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

[quark]

I was attempting to explain the reasons why one should not make that assumption.

 

Oh, I didn't mean anything negative towards you and I apologize if you thought I did. I want to thank you for your posts. I found them enlightening and instructive. I've not been able to say much anywhere else about our experience and am grateful for this opportunity to share without it being considered bragging. It has been exhausting and humbling and educational to me more than anything else.

[Embassy]

Oh, I didn't mean anything negative towards you and I apologize if you thought I did. I want to thank you for your posts. I found them enlightening and instructive. I've not been able to say much anywhere else about our experience and am grateful for this opportunity to share without it being considered bragging. It has been exhausting and humbling and educational to me more than anything else.

 

I didn't interpret it as negative. I was just trying to clarify:001_smile: It sounds like you found a way to help your son deal with the difference between his understanding and the ability to express himself.

[La Condessa]

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 sounds logical, but in my own experience, reading ability is not a result of the number of words read. It just doesn't match up with my own experience, and my husband's. He learned to read at three--he was not exactly self taught, as his 5 year old brother liked to play school, but mostly. He was a very avid reader, and was always above grade level. I started school able to decode CVC words, but I didn't really learn to read until K. By the end of first grade, I was reading the Lord of the Rings with full comprehension. As much as I read in that year and a half, there was no way it could have been as much as my husband's exposure in his extra years of constant reading, but he was not reading at that level until he was nine. Our experience may be an aberration, but it just doesn't make sense to me that amount of reading=increased ability.

[8filltheheart]

It's more in this case that I haven't seen any support for the idea that you've advanced here, that "the majority of children are not developmentally ready to learn to read at age 3". Have you any to share? What would it even mean to "disprove brain maturation and reading readiness"? I haven't said there's no such thing as reading readiness; I'm just interested to see actual evidence that children aren't ready to begin learning to read at age 3. I'm asking you to show what you've found.

 

We have direct, though anecdotal confirmation from multiple users that their children were ready to read by or even before age three, and nothing so far showing how that just can't happen. What I do know from first-hand experience: children are all over the map. (And keep in mind that even if a majority weren't ready at all to begin learning to read at age 3, which I honestly doubt, it doesn't mean it would be wrong to teach reading at an earlier age where warranted either.)

 

I'm not sure the value of this conversation. I am sharing what I know from background in psychology/elementary education, 18+ yrs of teaching kids of different abilities, and attempting to address the question in terms of the general population not a small self-selected statistical sample. Taking a small sampling of a few children who defy the avgs does not disprove anything.

 

No one has said this can't happen. People are talking about the general population and what happens on average. The anecdotal confirmation here is from a gifted population. I would expect there to be kids reading by age 3 or 4 on a gifted forum. If you polled the general population, most kids are not ready to read at age 3. Often there is something that "clicks", and suddenly the child is able to blend and thus take off with reading. For my gifted student, that click happened at age 4.5, which isn't anything remarkable, but his first book was grade level 1.5, which isn't exactly typical (though it probably is on this subforum ;)). He jumped grade levels in reading very quickly the last 3 years. Prior to that "click", he could chunk a word into its sounds, but could not for the life of him put those sounds together to figure out the word. It really was a developmental thing. And if I tried to teach him, he resisted big time because he wasn't ready. I left him alone, and then one day he sat down and read 30 pages, completely shocking me. We skipped the Bob book stage and everything (which I'm now thankful for after trudging through it with DS2, who could blend before he knew all his letter sounds, but he's not taking off yet like DS1 did).

 

If you watch the K-8 forum, you'll sometimes see someone post, freaking out, because they've been working through a curriculum with their 4 year old and the child just cannot blend at all. They aren't developmentally ready. The best thing to do in that case is to put it aside and come back later. Just keep reading books to the child, talking about letters and their sounds, etc., but don't push learning to read. These kids often can pick it up just fine the next year when they're 5, or maybe the year later when they're 6.

 

Yep. :iagree:

 

 

This sounds logical, but in my own experience, reading ability is not a result of the number of words read. It just doesn't match up with my own experience, and my husband's. He learned to read at three--he was not exactly self taught, as his 5 year old brother liked to play school, but mostly. He was a very avid reader, and was always above grade level. I started school able to decode CVC words, but I didn't really learn to read until K. By the end of first grade, I was reading the Lord of the Rings with full comprehension. As much as I read in that year and a half, there was no way it could have been as much as my husband's exposure in his extra years of constant reading, but he was not reading at that level until he was nine. Our experience may be an aberration, but it just doesn't make sense to me that amount of reading=increased ability.

 

Your experience is why it is inappropriate for those whose children do continue to excel to automatically assume that the reverse is a falsehood. It is impossible to take experiences from a small group of gifted children and transfer those experiences to the population at large. Statistically all early readers are not going to excel beyond the general population, especially when including children taught to read at a young age vs. those that self-teach themselves how to read (another variable in the issue.)

 

I am not advocating what public schools say or do with kids that are gifted. Honestly, this is a homeschooling forum and I am a homeschool advocate, most especially for kids that do not fit the standard ps "mold." As far as the OP and the few days cut-off difference, that is ridiculous and why I will never send my kids to a government run school. I detest bureaucracy and I want complete control to educate my children as to how I see fit.

 

But, to assume that a small group of individual stories proves something across the general population is similar to parenting advice from those w/o children.:tongue_smilie: If I only had my children #3,4, and 5.....I could think I knew all there was about parenting and that childhood behavioral issues were a result of parenting. However, my #2 and #5 leave me completely humbled and #2 more often humiliated ;) at how little I really understand about parenting. There is a world of chilcren with wide variability in skills. Nothing translates "easily" across the spectrum of all learners. Talking in terms of generalities is exactly that. Individuals rarely fit neatly into generalities, but as a whole it does explain more than not.

Edited September 6, 2011 by 8FillTheHeart

[SKL]

I think this has been a good discussion. I think it's clear that there are early "readers" who are on a trajectory that will last, and others who are not. I think most of us agree that for those who are on that trajectory, the average pace of group school may not be appropriate.

 

I think schools should have a policy whereby they will, at the parents' request, screen for indicators that further testing is warranted, and if the child meets the criteria, allow her into KG early. That's all I'm asking. I'm not suggesting that every child who can read "cat" and "dog" belongs in KG or 1st grade.

 

Obviously this forum is not "the powers that be," but I appreciate the sounding board / reality check.

Edited September 6, 2011 by SKL

[Mandy in TN]

I think this has been a good discussion. I think it's clear that there are early "readers" who are on a trajectory that will last, and others who are not. I think most of us agree that for those who are on that trajectory, the average pace of group school may not be appropriate.

 

I think schools should have a policy whereby they will, at the parents' request, screen for indicators that further testing is warranted, and if the child meets the criteria, allow her into KG early. That's all I'm asking. I'm not suggesting that every child who can read "cat" and "dog" belongs in KG or 1st grade.

