3rd grade -the great equalizer

[Jenny in Florida]

FWIW every profoundly accelerated child I have met professionally and personally has a parent who has been given the leveling out line.

 

Beth, can you be my new best friend?

 

Our daughter never attended school. However, we did get a lot of similar comments from other members of the local homeschooling community. They weren't worried about their children not being able to read at age six or seven, because they knew that all kids pretty much even out by third grade.

 

Of course, after I'd heard people tell me that at a homeschool park day, one parent or another would quietly e-mail to ask "what we did" to "make" my daughter read so early.

 

I kept trying to explain that there was no magic method. She read early and well because she was bright and interested.

 

Something I forgot to say in my previous post: I do think that it is possible to push some children into reading earlier than they otherwise might. Parents and schools who strongly emphasize academics at an early age might certainly be able to produce kids who acquire some basic skills early. Those kids, the ones who achieve these things only because of early, intense coaching, might well "even out" with others within a couple of years.

 

In fact, this isn't the same thing, of course, but I think I remember reading that this effect had been observed with programs like Head Start. The kids who attend those preschool programs tend to enter school academically ahead of their peers, but by third grade are no longer ahead.

 

I think it's different, though, from a kid who reads well and early without extraordinary intervention. Those kids, I'm pretty sure, will always be ahead of the pack.

[Reeciecup]

My early reader read well by kindergarten, and by 3rd grade tested at or just above above grade level. But she never reads for fun.

 

My 2 late readers, neither reading well before 7 1/2 or 8, quickly became good readers, and are still well above grade level. My 4th grader tests into 9th grade level, and my 7th grader tests post high school.

 

My 2 late readers are avid readers and love to read for fun. The learned to read practically overnight once they were ready. My oldest dd, whom I subjected to 100 easy lessons before she was 4, doesn't read for fun. She is an honor student in 10th grade, but she reads no more than what is required of her.

 

It's my opinion that early reading doesn't have a lot of benefits. My evidence is anecdotal, but it's pretty powerful evidence in our household. If I were to teach another kid to read, I wouldn't even start until at least 7.

[Jenny in Florida]

It's weird, but I don't remember learning to read either.

 

I've often wondered what that means.

 

I know I must have been reading before I went to school, but I don't actually remember how that happened. I do remember reading along with those little storybook 45s. And I vividly remember an incident in which the neighbor kids and I were listening to a recording of Peter Rabbit. One sentence referred to someone as being "damp," a word the other kids had apparently never heard. They thought it said he was "****ed" and were so upset about the "bad word" that they left. I tried to explain that it wasn't the same word, that I had read it in the book and it wasn't spelled the same way, but to no avail.

 

I don't remember for sure when that happened, but I know we moved away from that house before I hit first grade.

 

The book I remember reading in my crib was "On Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish." I can still visualize the page and "read" the words in my head. I remember calling to my parents, so excited because I was reading the book. My mother told me I wasn't reading, that I had just memorized it. But I knew she was wrong, because I was sounding out the words as I went.

 

That's pretty much the only memory I have of learning.

[Danestress]

I voted that my oldest learned to read by age 4 and was higher than a 3rd grade level in 3rd grade.

 

But here's the thing. I don't know many kids who read at grade level. All of my children tested as reading 4 or 5 years ahead of grade level, and I would say that is true of most of the friends I have talked about this with. I really don't know anyone who has a 3rd grader reading at 3rd grade level. I think the tests make 3rd grade level reading very very easy.

 

To me, they need to revamp the tests somehow. It makes no sense that so many bright and wordy but in no way truly "brilliant" children seem to test so much above grade level. It makes me think they dumb these tests way down. My children were all early readers and interested readers. They all like reading as do their parents. But it seems silly to me that sweet, bright kids were told they were so many years ahead of themselves. They weren't. They were normal, bright, Harry Potter reading 3rd graders, like almost all of their friends.

[*Lulu*]

I guess I was a real pip as a kid and I can't tell you why I did this, but I remember my mother quizzing me with flash cards for the sight words and purposely telling her I didn't know them. :lol:

 

OH. MY. GOODNESS.

