"Early readers average out by 3rd grade" - what's your take?

[SKL]

Some people are adamant about this belief, but it doesn't seem right to me. I mean, assuming a child is really reading versus just knowing some sight words and/or phonics rules.

 

The argument seems to be that my kid's fluent reading at the average level of kids twice her age (she's 4) is not evidence in favor of testing her for giftedness, accelerating her past pre-K, etc.

[Mandy in TN]

Don't worry about what someone else is saying. Just meet her where she is currently working and move her forward from there.

 

There was a thread on here where this was discussed- the merely accelerated child versus the gifted child. There are also gifted children who may not have had the opportunity to accelerate prior to school.

 

Time will tell if your child stays ahead. As my ds is now in third grade and is still well ahead of his age level peers, I guess I can say I told you so. ;)

 

Mandy

[regentrude]

Some people are adamant about this belief, but it doesn't seem right to me. I mean, assuming a child is really reading versus just knowing some sight words and/or phonics rules.

 

 

As a general statement, this is plain nonsense.

My early reader DD has consistently read way ahead grade level (as in, unabridged Count of Monte Christo in 5th grade, Grapes of Wrath in 6th, and so on)

 

Sometimes a child just started early and will level out. Sometimes, the early reading is sign that the child is gifted and will continue to excel throughout life. And sometimes, a child who does not read fluently until late in 1st grade will turn out as gifted as his early reading sibling. (Ask me how I know.)

[PhotoGal]

I wonder if this tends to happen in a classroom setting. Just because the teachers are trying to catch up those that are behind in reading and don't give as much attention to those that are reading at a higher level?

[Mandy in TN]

Here is the other thread on this topic.

Mandy

[regentrude]

I wonder if this tends to happen in a classroom setting. Just because the teachers are trying to catch up those that are behind in reading and don't give as much attention to those that are reading at a higher level?

 

Nope. The really gifted kids will be bored out of their mind and continue to read challenging books under the desk. That's how DD survived five years of public school.

[Nart]

I don't believe it. If a child learns to read at an early age, AND actually continues to read every day, I don't think others catch up and that early reader just becomes an average readers in third grade.

 

Looking at reading research, kids who are poor readers in first grade, tend to stay poor readers by fourth grade. Strong readers in first grade end up as strong readers in fourth grade. There is a reading researcher Dr. Keith Stanovich who has studied reading progress and coined the term "The Matthew Effect" in reading (taken from a biblical passage where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer). He has found that good readers obviously read more, develop more vocabulary, have higher level of inferential thinking and lexical knowledge which leads to becoming an overall better student.

 

While I don't doubt that there are some students, particularly home schooled students, who don't learn to read until 7 or 8 that eventually become great readers, I think that is the exception. If you learned to read at 4 (really read, not just decode CVC words), then by age 8 you would have read tens of thousands of words more than someone who just began reading a year ago.

[8filltheheart]

Sometimes a child just started early and will level out. Sometimes, the early reading is sign that the child is gifted and will continue to excel throughout life. And sometimes, a child who does not read fluently until late in 1st grade will turn out as gifted as his early reading sibling. (Ask me how I know.)

 

Yep.....:iagree: w/this.

 

I think the main take on the "avg out by 3rd grade" is that simply b/c a child does x,y, and z early does not necessarily mean they are really "advanced" or "gifted." It may, but there is not a definitive direct correlation.

 

I have had an incredibly early speaker (full paragraphs by 16 months), who was also my earliest reader, turn out to be my most completely avg student. The "leveling" out for her was absolutely true.

 

My latest reader (not on grade level until grade 4) has turned out to be my most advanced student and is way ahead of his peers.

 

I'm sure that the majority of the posters on this forum will disagree w/me, but I agree w/the contention that early reading alone is not justification for automatic assumption of giftedness.

[Crimson Wife]

The "hothoused" children who are not gifted but merely bright and enrolled in Jr. Kumon will tend to average out by the middle of elementary school. They will often be passed by gifted kids who are "late bloomers". DH didn't learn to read until he was 7 but when he did, he just took off.

 

DD has been tracking almost exactly 1 year ahead of DS, but I'm pretty confident that at a certain point he'll catch up. I don't know if it'll be by 3rd grade, but I'm guessing it'll most certainly be by middle school.

[Maus]

I haven't researched this or anything, but I don't believe they level out in most cases. I think there are two types of kids that are most likely to become early readers: those who have been surrounded by books and literature since they were born, and those who are gifted.