 

Obviously this forum is not "the powers that be," but I appreciate the sounding board / reality check.

Check with your school board. TN does have something in place, but the parent must make a formal request in writing.

 

I don't know if the schools here would do anything for a student who isn't yet enrolled, but, once a child is in school, the school has 30 days to comply with a written request for an evaluation.

 

On the other hand, a little boy that I had a Kumon who was very bright went to K at one of the local public schools last year. They had a pretty good year. The school did evaluations before the year started and placed him with a teacher who was willing to challenge him. She didn't have any problem providing him with chapter books in the classroom and accomodating him in other ways. He was very small, nowhere near the cut off and wouldn't have wanted to sit in a desk all day. The mother didn't ask that he be grade skipped, but she did ask that he be challenged. There are some really good, dedicated teachers who work within the system.

 

If you must wait until she is enrolled and she ends up in K next year, see if you can request an evaluation the minute you enroll her. If so, have the paperwork ready to turn in on the same day.

 

HTH-

Mandy

[Iucounu]

I'm not sure the value of this conversation. I am sharing what I know from background in psychology/elementary education, 18+ yrs of teaching kids of different abilities, and attempting to address the question in terms of the general population not a small self-selected statistical sample. Taking a small sampling of a few children who defy the avgs does not disprove anything.

 

The problem is that before, you wrote,

 

Actually there is a lot psychological and educational research which shows that the majority of children are not developmentally ready to learn to read at age 3. Individually children may be. But, if you are talking in terms of the population as a whole, statistically very few children are. The reason 5 seems to be the avg age for reading is b/c it is the statistical avg when children have reached the stage of mental maturity required to process reading... Research simply does not support the idea that children simply need to be exposed to reading instruction at younger ages in order to be earlier readers.

Where is the statistical data that shows these things to be true? I believe that 5 was the age for kindergarten in many places prior to the latest research on reading development, so I question the hard scientific basis for your assertions. When you say that there's a lot of research and then afterwards say that you're basing your statements on your personal observations, I feel like I've been left hanging.

 

Another problem with what you asserted before is that there is a major logical disconnect. You simply haven't supported your idea that all children should not be instructed before age five, because in your opinion it won't result in them becoming earlier readers. Even if your assertion is accurate about age 5 being the mean age for optimally beginning to learn to read (and please note that many children nowadays enter K reading at age 5, your 18+ years notwithstanding), there are a lot of children that fall outside of the mean.

 

You allude to research existing and not existing, but I haven't seen anything yet. If you do cite some research, please include some on how no children will benefit from early reading instruction prior to 5. Otherwise, I'm going to continue to believe wholeheartedly that reading instruction is not automatically unwarranted before age 5.

[8filltheheart]

The problem is that before, you wrote,

 

 

Where is the statistical data that shows these things to be true? I believe that 5 was the age for kindergarten in many places prior to the latest research on reading development, so I question the hard scientific basis for your assertions. When you say that there's a lot of research and then afterwards say that you're basing your statements on your personal observations, I feel like I've been left hanging.

 

Another problem with what you asserted before is that there is a major logical disconnect. You simply haven't supported your idea that all children should not be instructed before age five, because in your opinion it won't result in them becoming earlier readers. Even if your assertion is accurate about age 5 being the mean age for optimally beginning to learn to read (and please note that many children nowadays enter K reading at age 5, your 18+ years notwithstanding), there are a lot of children that fall outside of the mean.

 

You allude to research existing and not existing, but I haven't seen anything yet. If you do cite some research, please include some on how no children will benefit from early reading instruction prior to 5. Otherwise, I'm going to continue to believe wholeheartedly that reading instruction is not automatically unwarranted before age 5.

 

 

I'm not alluding to only personal experience. I have degrees in both psy and elementary ed. I don't have time to go searching for research articles to "prove" anything. The research exists. I did quick searches and posted 2 links which discuss the asynchronous nature of brain maturation and processes required in order to be able to read. That is the extent of the time I am willing to search for something that I already know. If I didn't and wanted to read it for myself, I would spend more time researching psy journals on my own.

 

ETA: This is a section from the original link I posted in this thread about brain maturation and learning;

 

Although the age at which a child is ready to learn a specific skill becomes hard-wired as the brain develops, learning itself is also environmentally determined. For example, a child is ready to learn to read when their auditory system is developmentally ready to distinguish one sound from another. But if reading instruction is not provided, or if the child’s parents do not enrich the environment by reading to him or her, learning to read will be delayed.

 

Conversely, a child whose auditory system is not ready when reading instruction is provided will also be delayed in learning to read.

 

The ability to read is also enhanced by the development of the auditory cortex and the development of skills involved in remembering what is taught and applying that knowledge to real problems.

 

Note: A key predictor of reading readiness is a child’s ability to understand rhyming (Semrud-Clikeman, 2006). This ability translates into skills in understanding how sounds differ and in turn predicts a child’s success with phonics instruction.

 

.

(In one of my OPs, I specifically mentioned the premarker of rhyming.......even though the listed research is from 2006, I learned that in the 80s. ;))

 

FWIW, my yrs of teaching have only validated what I had studied.

 

As far as claiming that no children will benefit from reading instruction prior to age 5......who said that? I do not believe anyone made any such assertion. My posts have explicitly stated that reading is dependent on brain maturity. There is absolutely NO hard and fast rule as to when that level of maturity will be reached.....hence the article on asynchronous brain development. The avg child is there somewhere around age 5-6. Statistically, some will get there at 3 and some not until 8 w/4-7 being more w/in the normal range.

 

Also, educating children at age 5 is a modern invention. Age 7 is actually a more historical norm.

Edited September 6, 2011 by 8FillTheHeart

[gracyomalley]

OK, so anyone who feels strongly about proving or disproving this fact should do a search for the research....

 

Personally, I have seen that for my kids early exposure to beautiful music, vocabulary, story, etc and expectations that they can understand adult conversations, has led all of them to a great vocabulary - the one who read at 3-4 and the one who continues to struggle with speed so that although he can read at a high school level, he will NEVER read as much as she does...but he can LISTEN...and that skill came from reading to him, not from phonics.

 

As a pediatrician, I have seen many babies grow to children and young adults. Yes, its fairly clear to me which ones, even early on, are "brighter", although I would always say there are "surprises". Some are much ahead in receptive skills over expressive. ( My oldest could identify all his colors at 15 months, even shades of yellow, etc. He said 3 words at the time. I'm sure that other kids are like this too.) Many of those kiddos read early, whether taught or just exposed to language and books. Some don't. Some have LDs. Some are not gifted in language, but spatially or in math. Some can't hold still until they are 12!!! But yes, if you look early on, they show signs of giftedness.