 

DS#1 did this to me!! (With colors, letters, vocabulary, sight words, and the list goes on and on!) PLEASE tell me that this little personality quirk evens out before puberty sets in! :tongue_smilie:

[Jenny in Florida]

Well see it's weird because generally I was very compliant. I think I was just bored and liked the extra attention. When you are compliant and do well, nobody pays attention to you.

 

And that, right there, is what got me through elementary, middle and the first year of high school. (Probably best not to ask what happened after that!)

[*Lulu*]

Well see it's weird because generally I was very compliant. I think I was just bored and liked the extra attention. When you are compliant and do well, nobody pays attention to you.

 

Ah. Well in DS's case I think it has something to do with being treated like a trained chimp. Much to the grandparents' dismay, he does NOT do command performances. :lol: He also thinks that it is "pointless" to drill things he's already mastered. Needless to say he is going to have to get over this one!

[Sahamamama]

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.

 

Bill

 

Hi, Bill. :seeya: Just my experience here, so purely anecdotal, but...

 

When my firstborn was newly three years old, she was reading first grade level books. By the time she was four, she was reading books at the "Little House in the Big Woods" level (whatever that is). Just before she turned five years old, I called the school system here and asked about enrolling her in Kindergarten for the following fall (almost a year from that point). The registrar told me all about filling out the packet, bringing her in for Kindergarten Round-Up in April, and getting her medical exams done.

 

I had more questions, though. :D

 

When I asked what the school would do with a by-then 5.5 year old who could already read "Wind in the Willows," the registrar said, "Well, y'know, we do begin with the alphabet in Kindergarten, so that's where your daughter will start. We don't differentiate or skip until at least the second semester of Second Grade, and only then with testing and the school's recommendation."

 

When I asked, "What will she learn in Kindergarten, if she comes in knowing how to read at a 6th or 7th grade level?" the response was a snarky, "She'll learn how to stand in line, put her things in the cubby, and say the Pledge of Allegiance." She truly did say this. [We live in New Jersey, the Intergalactic Hub of Nuanced Communication.]

 

But the next comment was what sealed our eventual decision to homeschool our children. The registrar said, "Y'know, she might know how to read now, but don't worry. It all evens out by third grade." :001_huh:

 

We never went to Kindergarten Round-Up.

[Sahamamama]

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:When I hear my four year old twins reading about bones in the ear, ants, earthworms, habitats, Abraham Lincoln...

When I hear them reading poetry and laughing at the puns...

When I hear them reading stories and acting out Mary Poppins in their play...

 

I marvel at how much they are able to teach themselves, at just-turned-four, simply because they learned to read at an early age.

 

I suppose a child could absorb much of this -- science, history, poetry, stories -- from a diligent parent reading aloud, but you'd have to read for hours and hours every day to keep up with what an early, avid reader can do for herself.

 

Hey. :toetap05: Why am I reading aloud for hours and hours every day? My kids can REEEEEEEAAAAAAAAADDDDDDD! :lol:

 

:party:

[Nan in Mass]

I haven't read the other posts, so this might be redundent. Sorry.

 

I don't really know, but I have always suspected that the source was third grade school teachers. The focus in first and second is on getting children reading. Students who read already don't learn much academically these years. In third grade, when everyone presumable is reading fluently, the focus shifts to high quality written output and other subjects. Many early readers are only early readers, not early writers, so that advantage disappears. The science and social studies offered isn't at a very high level, so everyone is able to do it fairly well and better reading isn't necessarily an advantage. The emphasis is on producing quality written output in those subjects. It isn't as though the early reader was learning much in school in first and second grade. If the child read extensively on their own, then they might have gained some extra foundation knowledge, but that knowledge won't make the child appear very different from the other children in the class because there won't be very many opportunities of showing it off. Reading at a higher level isn't an advantage if nobody ever gives you anything to read that is above the reading level of the class in general. If the child is very advanced in written work, then the differences will show, but otherwise, it is sort of like they only are looking at the one thing the child isn't advanced at (writing).