 

I believe the former will always stay about that level ahead (i.e. if they read two years early, they will always be about two years ahead).

 

It is my personal experience (my sibs and my kids) that the later not only stay ahead, but they continue to widen the gap. Mine read about a year early, but after a year, they tested two levels ahead; after two years, they tested three and half levels ahead; etc.

 

I suppose if you took a group of kids of similar intelligence AND similar environment, some of them would read first and others would catch on to math first, etc. Amongst that very narrow sample, the kids would probably level out.

[JennyD]

I have no idea what the actual research on this says, but there must be a fair amount of data on this, no?

 

I would think that if nothing else, being an early reader would help in getting a child labeled 'smart' by parents and teachers, and that itself has got to be hugely beneficial to any child.

[8filltheheart]

......students, who don't learn to read until 7 or 8 that eventually become great readers, I think that is the exception. If you learned to read at 4 (really read, not just decode CVC words), then by age 8 you would have read tens of thousands of words more than someone who just began reading a year ago.

 

I really disagree w/this statement. While 5/6 is the avg age for learning to read, decoding requires a certain level of brain maturity. Some kids' brains mature earlier, some later. Simply b/c someone's brain develops later does not mean they are have a disability. However, the reverse is also true. Simply b/c someone learns to decode at 4 does not mean they are gifted.

 

I don't have time to go searching for research articles, but here is a link from the APA about general brain maturation processes and how it is uneven not only from individual to individual but w/in an individual.

 

http://www.apa.org/education/k12/brain-function.aspx

 

Simply b/c one has a higher reading level at age 8 does not mean that their reading level will never intersect w/ later readers.

 

If a later learner is always going to be "behind" or "slow", then educational tracks should be based on performance in the primary grades. Those experienced w/ educating large numbers of children would immediately recognize that that that would be completely inappropriate b/c of just how varied those early yrs are. More accurate assessments of "educational tracks" typically emerge when students are in elementary grades. That those that are extremely advanced are bored to death by that point, I have no doubt. But statistically, the % of extreme gifted is small, whereas the % of normal is large......that is where you will see the inter-mingling of the majority of late and early readers (with the other minority being those that are truly "slow.")

Edited September 4, 2011 by 8FillTheHeart

[lewelma]

I think it depends on if the child reads more and more advanced books each year. It is incredibly easy to tell yourself that your child is finally "reading" when they hit novels like Harry Potter, Narnia, etc, and just keep getting them that level of book. But really, this is only half way to adult reading. I think many kids can "level out" because they are not challenged enough to get to the next level. I am constantly thinking of what book is next for each child. If the current book is easy, then I am thinking of a book up a level. If the current book is difficult, I am thinking of another book at that level. Until you hit Ulysses or War and Peace, your child still has room to grow their reading skills.

 

Ruth in NZ

[regentrude]

While I don't doubt that there are some students, particularly home schooled students, who don't learn to read until 7 or 8 that eventually become great readers, I think that is the exception.

 

I completely disagree.

In my home country, and in many other countries, kids don't even start any formal academics until they are 6 or 7. So, quite a few will not read until 7 or 8.

The push for early academics in the US does not translate into any measurable advantage in reading skills at age 10.

[Greenmama2]

I completely disagree.

In my home country, and in many other countries, kids don't even start any formal academics until they are 6 or 7. So, quite a few will not read until 7 or 8.

The push for early academics in the US does not translate into any measurable advantage in reading skills at age 10.

 

:iagree: and I think that is really the gist of the "leveling out" statements.

[SKL]

I completely disagree.

In my home country, and in many other countries, kids don't even start any formal academics until they are 6 or 7. So, quite a few will not read until 7 or 8.

The push for early academics in the US does not translate into any measurable advantage in reading skills at age 10.

 

That's why I made a point to say "assuming they are really reading." Drilling a child whether or not she's ready to read is a lot different from a child picking up a book voluntarily and successfully reading it for meaning.

 

I worked with my kid sister when she was 4-5 and showed an unusual ability to decode. But I always felt she wasn't really getting much out of her reading. My daughter, at a younger age, is much further along. She reads with relative fluency and good comprehension. She has no patience for the stuff my sister used to work through, because it doesn't flow like a book should. She wants to read literature, not words. (And she has never had traditional "lessons" in reading.)

 

I do believe in late bloomers - bright kids who have rich experiences to draw on but take a little more maturing before reading "clicks." But I don't think there are enough of them to negate the exceptionality of the early bloomers.