 

Early "reading" is a result of gifts in language processing which lead to earlier brain development in the areas that process language, and exposure to words and literature..whether it be phonics drill, reading to kids and having them see the words you are reading, or PBS.. the kid that takes it from K level to 5th grade level - that kid will not slow down, although he may be "caught" by the later reader who's giftedness is in different areas, or wasn't exposed. The kid who didn't get that exposure might "catch up" once exposed, although if their home is weak in literature/vocab they will struggle to reach the same level. The kid who memorized sight words from drill only will still need to "learn to read" - mostly through phonics, but for kids with LDs, sometimes in other ways - NO MATTER how much phonics they get. My son "knows" all his phonics rules, and has for years...but can't spell for beans and doesn't read with phonics...I actually don't know how he reads - lots of sight words, some specific techniques his tutor taught him (dyslexia based strategies which are not the same as phonics - in fact his tutor said never ask him to "just sound it out"....).

 

All I know for sure is he can read at a high level, discuss at a high level and understand at a high level.

 

Each kid learns differently, that's why we all, with kids that don't fit the mold, push to educate the kids we have, not some arbitrary standard "kid", ready to read at 5, sit still for 23.88minutes, tie his shoes (well, that's what kept my brother in kinder 40 years ago - he couldn't - although he was literally reading Mark Twain...so standards have changed, but whatever they are, they will never fit every kid...)

 

There are lots of ways to make it work if you HAVE to send your kids to school...but heavens, why would any parent think the system would change just for their kid? Every one of those 30 kids in that kinder class has "special needs" if you get down to it....a good teacher will try to address at least some of them for each kid. Unless we fund the school to a ratio of one teacher to 5-4 kids, its not gonna be ideal. A good parent will advocate and jump the hoops....or homeschool if that's what works...I do know that legally a parent in all states can request their child be tested for early admittance to kinder - and each state has rules. In general the child must test in the top 2-3 percent for age, be mature, be able to interact well with peers, sit still, etc....its usually IQ testing, not specific reading level, as the schools really don't want to accelerate a 4 year old and end up finding out they struggle in the long run...would you????Hard to drop that kid back later one when they are suddenly just "average" and could be succeeding well at age level??? And education specialists, like most parents of gifted kids, know that IQ testing isn't terribly accurate at age 5...at least at the extremes, which is what they are looking for here! Again, looked at system wise, it makes sense to have early kinder be a rare exception. It just doesn't work for all (maybe any?) kids.

 

Any how, I have found this an interesting discussion. Like many areas of brain development/learning - there is much to still be learned!

 

Erin

[In The Great White North]

I was under the impression that the "level off by 3rd grade" concept came from Headstart research - the Headstart kids tested ahead in Kindergarten but not in 3rd grade. They were trying to justify further funding but it backfired.

 

I don't think I've ever seen actual research on "giftedness" leveling (as opposed to merely reading ability.)

 

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.

 

Anecdotally, I have three "exceptions" who learned to read at 8, 10 & 10, and are all above average academically today.

 

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.

 

And viable evidence would be??

[wapiti]

What I dislike about the averaging-out comment is that it implies that everyone is at the same reading level in third grade, which is absurd. The "normal" range is quite wide, not even considering gifted kids.

 

In addition, depending on how one defines gifted, we're talking about only 2% of the population, which means that the typical elementary school teacher, in an "average" school, might see such a child only once every few years, so indeed it would seem that "most" kids were the same. But then that fails to take into account the fact that most is not the same as all. (kind of like the time a doc wasn't worried that ds had a certain problem just because that problem was rare; well, duh, it turned out he did have it).

[Sevilla]

I was under the impression that the "level off by 3rd grade" concept came from Headstart research - the Headstart kids tested ahead in Kindergarten but not in 3rd grade. They were trying to justify further funding but it backfired.

 

I don't think I've ever seen actual research on "giftedness" leveling (as opposed to merely reading ability.)

 

 

 

Anecdotally, I have three "exceptions" who learned to read at 8, 10 & 10, and are all above average academically today.

 

 

 

And viable evidence would be??

A few points:

 

1. "3rd grade" as a benchmark for giftedness comes out of statistical research data that showed that IQ testing/gifted testing prior to age 7-8 was not very accurate. If you test incoming K students for giftedness some early bloomers (but average students) are identified as gifted and some late bloomers (gifted children) did not test as gifted. When the test was done in 2dn-3rd grade, then the results were accurate in the 90%'s for identifying which students would perform at the gifted level throughout their educational career. That is why I think K testing for gifted programs or for entrance into elite schools is ridiculous. Our district doesn't test until 8 years old and their gifted program is much better designed to accommodate the truly gifted and not just the 'top 20% bright students in class'.

 

2. "Averaging out by 3rd grade" also means recognizing that in the early elementary years, the main focus is on building literacy skills - reading, writing, phonics, vocabulary, etc... When you are an early bloomer who started reading at 4, you will look light years ahead of the student who is not reading until 6 years old. When you have excellent early fine motor skill control and can write a whole sentence on the line at age 5, you look very ahead of the kinesthetic learner/active child who isn't able to write like that until age 7. But if you take those same kids in the classroom at age 8, the GAP between their skills will have lessened the majority of the time. A child reading on a 3rd grade level and a child reading on a 6th grade level will be able to share more of the same material than a 2nd grade level and a K level reader will (for example).

 

Consider this analogy to athletic skills:

 

Let's say we as a culture decided that evaluating future athletic ability is done based on the coordinated walking skills of toddlers at 12 months of age. All toddlers are screened for their future athletic ability at this age, and those who 'make the cut' are slated for advanced sports instruction all the way through their growing up years - people assume they will excel in sports because they are the 'top walkers' at 12 months old, far ahead of their peers who are still crawling or wobbling along...

 

However, that is a bogus assumption because the RANGE OF NORMAL for learning to walk is 9-15 months (with some outliers in the 18 month range). If 'gifted athletes' were decided upon at only 12 months of age, you would have some children like my DS who was an early walker (but below average athlete) grouped into the gifted group. You would also have other like my DD who is an excellent athlete (and also an early walker) where the 'gifted screening' matched up. My friend's children who are stellar volleyball athletes and even won scholarships did not walk until close to 18 months old would have been considered 'below average athletes.'

 

That is the point of the 'early readers average out by 3rd grade'.

1. Everyone (except those with significant struggles) are reading by 3rd grade and the gap between the ahead and behind students (in the standard deviation, ignoring the top and bottom 5%) is far narrower than it was three years ago in K.

 

2. Late bloomers have had a chance to catch up and show what their true skills are, and early bloomers have had a chance to mature and show whether they are actually gifted or simply average students who read early.