That is my theory, anyway. But I am just guessing.

-Nan

Edited May 11, 2011 by Nan in Mass

[Crimson Wife]

But here's the thing. I don't know many kids who read at grade level. All of my children tested as reading 4 or 5 years ahead of grade level, and I would say that is true of most of the friends I have talked about this with. I really don't know anyone who has a 3rd grader reading at 3rd grade level. I think the tests make 3rd grade level reading very very easy.

 

I see lots of kids my DD's age (8) slowly reading Junie B. Jones and Rainbow Magic type books. My DD will sometimes read those kinds of books for fun, but she can finish the entire book in a couple of hours.

 

I think we homeschoolers sometimes have a very skewed notion of "normal" simply because so many of our kids are early readers.

[Dmmetler]

Well, my early reader isn't to third grade age yet, but she's well above a 3rd grade reading level now, so I seriously doubt she's going to go backwards in the next couple of years, barring a serious brain injury.

 

I do think that by 3rd grade there are more kids reading above grade level than there are in K/1, and that there's also a plateau due to interest level. My DD doesn't read anywhere near her tested reading level most of the time, simply because, except for a few non-fiction books and some really old ones that have inflated reading levels due to wording, they don't interest her, and many simply wouldn't be appropriate for her at this point. (I won't even let her read Harry Potter yet because I don't think she could emotionally handle books 4+).

[dm379]

My LD ds7 learned to read right after his 7th birthday. He's now at a 4th-ish grade level.

[freesia]

I don't disagree on most points you have made, but I have never heard that a parent can cause a learning disability. I don't see how that is possible.

I think it is speculation at this point but the theory behind it is that biologically the two hemispheres of the brain are not fully connected until 7/8 in some children. There is some thought that pushing a child to read before they are really ready to read can cause some poor connections due to the immaturity of the brain. It is one of the theories being explored behind the higher prevalence of reading disabilities among boys (whose brain connections mature a bit later than girls.)

 

I'm not talking about teaching a child who is ready or eager but some parents do keep pushing a child who is crying or just not getting it causing a lot of stress for both parties. I think it's a shame if this is done when, in my experience, there is no real point.

 

I know you aren't disagreeing w/ my point but I do want to add that I have heard that in Finland, where they have a 99% literacy rate, they don't teach reading until 7.

 

Anne

[calandalsmom]

The principle of our local elementary told me that locally, kids who are behind in k or gr 1 tend to stay behind, NOT gain on peers by grade 3.

 

My ds was dreadfully behind in gr 1 at age 7 according to the school. He received title 1 interventions which had him beginning to read simple books by the end of the year.

 

I started homeschooling for gr 2 and he began to read quite well.

 

At age 10 (gr 4) he was tested by a neuro psych and read at a grade 9 level. his spelling was at grade 2.

 

He was diagnosed with dyslexia as well at that point.

 

My other children taught themselves to read by age 5 or 6 as did both my husband and I.

 

I could not answer your poll bc my first kid didnt learn to read until 7 or 8 and he has exceeded his peers.

 

The rest are both probably slightly above grade level. Maybe more.

[Jenny in Florida]

I think we homeschoolers sometimes have a very skewed notion of "normal" simply because so many of our kids are early readers.

 

We try all the time to explain to our kids how the life they live has skewed their perception of reality.

 

The other day, my son was eating an early dinner of some left-over Indian food so that he could get out of the house in time for his opera rehearsal. Something about it struck me as funny and somehow representative of our family's life. He didn't get it at all, until I explained that most boys his age would be more likely to be eating a hot dog before leaving for Little League.

 

In one of my daughter's classes this year, they talked about different genres of theatrical performances. She was the only one in her college class of roughly 20 young women who had seen live performances of opera, ballet, musical theatre, straight plays and classical music. Several of the women in the class had not seen ONE such performance. She was stunned.

[calandalsmom]

We try all the time to explain to our kids how the life they live has skewed their perception of reality.