 

Even if the school system doesn't ask kids to read until age 7, there will be some kids who will pick it up early because they are hungry for literacy. It's hard to imagine that they will all just stop progressing as their peers work to catch up.

 

I keep hearing that there is research backing up the "average out" theory, but I've yet to see it with my own eyes.

[serendipitous journey]

I'd love to look up the research but haven't ... DH and I both were non-readers on entering school, and reading at the fifth grade level in second grade. Our oldest son is not an early reader, but we started teaching him reading in K and he's zooming along ... so at least from what we've seen in our family, early reading is not a measure of giftedness. But it may be one correlate.

[Mandy in TN]

The "hothoused" children who are not gifted but merely bright and enrolled in Jr. Kumon will tend to average out by the middle of elementary school. They will often be passed by gifted kids who are "late bloomers".

I agree with the vast majority of this statement. Children who are of average intelligence but hothoused will appear to be bright early in their education, but in a traditional classroom will plateau and lose whatever acceleration that they had. OTOH, a bright student who is given the advantage of early and continued learning will stay ahead. Both these groups will be surpassed by gifted late bloomers.

 

I am still working in the JK room at Kumon and the bright kids I had several years ago are still ahead of their grade level peers. Many of these kids are now in middle school and participate in their schools GT and accelerated programs. A few of them are truly brilliant young people, but most of them are just bright, hard workers. (I've had maybe 5 kids in almost as many years that I felt were really exceptional.) The average children that were initially accelerated dropped out of Kumon when they hit their plateau and I suspect they leveled out in school as well. Even with these average children, as long as the parents are not pushing the children to do more faster and causing the child distress, I cannot imagine that their early acceleration was a hardship.

 

I know that we have discussed the Kumon thing in the past and that it is different in tn than in silicon valley. Honestly, I swear the vast majority of my Kumon students are Indian and attend public school. In the JK room, their parents want them to learn English phonograms from a native English speaker. They stay in Kumon, because they don't want their kids to be behind when they return to India. At our center there are very few Caucasian, of European descent, American families that stay long term. Our largest group of long term Kumon students after the Indian families are Asians and Middle Easterners. By the time these kids are in middle school, they are diligent, independent workers who started ahead and stayed ahead. They may or may not be gifted, but they are most certainly accelerated.

 

Mandy

Edited September 4, 2011 by Mandy in TN

[Laura Corin]

Mine couldn't have 'averaged out by third grade', in that they were reading at a fifth grade level when they were K age. I'm sure it does sometimes happen, but it's not guaranteed. Both boys have continued to read at a high level; Calvin has been reading adult books for years now. Hobbes was reading Sherlock Holmes for fun this summer.

 

Laura

[freesia]

As a general statement, this is plain nonsense.

My early reader DD has consistently read way ahead grade level (as in, unabridged Count of Monte Christo in 5th grade, Grapes of Wrath in 6th, and so on)

 

Sometimes a child just started early and will level out. Sometimes, the early reading is sign that the child is gifted and will continue to excel throughout life. And sometimes, a child who does not read fluently until late in 1st grade will turn out as gifted as his early reading sibling. (Ask me how I know.)

 

The same thing happened here. DD didn't read well until 7 and is now (18 months later) reading as well as DS who read at 4 was at the same time. She is also reading as well as her friends who read early. They all continued to read. They all read several levels above grade level.

 

I also saw it happen in the first and second grades I taught in. Some gifted/bright children don't read until "normal" or even "late." When they start they quickly catch up. It's like the neuroconnections for reading fired and off they went.

 

It really does often happen. It's not so much the early readers slowing down but the later ones catching up.

 

My mother (who had 3 gifted children who all read at different ages) said, "If your child reads early you know they are gifted. If they do not read early you don't know if they are or not."

 

If you want to test, though, I've heard that 7 is the optimal time to do gifted testing.

 

HTH,

Anne

[regentrude]

I think you did misunderstand the intent of my post. My comment to which you replied was not a reply to your original post, but to the poster who claimed it to be "exceptional if any child who does not read until 7 or 8 ends up becoming a great reader".

All I was saying is that this is untrue and that plenty of children who don't read until 7/8 will be good readers.

 

I do believe in late bloomers - bright kids who have rich experiences to draw on but take a little more maturing before reading "clicks." But I don't think there are enough of them to negate the exceptionality of the early bloomers.

Even if the school system doesn't ask kids to read until age 7, there will be some kids who will pick it up early because they are hungry for literacy. It's hard to imagine that they will all just stop progressing as their peers work to catch up.