Edited September 6, 2011 by Sevilla

[SKL]

So there is a justification for not testing ALL kids routinely at age 5 - the relative inaccuracy of the tests.

 

However, I think most of us would agree that there are some indicators at age 4 that point to giftedness / long-term exceptionality. Also, nobody argues that kids on the other end of the spectrum shouldn't be tested until 2nd grade. They get an IEP at age 3. There must be some reliability in the testing, or they wouldn't bother with any IEPs.

 

An alternative to early acceleration would be to have pre-K through grade 2 designed so that kids at a broad range of levels get challenged intellectually. I don't see that happening, though.

 

I appreciate the comments "thats why we homeschool" and I'd love to be able to just take the matter into my own hands long-term, but that's not feasible for our family.

 

I've always been an educational reformer in my mind, LOL. Maybe I'm a little too idealistic for the real world.

[onaclairadeluna]

My gut tells me that they are worried about standardized test scores. This is where most schools are at these days. They seem to all bow to the tests and will do anything possible to raise their AYP. They run in fear from anything that they think will lower their scores.

 

http://www.nagc.org/index.aspx?id=1028

 

I would suggest trying to find information supporting the fact that gifted children do better in school when they are accelerated. If you can convince them that challenging your child will improve their scores rather than create a liability for them you will be much more likely to win them over. Good luck.

[elizabeth]

Oh, and it is very easy for me to imagine reasons why a 4yo reading at a 2nd-grade level shouldn't be in a 2nd-grade classroom. I have a 4yo who is reading at probably an 8th-grade level, who just gave up his pacifier last week and who has had no success at all in potty training. He still throws tantrums and shrieks at the top of his lungs if another kid makes him mad, and he BITES. He won't sit still for a lesson if he'd rather play, either.

 

Now, if you have a 4yo who is fully potty trained, and can handle sitting still, and shares nicely with other kids, and no longer needs naps or to carry a blankie or stuffed animal around, and can stand in line and follow instructions, AND who is ready for history and science and math lessons at a 2nd-grade level, then absolutely, she should be in 2nd grade. Otherwise, no.

 

:lol: That is why home education is preferable, asynchrous development is the norm once you are two standard deviations in either direction. I am glad dd finally learned to tie her shoes before taking calculus. No, I am not kidding. AS with most situations you just meet them where they are at and batten down the hatches.

[boscopup]

I am glad dd finally learned to tie her shoes before taking calculus. No, I am not kidding.

 

So there's hope? :lol:

 

I keep getting the "YOU had to tie your shoes to graduate kindergarten!" :glare:

 

Oh, and I was reading/writing before K. The state would not allow me to start public K early. My parents put me in another PreK program, though since I'd already graduated from the 4 year old class (they needed more girls :tongue_smilie:) when I was 3, they couldn't call it "preschool". I absolutely refused to go to preschool. So they called it "day school". :D I did fine. I actually don't remember being that bored in early elementary, since stuff was still fun. It was easy, of course. In 2nd grade, they tested us for the gifted program and I got to be pulled out for that a couple days a week. It all worked out fine.

 

I think the OP would be more likely to get a grade skip once the child is actually enrolled in school and a teacher in the school has witnessed what the child is like. At that point, pushing for a grade skip, if it's warranted, might go a bit better.

[Runningmom80]

Man, people are touchy about giftedness on this board! Where's the love? :lol:

 

 

This is what I've read, and agree with. the "averaging out statement" serves a few purposes.

1. It justifies the late start of gifted programs. Most don't start until 3rd grade, so it's a way for administrators to explain why.

2. I think it does happen with gifted kids, who are forced to wait it out while the others catch up. So they explain it that way, when really, they weren't challenged enough, so basically were sitting ducks until the others caught up.

3. There probably are some "hothoused" kids that it also happens too.

4. Part of the leveling out is due to there not being an infinite number of reading levels. For example, my DS scored so high on the reading portion of the WJ-III that they had to use the norms for 1st grade, because the K norms were too low. Why? because the majority of 4 year olds aren't reading at all, or are reading very little, so DS seemed like an extreme outlier. When we retest him in a couple of years, that won't happen again, because by then, most 2nd graders can read, so the tests reflect that. (This probably makes no sense. My DH is the gifted one. :lol:)

 

 

As far as being developmentally ready, I don't think there is sufficient research, because every kid is different. I would have never thought my DS was ready to read at 2, but he did. I will have to test him in 3rd grade and see where he is. :D

[LucyStoner]

My early reader has stayed far ahead reading level wise. We did not teach him to read, he started learning on his own before he was 2. He was tested as reading in the 4-5th grade levels at age 5 and now at 8 he reads non-fiction at the hs level. Finding reading level but age appropriate fiction is hard. His reading comprehension is very high. Like many early readers, his school tried to say he was just reading by memory or sight. No. This is a big part of why we homeschool! :001_smile:

[serendipitous journey]

It does seem like there are different questions being asked. In the original post, I am imagining a correlation measured over a large population of children btw. age of beginning reading and reading level later. Obviously there must be SOME correlation between early reading and later success, if only because children with disorders related to reading will be less likely to read early and less likely to be extremely proficient at any given time (as a population, that is). I'd imagine that this little trend is washed out in the noise of a large sample, and other trends probably are too.

 

This board is probably more likely to think of the odds that one has read early, given that one is gifted. That's very different ...

[twoforjoy]

I don't know, I think there's something to be said for that. Mainly, I think the HUGE disparity you see between early readers and more average readers becomes less glaring and less of an issue educationally.

 

When my DS started kindergarten (he was in a charter school at the time), he tested as reading at a 5th grade level. Most of the kids in his class still weren't able to sound out CVC words. That created a lot of problems. His teacher had no idea what to do with him, and he was frustrated and bored.

 

Now, I'm guessing he's still reading about that far above grade level. Given the books he reads, I'd say he's probably reading at middle-school level. But, most of his peers, age-wise, can now read with some degree of fluency. They aren't reading nearly as well as he is, but they can at least read.

 

3rd grade tends to be when a lot of formal reading instruction stops, and students begin reading more for content (the whole "learning to read" to "reading to learn" thing). Since they're now "reading to learn," even if the reading material is quite easy for them, they'll probably be introduced to some new learning content.

 

We pulled DS from school in November of kindergarten. I would not be comfortable putting him back in in first or second grade. But, third grade and beyond, if homeschooling didn't work out for us, I'd be comfortable putting him in school. I think that he'd have a much easier time adjusting at that point, and wouldn't have the same boredom/frustration problems he had in kindergarten, simply because at that point the content of the reading becomes much more important, and even if he could breeze through it, reading-level wise, he'll still be on a relatively even playing field with his classmates in terms of the concepts and information being presented.

[Dmmetler]

I don't know, I think there's something to be said for that. Mainly, I think the HUGE disparity you see between early readers and more average readers becomes less glaring and less of an issue educationally.