 

The other day, my son was eating an early dinner of some left-over Indian food so that he could get out of the house in time for his opera rehearsal. Something about it struck me as funny and somehow representative of our family's life. He didn't get it at all, until I explained that most boys his age would be more likely to be eating a hot dog before leaving for Little League.

 

In one of my daughter's classes this year, they talked about different genres of theatrical performances. She was the only one in her college class of roughly 20 young women who had seen live performances of opera, ballet, musical theatre, straight plays and classical music. Several of the women in the class had not seen ONE such performance. She was stunned.

yes, the word is privileged.

[Nan in Mass]

...I think we homeschoolers sometimes have a very skewed notion of "normal" simply because so many of our kids are early readers.

 

I chose TWTM mainly because it assumed I had a reading-fairly-well-but-not-yet-writing first grader. (That and because the grammar stage reading list was a good match culturally for my family.) It was the only thing I had ever seen that made the assumption that reading and writing levels were not the necessarily the same thing and that early reading was not a big deal. People kept telling me my youngest must be brilliant becaue he read early when we knew perfectly well that he wasn't. Motivated, yes, but brilliant, no.

 

-Nan

[Jenny in Florida]

yes, the word is privileged.

 

I don't think that's fair at all.

 

There are a number of those performances that we saw for free or cheap through our city's annual festival and/or because we knew someone who got us passes for dress rehearsals.

 

We know one family who routinely sees several performances a month by volunteering at the theatre in exchange for free tickets.

 

Yes, nowadays we can afford to buy tickets when we want to do so. But for a lot of years, the only investments we could make were time and creativity.

[Crimson Wife]

I do want to add that I have heard that in Finland, where they have a 99% literacy rate, they don't teach reading until 7.

 

I have heard that Finnish is an unusually easy language to read for those who are fluent in the tongue. English is harder because of all the more advanced phonics (e.g. "gh" at the end of a word can say /f/).

[nmoira]

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:

I dunno, the Waldorf kids I know are all strong readers, as are most of the late-reading unschooled kids.

 

ETA: The two kids I know who are having a very tough time would benefit from some professional help. They haven't even been to a developmental opthamologist.

Edited May 11, 2011 by nmoira

[freesia]

I have heard that Finnish is an unusually easy language to read for those who are fluent in the tongue. English is harder because of all the more advanced phonics (e.g. "gh" at the end of a word can say /f/).

Yes, I can see that affecting how easy it is to learn.

 

However, once the brain is "ready" a child can crack the code in English. I have seen 7 yos learn to read in under a month and I have watched 5/6 yo struggle all year and then watch them click and gain fluency rapidly at 7 (my own child and several I taught.) It has been enough to convince me that for most children 7 is the magic number for "ease" of reading instruction.

 

I do start to teach my kids earlier but I do back off if there is undue stress. FWIW I've had a 3 yo reader, a 7 yo reader and a 5 yo reader thus far. They are all gifted. The 3 yo reader and the 7 yo reader were at the same fluency level at the end of 3rd grade and my 7 yo reader is at the same reading level as the gifted daughter of a friend (she read at 4.)

 

Anne

[Crimson Wife]

I don't think that's fair at all.

 

There are a number of those performances that we saw for free or cheap through our city's annual festival and/or because we knew someone who got us passes for dress rehearsals.

 

We know one family who routinely sees several performances a month by volunteering at the theatre in exchange for free tickets.

 

Yes, nowadays we can afford to buy tickets when we want to do so. But for a lot of years, the only investments we could make were time and creativity.

 

Some places offer free cultural events/museum admissions on certain days/etc. and others don't.

 

While I'm fortunate enough to currently live close to a city where there are opportunities for free culture, in the past I've lived where there was bupkiss.

[mytwomonkeys]

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.

 

this was our experience with my daughter. she learned to read at 7 but is off the charts now. she's 9 & in 3rd grade this year, but can read anything. my son is in first grade (age 7) and still learning. i imagine by the time he's in 3rd grade though, he'll be like my daughter.