 

[Crimson Wife]

My mother (who had 3 gifted children who all read at different ages) said, "If your child reads early you know they are gifted. If they do not read early you don't know if they are or not."

 

If the child teaches himself/herself to read early, then he/she may well be gifted.

 

But at least out here, there are a lot of early-reading kids who are only that way because they have pushy parents forcing them to spend a lot of time on it during the preschool years. If they enter K being able to decode BOB books as a result of 2 years' worth of spending several hours per week being drilled on phonics, there's a good chance that they'll "average out". Maybe they'll remain in the top reading group in the class, but to me that's still falling within the average range (albeit the higher end of it).

[Bluegoat]

If the child teaches himself/herself to read early, then he/she may well be gifted.

 

But at least out here, there are a lot of early-reading kids who are only that way because they have pushy parents forcing them to spend a lot of time on it during the preschool years. If they enter K being able to decode BOB books as a result of 2 years' worth of spending several hours per week being drilled on phonics, there's a good chance that they'll "average out". Maybe they'll remain in the top reading group in the class, but to me that's still falling within the average range (albeit the higher end of it).

 

What I would want to add to this is that trying to teach a child to read before they are ready can lead to reading problems later on; and spending all that time on BOB books or whatever means they are not practicing other developmentally appropriate skills - some of which are important for attaining the brain development required for reading.

 

There is just no evidence that pushing reading at four instead of seven creates better readers and more successful adults when they are 30. But there is reason to think it can cause problems.

[AEC]

Nope. The really gifted kids will be bored out of their mind and continue to read challenging books under the desk. That's how DD survived five years of public school.

 

wait. OTHER PEOPLE did that, too!

 

I laughed out loud when I read this.

 

I spent most of grade school pretending to listen while having a book buried in my lap under the desk. I'm sure, now, that my teachers knew this and just ignored it...but at the time I think I thought was being sneaky.

 

as for skills equaling out by 3rd grade...for some skills I suppose that's true. Early walkers don't seem to walk any better than their peers who took 50% longer to figure it out. Some kids also surely just benefit from exposure. For the most part, however, I think that's nonsense.

Edited September 5, 2011 by AEC

[momma2three]

To be good at reading, like most things, you have to practice. Some kids who learn to read young will read a lot, and some won't. Some kids who learn to read in k will read a lot, and some won't. Some who learn to read in 2nd grade will read a lot, and some won't. I've read many places that most children learn to read between the ages of 4 and 7, so if we say that most kids learn to read by the end of 2nd grade then I think reading level in 3rd grade or beyond has more to do with practice than with any innate intelligence or giftedness.

 

So, I think that yes, there probably is some truth to it. It's a fair assumption that an 8 year old child who learned to read at 4 has had more practice than one who learned to read at 7, but I don't think that it's an automatic truth, and i think it becomes even less fair an assumption as the child gets older.

[Parker Martin]

I think this idea of averaging out probably originates with kids who are shoved into reading at early ages. You can teach a perfectly average young child how to read if you're willing to push for it. But that, of course, is not going to make the child gifted. The child will average out around third grade when reading starts clicking fully for everyone.

 

I think the idea of averaging out gets erroneously applied to gifted children who happen to read early. A truly gifted child is not going to average out no matter when he starts reading. That doesn't mean that a gifted late bloomer won't catch up with a gifted early bloomer, he will. It just means that truly gifted children are never going to suddenly wake up with average mental ability.

 

My mother (who had 3 gifted children who all read at different ages) said, "If your child reads early you know they are gifted. If they do not read early you don't know if they are or not."

 

This is, I think, exactly right.

[Irene Lynn]

Some people are adamant about this belief, but it doesn't seem right to me. I mean, assuming a child is really reading versus just knowing some sight words and/or phonics rules.

 

The argument seems to be that my kid's fluent reading at the average level of kids twice her age (she's 4) is not evidence in favor of testing her for giftedness, accelerating her past pre-K, etc.

 

Perhaps there is some broad sweeping statistical data to support this sort of statement, but any general statistical data is pointless, when looking at an individual. The statement makes no sense for a 5 year old child reading on a 5th grade level. It would assume that in 3 more years the child would regress significantly. It didn't happen on our home. Just because I have anecdotal evidence that the statement is not always true does not mean that there is no wisdom in it. It is something to keep in mind, to examine for truth as you go through life and to use in the broadest sense and not in the individual sense.

[Cindyg]

My son read fluently and independently with good understanding somewhere around age 4. He's still a very natural reader (at age 14). Most of the other kids we know also read fluently with good understanding at age 14.