 

When my DS started kindergarten (he was in a charter school at the time), he tested as reading at a 5th grade level. Most of the kids in his class still weren't able to sound out CVC words. That created a lot of problems. His teacher had no idea what to do with him, and he was frustrated and bored.

 

Now, I'm guessing he's still reading about that far above grade level. Given the books he reads, I'd say he's probably reading at middle-school level. But, most of his peers, age-wise, can now read with some degree of fluency. They aren't reading nearly as well as he is, but they can at least read.

 

3rd grade tends to be when a lot of formal reading instruction stops, and students begin reading more for content (the whole "learning to read" to "reading to learn" thing). Since they're now "reading to learn," even if the reading material is quite easy for them, they'll probably be introduced to some new learning content.

 

We pulled DS from school in November of kindergarten. I would not be comfortable putting him back in in first or second grade. But, third grade and beyond, if homeschooling didn't work out for us, I'd be comfortable putting him in school. I think that he'd have a much easier time adjusting at that point, and wouldn't have the same boredom/frustration problems he had in kindergarten, simply because at that point the content of the reading becomes much more important, and even if he could breeze through it, reading-level wise, he'll still be on a relatively even playing field with his classmates in terms of the concepts and information being presented.

 

 

This is what my DD's K teacher said when encouraging us to homeschool, but she suggested 4th grade as a good reentry point, because by then a lot of the work is done independently and they could give DD parallel textbooks for skills subjects, and find her own level in the same content topics. It's the same reason why it's much easier to go broader in History or Science in the early grades, but a little harder in math until those basics have been learned.

 

However, what I've noticed is that by taking DD out of PS, her acceleration has INCREASED overall, except in reading (where she was already reading post-high school level based on testing), so I'm not sure that I didn't just make things worse by pulling her out and giving her brain more room to grow!

[Grover]

This is what my DD's K teacher said when encouraging us to homeschool, but she suggested 4th grade as a good reentry point, because by then a lot of the work is done independently and they could give DD parallel textbooks for skills subjects, and find her own level in the same content topics. It's the same reason why it's much easier to go broader in History or Science in the early grades, but a little harder in math until those basics have been learned.

 

However, what I've noticed is that by taking DD out of PS, her acceleration has INCREASED overall, except in reading (where she was already reading post-high school level based on testing), so I'm not sure that I didn't just make things worse by pulling her out and giving her brain more room to grow!

 

I find this interesting because it's my current working theory too - if we keep DS home until the 'learning to learn' stage is over at school it might be more feasible for him to find somewhere he fits with close to age peers while still getting something out of the academics, but then I wonder if he'll just keep accelerating and be too far beyond that for it to work by the time we get to 9 or so.

 

On the original question though, I think there's more than one type of early reader. There are children for whom written language and words and reading just make sense and they learn in an organic way almost despite their environment, and then there are those who have been taught (directly or indirectly) by responsive (and sometimes pushy) parents. As a classroom teacher it was not always easy to tell those two groups apart on school entry but by about 8 or so there was a clear difference. As an educational tester it's very clear in test scores which child is which, and it's not surprising when they 'level out' later on. There are also groups of genuinely advanced children who, due to unresponsive learning environments, family circumstances or a myriad of other reasons miss opportunities to continue learning or dumb down to hide among their peers... these kids look like they've leveled out too.

[Bang!Zoom!]

There are also groups of genuinely advanced children who, due to unresponsive learning environments, family circumstances or a myriad of other reasons miss opportunities to continue learning or dumb down to hide among their peers... these kids look like they've leveled out too.

:iagree:

 

I've been reading this thread for a while. I know a ton of kids that fit that description.

[higginszoo]

Some might. My ds was in a fourth grade G & T magnet class whose teacher made this assumption. She insisted on keeping them pretty much at grade level with more worksheets. She had 25 bored, frustrated 9 year old HG and PG kids on her hands, and then complained that they were difficult. (She got mad when they would all read something harder under the desk). The year before, this same group had a teacher who understood gifted dc (and asynchronous development and the idea that gifted shows up different ways in different children). That year, they were perfect little angels because they were being challenged appropriately (within the parameters she was forced to -- none of them appreciated the 3rd grade state testing prep 5 hours a week, but she explained her constraints to them, and they appreciated her candor and her acknowledgement that the district were treating them like idiots because they were 8). That teacher had an extensive library of 5th through high school level books in her classroom because the library couldn't adequately supply the needs of the students in her class.

[Bang!Zoom!]

I'm very curious as to what's going on with my dd at ps.

 

I know they've tested her at least 5 separate times in the last 2 weeks in reading. I know that this last Friday they had a specialist come in and test her 3x in one day, then she was taken to the counselors office for a reason "she doesn't get."

 

I have guesses on what's going on, but will have to wait and see what the shake out is.

 

---

 

You had mentioned the constraints of recognized or required testing formats being an element in schools.

 

Schools only recognize certain kinds of tests at certain ages, agree. It's a huge problem if they can't respond to natural abilities without a formal assessment that works within their framework of benchmarks or program.

 

I think funding is also at the bottom of it as well; a very major component.

[Misty]

Too many pages in this thread to read them all.. but I just wanted to say, my oldest daughter began reading at age 3 and was eating books for breakfast by age 4. She tested at the junior high level for decoding, comprehension, and spelling when she was 6 years old.

 

Fast forward to age 14 (turning 14 this week!) and I would say she is definitely still ahead of her peers. I think her comprehension has evened out quite a bit, but still ahead. She definitely has a larger vocabulary and is a phenomenal fiction writer herself. But she still eats books for breakfast.. Books that most kids her age would never touch.

[Finnella]

Maybe some do, but I haven't met them. I never averaged out, and neither have either of my sons, ages 12 and 15. The older boy was so totally bored in first grade. He was in ps and our district mandated a one-size-fits-all reading program. He hated it and used to tear up the little books they made and brought home at the end of each week. He was supposed to show off his "new" reading skill and read it to me; he refused. Despite his school's best efforts, he remained an interested reader and successfully tackled The Lord of the Rings trilogy the following year, in second grade.

 

In my never humble opinion, I believe this theory may be based on two things. One, too many people wanting their children to be gifted. (While I'm not humble, I'm not pointing a finger at any of you.) Two, schools do not want to meet the needs of gifted students. It doesn't help satisfy requirements of laws such as No Child Left Behind, yet it requires resources and money.

[TranquilMind]

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.

This.

 

My daughter is 15 and is still ahead of everyone else we know. She started speaking clearly at 6 months old, reading fluently at 4, and she still reads several books a week besides schoolwork.

 

So my take: Not true.

 

Son started late compared to her and took off.

[lisabees]

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.