[calandalsmom]

I don't think that's fair at all.

 

There are a number of those performances that we saw for free or cheap through our city's annual festival and/or because we knew someone who got us passes for dress rehearsals.

 

We know one family who routinely sees several performances a month by volunteering at the theatre in exchange for free tickets.

 

Yes, nowadays we can afford to buy tickets when we want to do so. But for a lot of years, the only investments we could make were time and creativity.

 

Its not really about being able to afford things. Its the fact that the parents value these experiences enough to introduce them to their children.

 

Privilege isnt a bad word.

[Paige]

I don't think we as homeschoolers have such unusual kids. Looking at the poll, it is clear that the average 3rd grader is not reading on a 3rd grade level, but is well past that. My son was in public school through 2nd grade- an average school. It wasn't the best and wasn't the worst, and any kid who wasn't reading on a high 3rd grade level by the middle of 2nd would have seriously stood out as behind. My 1st graders are reading 3rd grade level books but not easily. I consider them a little behind compared to almost every other 1st grader I know. My friend's son is in 1st, and is reading on a 1st grade level according to the school, and they want to retain him because of his reading skills! Again, we were not in an advanced school at all but a very average one.

 

Also, when teachers say, "most kids even out by 3rd grade," they aren't talking about profoundly gifted children. Profoundly gifted children are not "most kids," and most early readers are not profoundly gifted. The teachers are looking at the averages and seeing that by around 3rd grade, the advantages that come with early reading in the previous years sort of fade away as the other children catch up in reading skills. Will they catch up to profoundly gifted kids? Maybe- if the child catching up is also a profoundly gifted child who didn't read early, but probably not because we are talking about "most" kids. The fact that most kids don't catch up to profoundly gifted children does not negate the opinion that most kids' reading abilities even out around 3rd grade.

[YourFidgetyFriend]

I guess I was a real pip as a kid and I can't tell you why I did this, but I remember my mother quizzing me with flash cards for the sight words and purposely telling her I didn't know them. :lol:

 

My daughter who has been reading well since 2, decided she did not know her letters when doing a vision test at the ped's office at 4 :glare:

 

As for the original question, it won't hold true for my daughter as she is beyond that reading level now at 5. I don't think she is profoundly gifted either but she is one smart cookie, if I do say so myself :001_smile:

[Rivka]

I don't think that's fair at all.

 

There are a number of those performances that we saw for free or cheap through our city's annual festival and/or because we knew someone who got us passes for dress rehearsals.

 

We know one family who routinely sees several performances a month by volunteering at the theatre in exchange for free tickets.

 

Yes, nowadays we can afford to buy tickets when we want to do so. But for a lot of years, the only investments we could make were time and creativity.

 

I think culture is a huge part of privilege, though. Your kids have parents who value "high culture" experiences, seek out opportunities to see them, know people who are involved in the arts and can get you passes, etc. You probably also know enough about high culture to be able to make wise choices of what your kids are likely to enjoy, to fill them in on all the "rules" that allow them to fit in in that setting (no clapping between movements, etc.), and and to explain something about what they're seeing/hearing.

 

That's privilege, which doesn't make it bad.

[melissel]

I see lots of kids my DD's age (8) slowly reading Junie B. Jones and Rainbow Magic type books. My DD will sometimes read those kinds of books for fun, but she can finish the entire book in a couple of hours.

 

I think we homeschoolers sometimes have a very skewed notion of "normal" simply because so many of our kids are early readers.

 

I'm not sure this means anything WRT reading level. My third grader--who, one day, two months after she turned four, out of the blue began reading me the words off the trucks and street signs we were passing in the car--loves Junie B. Jones and those accursed fairy series books :lol: If our library had a larger selection of them, she'd read even more of them (it hasn't yet occurred to her to ask me to get them via ILL, thank goodness). If you saw her out and about, you'd often see her with one of those. Yet this is also the child who finished the 500-page Search for WondLa last week and is eagerly awaiting the next Kane Chronicles book. I think often it's more an interest-led choice than a reading level thing.