 

I'm not sure whether this means they've "leveled out" or not.

 

I think the statement "they'll level out by age [whatever]" implies that it's no big deal to be reading at an early age -- that it will all come out in the wash. And I don't agree with that. There is something unique and special about being able to read independently at age 4.

[EKS]

If the child teaches himself/herself to read early, then he/she may well be gifted.

 

But at least out here, there are a lot of early-reading kids who are only that way because they have pushy parents forcing them to spend a lot of time on it during the preschool years. If they enter K being able to decode BOB books as a result of 2 years' worth of spending several hours per week being drilled on phonics, there's a good chance that they'll "average out". Maybe they'll remain in the top reading group in the class, but to me that's still falling within the average range (albeit the higher end of it).

 

I started teaching my younger son to read when he was 2yo. He was incredibly verbal and able to learn the name for something after one exposure. I started by teaching him the names of 2-dimensional shapes and then progressed to letters (huge on the computer screen). It was like a game. We spent just a few minutes each day on it and only if he wanted to. He was able to read CVC words before the turned 3. We spent at most maybe an hour per week on this.

[Iucounu]

Some early readers will average out. The extent to which this happens may depend on a lot of factors, including whether they were forced to read early or did it largely/wholly on their own, whether they are interested in reading, and whether they continued to be stimulated or were simply given "age-appropriate" materials and instruction after the early increase in reading ability (i.e. weren't given much to learn for the first few years after the initial boost).

 

However, the averaging-out statement is largely a one-size-fits-all crock of bullfeathers, and a self-fulfilling prophecy. Teachers may use it to justify denying acceleration, which results in a lack of challenge and appropriate learning leve-- and, no surprise, a relative lack of advancement. Parents may say such things out of jealousy. But a child who enjoys learning and learns quickly and well, if correctly stimulated, will usually continue to do so.

Edited September 5, 2011 by Iucounu

[Iucounu]

I think people like to think it's unique and special to read at 4 bc it seems to confirm what every mother suspects: her child is indeed a genius.;)

:thumbup1: I think the evening-out statement is often a result of a certain amount of jadedness by teachers... some of which is well-warranted, but which can have harmful effects when a child really is highly unique and special. It's a problem that's doomed to recur because of the increasing IQ and achievement cult, at least here in the US, which teachers have to battle with every year, as well as the rareness of very high achievers.

 

With time and multiple children comes wisdom. My late reader surpassed his early reading peers at age 10 and my 5 yr old who read Harry Potter has Only read 3 books of his own volition since ;).

Motivation definitely plays a big part in reading.

 

I asked my neighborhood school principal about this tho and he felt the gap only widened tho, so I think the average out by grade 3 thing is disputed.

He sounds enlightened. Bravo.

[Dmmetler]

What I've noticed with my DD is that, yes, I think her reading level probably IS leveling out a bit-if for no other reason than that she can read anything she wants to read now, but isn't interested in the kind of high level books that would really stretch her except for the occasional science non-fiction text-but that she's stretching herself in other areas and broadening there. For example, she's writing MUCH more than she did a year ago, and has, again, made great leaps in writing as she's become physically capable. And I've noticed big jumps not so much in math skills, but in conceptual and logical thinking in math lately as well.

 

The other, cynical side of me says that each year there are going to be more kids who hit the top bound of X test, so OF COURSE it's going to look like early readers even out-and the DRA, which a lot of schools use, has a fairly low ceiling.

[gracyomalley]

I do think that the statistics are real - there is much less difference in reading scores at 3rd grade than in kinder...this means "even out" mathematically. Does that mean that all those kinder kids who were reading well already are not "gifted"? Of course not. Does it mean that some of them just had advanced language skills and tons of drill in preschool? Sure, especially given the difference in girls and boys language center/brain at that age. Does it mean that a kid who "got reading" like the chicken pox isn't gifted? Probably not.

 

I have 2 kids past this age. One learned to read on her own at 3-4 yo watching her brother, one is severely dyslexic and couldn't recognize his alphabet at 5 - although he could discuss the similarities of Aslan and Jesus at the same age. Both test moderately/highly gifted now. Statistically, in our family, they have "evened out".....they both read at the late high school level now on testing. They both test 2-3 years ahead in math.

 

I am glad that they are not in ps - and purposelly chose not to send them for many reasons, but partly because in early conversations with the school district I was told there was nothing for gifted kids before 4th grade because of the "evening out", and I was pretty sure that dd would have spent 3 years drawing horses and ponies by then, and ds would be in special ed....