 

I remember walking in to my oldest's 4th grade classroom to volunteer. The teacher was giving a math lesson and my kid was reading a book! I eventually pulled her aside and told her what my son is doing. She replied that she lets him do that all the time; he already knew the stuff she was teaching. Thankfully, he had her for 5th grade as well.

 

Early reading most certainly does not mean gifted. Gifted does not necessarily mean early reading. Two of my boys read on time (other than reading novels since they were toddlers, there was no instruction of any kind from me). When they did start, they couldn't get enough and read LONG books. They liked to push themselves. They were also people pleasers, so they did whatever impressed the teachers!

 

DD8 is the same way - reads on a 4th-5th grade level. Not really ahead. Her two close friends got tested this year. One read through Harry Potter a few times last year and the other reads on grade level and thinks out of the box. Neither scored high enough. Now, if my hunch is right, dd should be gifted. Like her brothers, she really started reading last year (chapter books, novels).

 

I do agree with the previous poster who suggested that, for readers to advance, they must be progressively reading more difficult books. That just doesn't happen for most kids, gifted or not.

 

To me, achievement has nothing to do with being gifted. I have one who would be considered an underachiever (when he was in a school setting) and one who is not. Both share the same traits, though. They think differently, they process things differently, they see the world differently. They are perfectionists and they are obsessive. They are just not normal!! :lol:

[brownie]

Gifted is gifted but 1) it gets harder to observe (can you point out which of you adult friends are "gifted"? They probably all read at the same level:) and 2) the issue I've noticed is that DS10's reading level has leveled out in practce(and ds12 before him) due to lack of appropriate popular literature to feed his voracious appetite. Nonetheless, the Explore test indicates he is above the 99.9%ile in reading. It's just not as apparent as when he was carrying around Harry Potter at 6 years old and everyone would comment.

Brownie

[SKL]

Ah, a blast from the past! To update the sitch, Miss E was allowed into KG halfway through the year, just before she turned 5. Now at age 6.5 she's finished 1st grade. Her fun reading tends around the 4th grade level, but she'll read things in a broad range above and below that depending on her interest. She reads a pile of books every day just for fun. But, because there was no differentiated instruction in her 1st grade, she probably isn't where she would be had she been challenged. Still, I can't imagine things being better if she were just finishing KG.

[Tanikit]

I am not sure what "early reading" they were referring to when they did the study that children will average out in third grade - it must assume that these early readers are reading below a 3rd grade level - as how can a child reading at a 4th or 5th grade level in K have everyone catch him/her by third grade unless all classes are accelerated. I think 3rd grade is used as this is when reading instruction changes so that children are supposed now to be reading for information rather than learning to read.

 

I see with my own DD(5) however that there is information she can obtain that children her age who are not reading cannot gain at this age - when she visits a museum she can read the signs, she reads adverts and asks about them, she reads road signs and maps and signs on doors at shops and yes, she reads books. And because she reads it and is 5 she will ask about it and get information that I would be unlikely to tell her if she had not asked so this also puts her at an advantage. It also provides her with some independence that many children this age do not have - she knows how to read recipes and other instructions so that she can do more by herself - she's told her grandmother to just "read the instructions" when she said she didn't know how to get something to work.

 

Early readers though do need help as books written at the level they are reading are often not emotionally suitable - so to keep their reading moving ahead but keep them protected emotionally so that they still enjoy the books someone must help with book choice.

 

I believe that early readers who are average in third grade will have been short changed by someone - either they have not been challenged sufficiently or taught as they should have been. This is not even an argument about giftedness - I believe almost all children can learn to read early and that the years of additional reading if properly managed should always result in a child who is ahead if compared with a child of the same IQ who did not read early - of course the early reading could influence IQ so until the issues can be separated it is hard to know.

[SKL]

 

I believe almost all children can learn to read early and that the years of additional reading if properly managed should always result in a child who is ahead if compared with a child of the same IQ who did not read early - of course the early reading could influence IQ so until the issues can be separated it is hard to know.

 

I don't know that I agree with this, as I have one kid who has roughly average IQ but a lot of learning challenges. She read "early" by average standards, but she has to continue working extra hard to remain slightly ahead of the game. I don't expect her to ever be an outstanding reader, but I expect her to always be a competent one, because I insist that she read challenging (for her) material almost daily. I do think she would fall behind if nobody made her read much. By contrast, many kids with the same IQ as her become good readers even though they start later.

[Lifebreakingin]

DD started reading on her own at 1yo. Things like thinking the Gap sign said grapes (which was a word on a page of a fun book about fruit we read). She taught herself to read fluently at 3yo. She is now 6 and has read chunks of Shakespeare on her own, though she mostly likes books in the 3-5AR level range, especially as they are about things she likes, like girl-focused fantasy, and not YA boys/intense issues/etc stuff. She also likes grammar and literary devices. She has gone through long phases of being obsessed and focused, working out whatever topic until she's satisfied. I doubt she'll even out by third, but I'm so looking forward to more kids in her class joining her in the love of reading! There will surely be lots reading Harry Potter by third grade--I see all these tiny kids (but not kindy) carrying around their novels. It's been a bit lonely for her this year!

[Job384]

I'm late to this thread, but I have some relevant experience, so I want to post.

 

I think that when they talk about evening out, they mean that everyone will have learned the skill of reading by third grade, so it is easier to tell who is ahead or behind because you don't have the confounding indicator of reading skill that may make a child look more or less cognitively advanced than he is.

 

I didn't read until I was seven, and I'd been exposed to an enormous volume of literature since birth. I went from not reading to being in the highest reading group in the space of one day! By third grade, I was the best reader in my school and hit the ceiling of our standardized tests in reading. By fourth grade, my teacher, who read aloud for extended periods every day, would often have me do the reading in her place if she needed to work on something.

 

Reading clicks with different kids at different ages. Early reading is fun. I have one child who's been reading since he was a year old. But early or late reading isn't a destiny. I think people stress about it too much.

[Dory]

I'm a little late adding to this discussion, and I haven't read all the responses, although I have enjoyed reading through some of them thus far. I was reading at 4, my brother just older than me was reading at 3. My youngest was reading at 3. I'm having a hard time figuring out how an early reader, that is reading beyond a grade 3 level before they start school, is going to suddenly even out at 3rd grade. My youngest has long since devoured the Narnia chronicles. I remember hiding in the basement before I was old enough for school so that I could read the Little House on the Prairie books (we were only allowed to read for an hour a day when I was little).

Then there are the late bloomers like my oldest. He struggled with reading until he was 8 (barely over a year ago) and then he just took off. His choice for a bedtime read tonight was a book on plant cellular structure. Last night he was reading a psychology textbook of mine. It was taken away and he was informed that he would have to wait a few years to read that sort of material.