 

ETA: I missed the word "slowly" in your post, hence my irrelevant response! I wonder though, how do you know they're reading those books slowly?

Edited May 11, 2011 by melissel

[Lisa in the UP of MI]

DD learned to read at 4.5yo. She is now 6.5yo and can read anything.

[SonshineLearner]

I didn't vote, as my son still doesn't read exceptionally well. I don't know if he would pass for reading even AT grade level. He's 7.5 and he doesn't care to read. His dad reads each night to him... for a couple chapters or so. He reads books that are WAY about grade level to him, so his comprehension is being stretched, but reading isn't fun to him... so he doesn't like to try. He loves math and prefers to work out problems and play games :) By 4th grade... I hope he's up to speed with reading :)

[Daisy]

My husband (ps teacher) would agree that by about 4/5th grade the typical ps student levels out in their reading, but that is because he would say that the vast majority of Jr/Sr High students he has seen still have a 4/5th grade reading ability. They tend to all catch up with each other and then just sit there.

 

He sees that as a deficiency in the public school system.

[Annie Laurie]

My dd is in 3rd this year. She started reading at 4 and is reading above level now, in 3rd grade.

[Desert Rat]

My vote reflected my older son. He started reading at 2. By the time he was in 3rd grade he was reading at a high school level. After my vote had been recorded, I realized I should have voted regarding my younger son. He will be in 3rd grade next year. He really began reading this year but has gained proficiency quickly. He reads at grade level.

I've always said that the leveling out at third grade had more to do with the early readers not learning new skills until the others caught up....at about third grade. From what I've seen, this is true.

[Sun]

My husband (ps teacher) would agree that by about 4/5th grade the typical ps student levels out in their reading, but that is because he would say that the vast majority of Jr/Sr High students he has seen still have a 4/5th grade reading ability. They tend to all catch up with each other and then just sit there.

 

He sees that as a deficiency in the public school system.

 

I think this is part of it.

 

I think another big part of it is that by third grade the differences are less obvious. One child might read at a high school level in 3rd grade, and another may read at a 3rd grade level, but they are both reading chapter books of a sort, which makes the differences less obvious than when a K student lugs in The Hobbit for free reading time. In addition, fluent readers (including adults) often read well below their actual "reading level," so differences may be less obvious to teachers who don't pay a lot of attention.

[garddwr]

You need options for kids who learned after age 5.

My own family (growing up) had a range of early and late reading (self-taught 4 year old to late-blooming 8 year old)--with no correlation to later reading levels. I was a "late bloomer"--I couldn't read a word before the summer I turned eight. At age nine I was happily devouring Charles Dickens books in the original. As a family we all tended to be strong readers, but the age of learning didn't seem to have an impact or correlate to later ability.

[garddwr]

You know, based on the poll almost all the kids are reading above 3rd grade level...wonder if that is perception or reality.

[calandalsmom]

My husband (ps teacher) would agree that by about 4/5th grade the typical ps student levels out in their reading, but that is because he would say that the vast majority of Jr/Sr High students he has seen still have a 4/5th grade reading ability. They tend to all catch up with each other and then just sit there.

 

He sees that as a deficiency in the public school system.

 

I have heard that the newspaper is written to a 4th gr reading level. So it wouldn't surprise me if many adults were functionally at that level.

[calandalsmom]

You know, based on the poll almost all the kids are reading above 3rd grade level...wonder if that is perception or reality.

 

One does wonder about all these exceptional children.

 

Makes them look not very exceptional when they are all qualifying.

 

 

Reading level is complex and difficult to judge, I find.

[Crimson Wife]

ETA: I missed the word "slowly" in your post, hence my irrelevant response! I wonder though, how do you know they're reading those books slowly?

 

Because I'm sitting there in the waiting room or whatever and can hear when the page is turned. I spend far too much of my life waiting at various activities/appointments...

[nmoira]

One does wonder about all these exceptional children.

 

Makes them look not very exceptional when they are all qualifying.