 

Now my youngest is in 2nd. He is clearly gifted mathematically. His reading is grade level or a bit above. I don't know if he is 2E, or average in that area. But as we homeschool, I teach what they can learn - when they can learn it. Glad I have that option!

Erin

[EKS]

What I've noticed with my DD is that, yes, I think her reading level probably IS leveling out a bit-if for no other reason than that she can read anything she wants to read now, but isn't interested in the kind of high level books that would really stretch her...

 

This is what I've seen with my younger son as well. He can read at an adult level, but prefers books that assume a late elementary audience.

[HeidiKC]

If you learned to read at 4 (really read, not just decode CVC words), then by age 8 you would have read tens of thousands of words more than someone who just began reading a year ago.

 

Yep, this only makes sense. At age 8 my ds scored at an 11th grade reading level. I do think that if the child doesn't read much, maybe they won't still be ahead in 3rd grade. But I'd think that most kids who read well early enjoy it (partly because it isn't a struggle) and want to read. My son read a TON at age 8. My 7-year-old isn't as good a reader and does not read without me telling him to! He'd obviously be improving his reading skills and moving ahead faster if he read an hour+ daily...but he's not doing this. Which is fine.

[SKL]

What I've noticed with my DD is that, yes, I think her reading level probably IS leveling out a bit-if for no other reason than that she can read anything she wants to read now, but isn't interested in the kind of high level books that would really stretch her except for the occasional science non-fiction text-but that she's stretching herself in other areas and broadening there. For example, she's writing MUCH more than she did a year ago, and has, again, made great leaps in writing as she's become physically capable. And I've noticed big jumps not so much in math skills, but in conceptual and logical thinking in math lately as well.

 

This is an interesting point - a good reader uses that skill not only to enjoy literature, but also to study other areas. My dd reads books about science, for example, which are beyond the level at which science topics are taught to her non-reading peers. I have some sets of easy-to-read biographies which I'll be bringing up from the basement soon, which will expand her knowledge of history and many other things. Granted, I could sit and read these books to her, but reading to learn has its own value, which non-reading kids do not experience until later. On an all-around basis, an apt and motivated early reader has many advantages and as a group, I just don't see them leveling out. I can see the gap widening, as has already been mentioned, or I can see the range of knowledge broadening beyond the norm. (Which, of course, is already the case with many gifted kids, reading or not.)

 

I guess the reason this is bugging me is that reading is the area where dd most obviously stands out. It's harder to demonstrate (to strangers) that a kid is ahead in world knowledge, math concepts, etc. It's easier to pick up a book the child has read and say, "now are you seriously going to tell my my kid isn't ready for KG?" To have them come back and say, "her advantage will be gone by 3rd grade, and then you'll be sorry you pushed the poor tot" - ugh. I can't get anyone to even look at her because she's 6 days too young. Maybe I'm just going about it the wrong way.

[Iucounu]

What I would want to add to this is that trying to teach a child to read before they are ready can lead to reading problems later on; and spending all that time on BOB books or whatever means they are not practicing other developmentally appropriate skills - some of which are important for attaining the brain development required for reading.

 

There is just no evidence that pushing reading at four instead of seven creates better readers and more successful adults when they are 30. But there is reason to think it can cause problems.

I don't agree. What is the reason? What reading problems (besides possibly disliking reading, of course)? And couldn't someone who teaches her child to read BOB books still make sure that her child has enough time for everything else too? :confused:

[Rhonda in TX]

Average out in what? Reading? How can that be? If a child is reading at a 3rd grade level when he/she is 4, how would that remain the same by the time he/she is 8? It doesn't make sense to me.

 

I've always thought that "averaging out" doesn't mean that the early readers slow down, but that the later readers catch up. Starting to read at a later age does not mean that you will always be behind those who started to read earlier.

[Iucounu]

I've always thought that "averaging out" doesn't mean that the early readers slow down, but that the later readers catch up. Starting to read at a later age does not mean that you will always be behind those who started to read earlier.

There's something to that, IMHO, since adult-level reading proficiency is eventually reached by most people. Of course, there is variance even then.

 

I haven't seen any figures one way or another as to what extent early reading proficiency is linked to higher literacy levels in adulthood-- and wouldn't want to assume anything either way, though if I had to guess there would be some correlation.

 

As gracyomalley points out, there must be less variance at a third-grade level. This would be due to some children starting their instruction later and catching up, whether kids of normal ability or late-blooming gifted. That doesn't, to me, mean that everyone winds up in the same place in the end, or that children who start ahead don't tend to stay ahead.