A statement saying that things "even out" by 3rd grade is too broad of a statement. Kids from behind might suddenly be way ahead by 3rd grade. A reading 4 year old might simply have some early mental growth and no longer be substantially ahead by 3rd grade. But by early reader, do they mean a child that is sounding out some basic sight words and cvc words? Or do they mean a child that is reading books with understanding and depth? At 3rd grade what range are they calling "even".

[ktgrok]

I've seen it happen. My son didn't read until 7 1/2 years old, really. We put him in gifted in 2nd but I was very concerned about him not being able to keep up with the reading. He started out WAY behind those other kids. But by the end of the year he was totally reading on the same level, sharing books back and forth, etc. He went from a 1st grade level to a 6th grade level in one year. I started reading at age 4, and he doesn't read any less well than I did.

[Karen in CO]

Gifted is gifted but 1) it gets harder to observe (can you point out which of you adult friends are "gifted"? They probably all read at the same level:) and 2) the issue I've noticed is that DS10's reading level has leveled out in practce(and ds12 before him) due to lack of appropriate popular literature to feed his voracious appetite. Nonetheless, the Explore test indicates he is above the 99.9%ile in reading. It's just not as apparent as when he was carrying around Harry Potter at 6 years old and everyone would comment.

Brownie

 

 

Actually - I have gifted friends and coworkers. They do NOT read at the same level as others. My gifted friends and coworkers still shine as gifted in a group of very bright, hard-working adults. They don't get called "gifted" any more, but they are acknowledged as such and at work are often referred to as the "big brains."

[DavidArchuletaFan]

I think there are the truly gifted (very rare) and then everyone else.

 

What is 'intelligence' anyway? I look at my hubby and his 3 brothers for instance. One has an advanced law degree and loves to interject every conversation with his trivia knowledge. But does knowing trivia mean a person is 'intelligent'? Another has a standard business degree, learns and works quickly and is successful in the finance sector but talk to him about every day money matters and it's like he needs to go back to highschool lol. Oh, he also comes across as very intelligent to some people because he too likes to interject conversations with his knowledge of trivia. Another brother was very academically clever but he rebelled, left school as soon as he was legally allowed to, bummed around for a few years, taught himself to make guitars and his own sound systems. He doesn't read much or have any qualifications but he can put his hand to anything and fix it, he learns quickly and has great general knowledge. Another brother also dropped out of academics but is very creative and clever with his hands, he is an outdoorsman and can tell you a ton of stuff about what he is interested in. He obviously has the ability to learn, to understand, to apply, to deduct etc but he just does his own thing and is not out to prove anything to anyone.

 

When it comes to reading and this whole discussion, I think it's all pretty common sense really and people just get bogged down in the details and forget the big picture. I think there are probably 3 factors that interplay and create a perceived 'intelligence spectrum'. Those 3 factors are 1) When the child first learnt to read, 2) How much that child was stimulated and rewarded in continuing to read and 3) How much desire and therefore continued practise the child had in reading.

 

Take a child who learnt to read early, is continually stimulated with challenging books, who gets praised and rewarded for being an early reader and who therefore enjoys reading and they will always be an advanced reader. On the other hand take an early reader who is not stimulated with challenging material and doesn't have any great desire to read and they will probably become an average reader. Or you could take a late reader who once he begins reading, is continually stimulated, rewarded and enjoys reading and that child will probably quickly catch up and surpass the average readers.

 

The issue is that in school, kids get labeled and that effects their desire and the type of instruction they receive. That's why our kids have an advantage as homeschoolers...our kids whether they're early readers or late, don't have to be labeled, they can be rewarded and stimulated in their reading, they can be surrounded by great books and those things will hopefully at least increase their desire to read and ultimately lead to reading success.

 

As for the truly gifted (whom I think are incredibly rare) they will learn with no instruction, no special stimulation, no social rewards...because they are like sponges and can observe once and then know something inside out and back to front, deduct and project and extrapolate beyond what they have observed. Everyone else is a little bit of nature and varying degrees of nurture in my opinion. And thinking of my hubby's family again...what does 'intelligence' really mean in real, day to day life anyway!? I think intelligence is just a social construct we use to peg everyone for the most part. Don't they say these days that a person's EMOTIONAL intelligence a much stronger predictor of success anyway?

 

And quick last comment to conclude this very wordy post....does it really matter if a child is average or advanced in THIRD grade!? That's still pretty early on in the piece. I'm more interested in where they fit in when they're in need to be assessed for entry into University.

[Mountainmama]

Average out!!!??? Uh- perhaps some kids. My oldest was really reading at 2. At 4 she was ENJOYING Shakespeare. At 8 she was comparing and analyzing 3 Great Books against each other and presenting her analysis at adult book study groups. At 12 she was full-time college, with already having completed 5 college classes beginning at age 8. At 16 she was teaching at an ADHD therapeutic school. As an adult, there is clearly still no leveling out. does that happen with all early readers? I'm sure it doesn't - but it would be a mistake to generalize and say early readers level out.

[Little Women]

I read a fascinating study the other day. The kids in the original study were Head Start kids, disadvantaged in the early years, then ahead at the start of kindergarted, then at a more average level by 3rd grade. (There appears to be only one primary study they use to "prove" this point, over and over.) This study took place in the 1960s, so the children in it are around 50yo, now. They were able to find quite a few of them, and compare them with siblings and with other kids in the same schools at that time.

 

They found that in every major sociological measure, there was a noticeable difference. They were more likely to have been employed long-term, had more stable marriages, and had achieved higher education levels in the end. Though they had been "average" learners in 3rd grade, they had more ability to stick with things when they were tough, and accomplished far more over the years.

 

Re. the original question, it seems to me that the biggest issue is this: take a bunch of preschoolers and give them intense training (well done, from all I've seen, not just pressure), until they have progressed several years above their peers; get them to the 2nd or 3rd grade level, before kindergarten; put them in a school setting, with other kids who have not had any prior education; teach basic grade level materials, with little or no differentiation; low and behold, by the time they get to third grade, they haven't been taught anything more, and they are now about like the other kids. It has nothing to do with what these kids *could* learn. It has everything to do with what they were actually exposed to--most kids, if not consciously exposed to information or skill, will not learn them. Head Start is good for getting kids started, but if we want them to progress, they have to keep being taught, not just sit around bored until the other kids catch up.

[JumpyTheFrog]

I would suspect that many, if not most, gifted adults read like crazy. They are unlikely to be those people that surveys show only read ten books per year. I bet they read more like ten books every two weeks.

[Little Women]

I think that depends on what area they are gifted in. My dh is highly gifted in math and science areas, and was "advanced" in just about everything else. When he reads, he reads pretty heavy books. However, he does not read tons of books per year--he just thinks more deeply about the ones he is reading.

[IsabelC]

It's obviously going to depend on lots of things, not least the child her/himself.