 

 

Reading level is complex and difficult to judge, I find.

But the poll was specifically geared to early readers. I don't think it at all surprising that early readers in a homeschooling environment don't "level off."

[HeidiKC]

I think it is speculation at this point but the theory behind it is that biologically the two hemispheres of the brain are not fully connected until 7/8 in some children. There is some thought that pushing a child to read before they are really ready to read can cause some poor connections due to the immaturity of the brain. It is one of the theories being explored behind the higher prevalence of reading disabilities among boys (whose brain connections mature a bit later than girls.)

 

I'm not talking about teaching a child who is ready or eager but some parents do keep pushing a child who is crying or just not getting it causing a lot of stress for both parties. I think it's a shame if this is done when, in my experience, there is no real point.

 

I know you aren't disagreeing w/ my point but I do want to add that I have heard that in Finland, where they have a 99% literacy rate, they don't teach reading until 7.

 

Anne

 

Yes. Check out "The Trouble With Boys" - a very interesting book about what happens when we push boys too early when they are not ready. Seems to be lots of evidence of this causing problems. Again - this is just boys that are NOT ready. But I wonder how much of this is actually a reading issue, rather than not being ready to sit and concentrate in a classroom. They found problems with boys who attended more academic preschools (worksheets instead of playing more, etc.) and who were taught reading in K. Many of these same boys ended up with behavioral problems and in Special Ed. But maybe they just weren't ready to sit and focus yet, and that's the whole problem.

 

SO...maybe teaching kids to read early in a homeschool environment is a different issue altogether (since sitting still isn't such an issue). I don't know, but I find it an interesting question.

[AuntieM]

FWIW, I have had early enthusiastic readers, two very early. One problem we have faced is the lack of available quality, appropriate reading material for a kindergartner who reads on the fourth grade level. Admittedly, I am a book snob. But what we've found is that after first and perhaps second grade level readers comes a jump to fourth grade readers which contain all sorts of issues that I've not wanted to introduce until my children were younger.

 

My oldest muscled through that phase with lots of non-fiction. I hope my youngest will follow the same course. My two others had a hard time getting past the leap from Nancy Drew/Hardy Boys to Louisa May Alcott and Tolkien.

 

I wish there was more quality literature available to fill that gap between ability and sensibility for our young advanced readers.

[melissel]

You know, based on the poll almost all the kids are reading above 3rd grade level...wonder if that is perception or reality.

 

One does wonder about all these exceptional children.

 

Makes them look not very exceptional when they are all qualifying.

 

 

Reading level is complex and difficult to judge, I find.

 

I agree, but I tend to think that as HSers, most of us are very on top of this kind of information. I know I've given my DD8 several reading tests, and I know the reading level of the books she's read independently and what I've had her read to me aloud. Based on things like Lexile levels, she's reading well above a "third-grade" level as it seems to be measured these days. That's what I based my response on. And as another poster pointed out, it's not so hard to believe that early readers held their lead. DD8's natural abilities fall into the LA areas.

 

Because I'm sitting there in the waiting room or whatever and can hear when the page is turned. I spend far too much of my life waiting at various activities/appointments...

 

Ah, I see. Interesting. The kids I know who read these kinds of books read as them as quickly as DD8 does, but they are either HSers or gifted PS kids, so outside of that, I couldn't say myself.

[Jenny in Florida]

Some places offer free cultural events/museum admissions on certain days/etc. and others don't.

 

While I'm fortunate enough to currently live close to a city where there are opportunities for free culture, in the past I've lived where there was bupkiss.

 

Interesting. I've never lived anywhere that made finding such events all that tough. And I've lived literally coast to coast in towns and cities of widely varying sizes.

 

However, the fact remains that my children having had these experiences does not necessarily mean they are economically "priveleged." In the city in which we live it is very possible to find these opportunities without spending lots of money.

 

As an aside, the night my son was eating before a rehearsal was for a show for which he was getting paid, not one for which we paid. He got a small check, and we got two free tickets to the show.

 

You absolutely do not have to be wealthy to participate in the arts.