[Embassy]

I don't view reading, knowledge, and academics as some form of torture at any age. Apparently others do. I think some people don't value those things, are jealous, or something else I can't explain.

 

I don't view reading, knowledge, or academics as torture, but I wouldn't teach a young child to read. I greatly value academics. I just believe the best way to bring about future competence with academics is to let the early years be filled with play and freedom from formal work. It is just a different philosophy than yours and not a difference in valuing academics or jealousy.

[Crimson Wife]

Average out in what? Reading? How can that be? If a child is reading at a 3rd grade level when he/she is 4, how would that remain the same by the time he/she is 8? It doesn't make sense to me.

 

I think it is referring to relative percentile. A child who is in the top 10% upon entering kindergarten may or may not remain in the top 10% at the end of 3rd grade.

[Embassy]

I don't disagree, but for one thing not all kids who read early were taught. I wonder if it is possible for a kid to be taught before they are ready.

 

Yes, I definitely think it is possible to teach a child before he is ready.

 

I agree about there being kids who read before they are taught. I think there are many who can attest to that on this subforum. I have a child who did that as well. Philosophically I don't have a problem with a child teaching himself to read at all. I just don't agree with formal lessons to achieve reading at an early age. And this is coming from someone who hears "you are doing too much" all the time:tongue_smilie:

[Embassy]

I don't agree. What is the reason? What reading problems (besides possibly disliking reading, of course)? And couldn't someone who teaches her child to read BOB books still make sure that her child has enough time for everything else too? :confused:

 

Disliking reading is enough reason for me. If teaching to read earlier can bring about a dislike of reading I would definitely avoid doing that. Isn't that reason enough? Reading is crucial and a dislike of reading can impact education as a whole.

[Crimson Wife]

I don't view reading, knowledge, and academics as some form of torture at any age. Apparently others do. I think some people don't value those things, are jealous, or something else I can't explain.

 

I *LOVE* reading and books. However, I do think forcing preschool children to spend several hours per week being drilled in phonics is developmentally inappropriate.

 

If the parent is following the child's lead and starting a phonics program when the child is actually showing a desire to learn to read, that's fine. My oldest figured out simple decoding on her own at 3 1/2 and practically demanded I teach her the rest because she was frustrated by not being able to read more advanced words. Had she shown no interest, however, I would not have pushed it.

[Nart]

If you learned to read at 4 (really read, not just decode CVC words), then by age 8 you would have read tens of thousands of words more than someone who just began reading a year ago.

 

I thought about this more and it actually could end up being ONE MILLION more words per year assuming a child reads 100 words per minute, 30 minutes per day, 365 days a year then that child ends up reading one million words more each year. So a child who enjoys reading and learns to read at 4 and then reads a lot at ages 5 and 6 and 7 and 8 would have read 4 million words by the time he or she starts third grade (assuming third graders are generally 8 and then they turn 9 during the year). If a child learned to read at 7 to 8 the child would have started reading at the average age of a second grader. I think it would be really rare to catch up to the early reader in a year. I think the gap tends to grow AS LONG as the child continues to read independently every day.

 

This might not hold true in some European countries because some of the languages there are extremely phonetic.

Learning to read in Spanish or Finnish is much easier than English and takes a lot less time to learn so it doesn't cause a problem to wait until later to learn to read.

[SKL]

I *LOVE* reading and books. However, I do think forcing preschool children to spend several hours per week being drilled in phonics is developmentally inappropriate.

 

I have 2 kids - one (dd2) who is an early reader, and one (dd1) who would not know her letters yet if I left it up to her. But, even dd1 needs to learn to read at some point, and having watched her learn over the years, I know she needs repeated exposure in order to accomplish visual learning. (Vision Therapy helped, but she still learns relatively slowly.) She's at or above grade level in every other respect, so without working on reading, she'll eventually become frustrated if she falls behind her peers. So I sit with her and work a little on reading every day. Mostly it is very informal, and in total the sit-down, focused-look-at-words part is no more than 1 hour per week (which I only recently started). It's not enough to make her hate reading (especially with all the non-decoding pre-reading activities that she enjoys doing, such as "reading" a book from memory). But not doing it could make her hate reading, as her KG teacher will be asking them to start reading in school pretty soon. She needs to have a clue going in.

 

I am not saying that is true for every child. It's an individual thing. I'm just saying I don't agree with an across-the-board rule that sitting a young, non-reading child down to learn reading skills is bad.

