.

 

I started teaching ds6 at 5yrs but he's now pulled slightly ahead...we're going HOP grade 2 as we wrap up kindergarten.

 

DS10 loves non-fiction. DS8 eats fiction for breakfast, thousands of pages a week. DS6 is now getting excited about reading.

 

It is harder to be amazed by a bright 3rd grader than a bright K'er...what would be amazing at that age...War and Peace? Of course it was almost embarrassing when ds would take Harry Potter in public in kindergarten. It was the same thing in math. A 1 year old counting the 28 chairs in the waiting room or a 5 year old doing multiplication surprises people. Nobody knows that my 8 year old can multiply fractions though.

 

You can't change a gifted child..they're still gifted...it's just not as obvious to the outsider anymore.

 

Brownie

[freesia]

About half the gifted folks in my family were early readers (age 3-4) and the other half were average readers (age 6-7). In 3rd grade, there likely would've been a discernible difference but by 5th grade, there wouldn't have been.

 

My 2nd is tracking almost exactly a year behind where his older sister was at the same age, but I feel confident he's going to catch up some time in late elementary or early middle school. I don't know if it'll be by 3rd grade, we'll have to see.

 

This has been my experience, too. I have seen it happen in my own family as well as while I was teaching. A bright/gifted child may or may not read early. If a gifted child learns to read later s/he will quickly catch up to the ones who were reading early. I have seen it happen many, many times and NOT bc of restrictive reading programs in the schools.

 

I believe the reading environment at home and the native intelligence of the child makes more of a difference.

 

I also believe that teaching a child to read before s/he is ready (perhaps bc you believe that the earlier child reads the farther ahead they will continue to be) can cause reading problems and perhaps even learning disabilities.

 

Anne

[Down_the_Rabbit_Hole]

Based on your definition I had:

*one who read at a late 6 but dropped the readers for Hardy Boy books and Wally McDoogle books and then went to Treasure Island, Around the World in 80 days and Tom Sawyer to name a few.

*one who read at 5 but had comprehension problems that kept his reading level lower then grade level until about 5th grade, then it was on track

*one who read at a late 4, but stayed at grade level until about 3rd grade when he took off reading books 2, 3, and 4 levels ahead

*my last started reading at about a late 3 early 4. She is at a 3rd to 4th grade level now and she is 6. I don't know if she will "equalize". I do know we will offer more and more challenging books each year based on her abilities.

[Jenny in Florida]

Absolute total bs. That is what they promote in depts of education as a method to keep momma quiet and out of teacher's way. It is utterly and totally false. Don't take my word for it, read this little jewel of a document on gifted ed.

http://www.accelerationinstitute.org/nation_deceived/

I have made this concept of leveling out one of my hills to die on. I carry copies of this report in my car. Call me Beth the bs slayer on behalf of gifted students everywhere. Seriously I have given about ten of these reports away and opened the door to grade skips for several young people. It is my personal mission.

 

You go, Beth!

 

I suspect, although I have no hard evidence, that most of that "levelling out" is a result of school practices, not a natural thing for the kids.

 

I don't remember learning to read. I have no idea when I did, but I do have a memory of reading a Dr. Seuss book while still in a crib. (This was before the age of toddler beds, meaning I might have been as old as three or four and still in a crib, I think.) I was a voracious reader my entire childhood, always found the top reading group in school way too easy and am still a big reader as an adult.

 

My daugher was reading fluently by this definition by the time she was five. Once she "got it," she went from Angelina Ballerina to Harry Potter in six months. She's very busy in college now and doesn't have as much time to read for pleasure as she would like. But she still reads more and better than most people we know. (And, of course, she went to college at age 12. So, not much levelling out there.)

 

I have to say, though, that I'm sure there are anomalies on both sides of this question. My son, for example, couldn't really handle reading things like Frog and Toad until he was seven (outside the definitions of this poll). However, he, too, went from zero to sixty once the skill clicked. By the time he was third grade age, he was reading for fun at a six or seventh grade level and could go higher for "instructional" purposes. That year, when he was chronologically at third grader, he read almost 40 books outside of assigned school reading.

 

So, I guess in his case, third grade was not when he levelled out, but when he pulled ahead?