[Jenny in Florida]

I think culture is a huge part of privilege, though. Your kids have parents who value "high culture" experiences, seek out opportunities to see them, know people who are involved in the arts and can get you passes, etc. You probably also know enough about high culture to be able to make wise choices of what your kids are likely to enjoy, to fill them in on all the "rules" that allow them to fit in in that setting (no clapping between movements, etc.), and and to explain something about what they're seeing/hearing.

 

That's privilege, which doesn't make it bad.

 

The only reason we know people involved in the arts is because our kids are involved. They did their first community theatre production when they were six and nine years old. My daughter loved movie musicals and Broadway soundtracks on CD and wanted to be in a show. My son tagged along for the audition. They were both cast. They loved it and have been active ever since.

 

Over the years, we've met a lot of people who also do theatre. In fact, it's now pretty rare that we go to see any local show when the kids don't know at least one person on stage. But that is a function of their long-term involvement, not anything we "provided" to them.

 

Prior to having our kids, I had been to very few live performances, although probably more than is typical. I had never seen an opera. I had never been to a classical music concert. I had never seen a Shakespearean play live.

 

I learned a little bit about ballet because my son started dancing. (Free tuition for boys when he started. Minimal investment there, too.)

 

The first opera I attended was when my daughter's choir director (who happened to have a day job as the box office manager of the opera company) got us passes for the dress rehearsal.

 

In the intervening years, my son has been in four operas.

 

So, it's not like we set out to "expose" our kids to these experiences. We took them along to do things we enjoyed, and we took advantage of opportunities that came our way. That's the only "privelege" they've had.

[TXMomof4]

 

So, it's not like we set out to "expose" our kids to these experiences. We took them along to do things we enjoyed, and we took advantage of opportunities that came our way. That's the only "privelege" they've had.

 

It's kind of sad, but having parents willing to take their kids along and who will take advantage of the opportunities presented *is* considered a privilege. It's not something that can be taken for granted.

[Momling]

I haven't read all the responses, so forgive me if I'm just repeating what everyone else has said...

 

I have heard that and figured that what was really meant was this:

 

"Preschoolers who are good readers are noticeably ahead of their peers because there is a big difference between literacy and illiteracy. By third grade, when everybody is reading, the difference is not as noticeable."

[Embassy]

You need options for kids who learned after age 5.

 

I realized I only set the poll for 5 and under as I was curious about the correlation between early readers and later reading ability. It would be interesting to include higher ages though.

[KristinaBreece]

The only reason we know people involved in the arts is because our kids are involved. They did their first community theatre production when they were six and nine years old. My daughter loved movie musicals and Broadway soundtracks on CD and wanted to be in a show. My son tagged along for the audition. They were both cast. They loved it and have been active ever since.

 

Over the years, we've met a lot of people who also do theatre. In fact, it's now pretty rare that we go to see any local show when the kids don't know at least one person on stage. But that is a function of their long-term involvement, not anything we "provided" to them.

 

Prior to having our kids, I had been to very few live performances, although probably more than is typical. I had never seen an opera. I had never been to a classical music concert. I had never seen a Shakespearean play live.

 

I learned a little bit about ballet because my son started dancing. (Free tuition for boys when he started. Minimal investment there, too.)

 

The first opera I attended was when my daughter's choir director (who happened to have a day job as the box office manager of the opera company) got us passes for the dress rehearsal.

 

In the intervening years, my son has been in four operas.

 

So, it's not like we set out to "expose" our kids to these experiences. We took them along to do things we enjoyed, and we took advantage of opportunities that came our way. That's the only "privelege" they've had.

 

I think no one was trying to lump you into " rich kid" category. They were applauding you for being involved and allowing your DC to pursue their interests. (Which, in your case, led to a vast amount of cultural exposure.) A lot of kids don't get those opportunities, and a lot of parents who are presented with the opportunities don't choose to take advantage of them. You rock, Mama!

Edited May 11, 2011 by KristinaBreece
Forgot my parenthesis!