[freesia]

I thought about this more and it actually could end up being ONE MILLION more words per year assuming a child reads 100 words per minute, 30 minutes per day, 365 days a year then that child ends up reading one million words more each year. So a child who enjoys reading and learns to read at 4 and then reads a lot at ages 5 and 6 and 7 and 8 would have read 4 million words by the time he or she starts third grade (assuming third graders are generally 8 and then they turn 9 during the year). If a child learned to read at 7 to 8 the child would have started reading at the average age of a second grader. I think it would be really rare to catch up to the early reader in a year. I think the gap tends to grow AS LONG as the child continues to read independently every day.

 

This might not hold true in some European countries because some of the languages there are extremely phonetic.

Learning to read in Spanish or Finnish is much easier than English and takes a lot less time to learn so it doesn't cause a problem to wait until later to learn to read.

 

Actually, it is not rare at all. Reading is a code that needs to be broken. There are only so many phonics rules to learn. There is a huge developmental component to it, as well. Think walking or talking. It is not just a matter of more practice=higher reading level. I often saw a bright child zoom ahead. I remember one girl who left school Friday reading Frog and Toad books and came in on Monday reading Pippi Longstocking. No joke.

 

An early reader won't necessarily be ready for analysis earlier than a later reader, either.

 

Now, with regard to knowledge, that's where the 1 million more words comes into play. But for fluency, oddly enough, no.

 

Anne

[freesia]

If the child teaches himself/herself to read early, then he/she may well be gifted.

 

But at least out here, there are a lot of early-reading kids who are only that way because they have pushy parents forcing them to spend a lot of time on it during the preschool years. If they enter K being able to decode BOB books as a result of 2 years' worth of spending several hours per week being drilled on phonics, there's a good chance that they'll "average out". Maybe they'll remain in the top reading group in the class, but to me that's still falling within the average range (albeit the higher end of it).

 

I agree. I think she meant fluent reading not early decoding skills (let's say third grade or higher).

 

Anne

[Iucounu]

Disliking reading is enough reason for me. If teaching to read earlier can bring about a dislike of reading I would definitely avoid doing that. Isn't that reason enough? Reading is crucial and a dislike of reading can impact education as a whole.

The previous poster was referencing some sort of evidence on reading disabilities caused by teaching children to read early. I'm curious if there is actually anything like that.

 

I don't think that potentially causing a child to dislike reading is a reason to avoid teaching reading. That logic could be used for any age of child. I don't see how anyone could think that all children everywhere will be harmed by early reading instruction. A possibility of some child somewhere being upset is not a reason to avoid something in general.

 

So no, that's not reason enough. That's not to say that I would teach a child anything in the face of evidence it wasn't working and was causing dislike of a subject.

[8filltheheart]

I've always thought that "averaging out" doesn't mean that the early readers slow down, but that the later readers catch up. Starting to read at a later age does not mean that you will always be behind those who started to read earlier.

 

I think it is referring to relative percentile. A child who is in the top 10% upon entering kindergarten may or may not remain in the top 10% at the end of 3rd grade.

 

Articulated so concisely! Yes, that is what it means.

 

A few other random thoughts.....

 

One incorrect assumption that seems to be prevalent is that the progression of brain development is strictly influenced by input and not an actual physical change w/in the brain itself. Children whose brains have not reached certain levels of development can not be taught to decode. Sight-reading which is simple recognition of patterns can be mastered w/o the same level of brain maturity as required by decoding. Certain pre-cursors of development are necessary for decoding to be achieved. For example, if a child is incapable of rhyming, identifying initial and final sounds, it will be highly improbable that they will be able to decode. You can teach them hrs and hrs and make little progress. Yet,when their brain matures, suddenly they can do it w/very little effort.

 

Another brain maturity issue is the ability to process what is being read. The assumption that continuing to give them more difficult materials will automatically translate into constant progression is an incorrect one. While it may be the case for specific individuals, it is not necessarily a truth. Reading comprehension may lag significantly behind decoding ability. Again, that may be more a function of biology (physical brain maturation) vs. anything educational. Being able to accurately interpret complex writing does not necessarily correlate directly to age of initial reading (iow, early readers do not automatically reach higher levels of comprehension at a younger age.)

 

Brain maturation is typically asynchronous. There simply isn't a single answer for a given scenario. It is very much individual specific. Which is why homeschooling is so advantageous......generalities do not matter at all. Only our specific children and their specific needs matter.

Edited September 5, 2011 by 8FillTheHeart