Some kids are more gifted at reading. Some kids move faster with reading (not necessarily the same thing). Some kids are more interested/motivated with reading (again, not necessarily the same ones).

Add to that the various other factors that play into their literacy outcomes. Is reading enjoyed and valued at home? Are the parents interested, motivated and/or capable of fostering the kid's interest and providing reading instruction? If the kid attends school, what are the priorities there?

 

Also, could whoever suggested that kids 'even out' have been referring to the alleged 'slump' that apparently happens when kids who don't know any phonics have reached the limit of their whole word recall capacity? I can believe that some kids who have been started on sight word flash cards very young might possibly stop progressing at around third grade. But as Rhonda said, they could also be thinking about kids who start late and learn very fast, which is not unusual.

 

Plus there is a distinction between reading proficiency and actual reading. Given that a substantial proportion of educated adults do little or no reading for pleasure, should engendering a love of reading trump starting as early/fast as possible?

 

In any case, I wouldn't take a statement like that as gospel regarding what you do with your child. You know what she is capable of and what she enjoys better than anyone else. I honestly think that the 'they all even out' line is intended primarily as reassurance for parents who might be concerned that their kids aren't ready for reading yet.

[DandelionMom]

Both of my girls taught themselves how to read at age 3 and by 3rd grade were reading at high school level...I don't understand how people could think that it averages out. By that age, my oldest had read almost all of the Harry Potter books and the entire Hobbit and LOTR books independently, and standard 3rd grade books are Little House in the Big Wood and Charlotte's Web. I wonder who is doing this study...

 

I think also that academic maturity and emotional maturity can be vastly different. My girls have always been multiple grades above level academically, but were prone to acting very babyish and pitching tantrums like a much younger child. It has always really thrown people and can cause a lot of presumptions and judgement.

[Laura Corin]

Both of my girls taught themselves how to read at age 3 and by 3rd grade were reading at high school level...I don't understand how people could think that it averages out. By that age, my oldest had read almost all of the Harry Potter books and the entire Hobbit and LOTR books independently, and standard 3rd grade books are Little House in the Big Wood and Charlotte's Web. I wonder who is doing this study...

 

I can tell you what it looks like when such a child is sixteen.  Every teacher at his school writes reports describing his vocabulary, sensitivity to language, and general knowledge as truly exceptional.  

 

I'm sure it's possible for an early reader to lose interest if forced to wait for others to catch up, or hide his reading level in order to fit in.  That has not been our experience, however.

 

L

[a27mom]

This is a long thread and I believe that this has been mentioned before, but I think the "original" concept is looking at averages and bell curves, not individual children.

 

If someone is actually saying " By third grade all students will have exactly the same reading level". Well obviously that is preposterous. (I do realize that some people do imply this). But if someone is saying that reading level in prek and K is not an accurate predictor of 3rd grade reading level, then that is quite sensible.

 

Reading level in itself is a comparison, there is only a third grade reading level, because if you compare all 3 rd graders that is what the average third grader is able to read. (Or at least that is the concept, I realize it isn't necessarily accurately applied)

 

Say you take 100 new Ker's. 10 of them read fluently, 10 don't even know the ABC's. The others are all somewhere in the middle. If you look at them in 3rd grade will all 10 fluent readers still be the best 10 readers in the class? Probably not, though some of them likely will be, several of the K non-readers could be just as good or better. Now most likely these kids won't flip to the bottom 10, they probably still would be in the top half or better. Those 10 who didn't know there ABC's could end up anywhere on the curve. Yes it is unlikely they will all flip to the top ten, but some of them might. It is possible that none of them will be bottom ten, though some of them might. It is more likely that they will be distributed somewhat evenly throughout the bell curve of reading ability, and only slightly skew to the lower half. And, the middle 80 kids could be anywhere on the curve from best to worst.

 

Now if you compare the same kids from 3rd grade to say 6th grade you are going to see much less movement. The majority of the top 10 third grade readers will be top readers in 6th etc... Although some kids may still move. Reading may suddenly click for a lower reader, vision problems may suddenly be rectified, but these will be outliers and the majority of the kids, assuming they receive similar reading education will stay near their "place" on the curve. Thus the kids will average out by third grade.

 

It would be interesting to know where the original concept came from, as opposed to those who latched onto it to downplay other kids accomplishments. Surely the original idea was applied to a group not individual children.

[SKL]

a27mom, I could see the point if we were talking about a KG child who hasn't yet started reading because it hasn't yet clicked or he hasn't been exposed.  But in a case of a child given the same exposure as others but reading way ahead of them at age 4, I don't think the inverse applies.  So, I too find it puzzling that educators so quickly fall back on that convenient phrase. 

 

FTR, my advanced kid was not given reading instruction in the traditional sense of the word.  She was never drilled in phonics or sight words, never worked through a reader or workbook.  She was just wired for reading and a little exposure was all it took.  In contrast, her sister started reading at age 5, but that was because she was worked with more than most American 5-year-olds.  She remains slightly above average for her age, but again, I enforce reading practice.  Without that, she'd probably fall behind.  So I could see the argument that not all kids who read a bit young will remain above average.  But that doesn't justify refusing to entertain the idea that acceleration is appropriate for *some* early readers.

[a27mom]

a27mom, I could see the point if we were talking about a KG child who hasn't yet started reading because it hasn't yet clicked or he hasn't been exposed. But in a case of a child given the same exposure as others but reading way ahead of them at age 4, I don't think the inverse applies. So, I too find it puzzling that educators so quickly fall back on that convenient phrase.

 

FTR, my advanced kid was not given reading instruction in the traditional sense of the word. She was never drilled in phonics or sight words, never worked through a reader or workbook. She was just wired for reading and a little exposure was all it took. In contrast, her sister started reading at age 5, but that was because she was worked with more than most American 5-year-olds. She remains slightly above average for her age, but again, I enforce reading practice. Without that, she'd probably fall behind. So I could see the argument that not all kids who read a bit young will remain above average. But that doesn't justify refusing to entertain the idea that acceleration is appropriate for *some* early readers.

Actually my point is that the even out statement can not be applied to "a child" as in an individual child. It is only applicable to a group of children. Of course a child who learns to read very naturally by age 4 will likely stay well above average. I even said that in my other post. But there certainly could be a child who learns to read at age 6 who catches up with them or is ahead of them by age 8/9.

 

Those annoying and yes wrong educators, other moms, etc... are misapplying the "even out" concept by applying it to individual children. Using it to justify refusing acceleration is just plain stupid. It is easy to demonstrate that all third graders aren't "even". But that doesn't mean that the concept it wrong or useless, if appropriately applied to a group of children. So saying, "children do not even out by 3rd grade because I can demonstrate an individual outlier" is not a valid argument. A better argument would be, "the idea that children even out by third grade only applies to groups of children, so let my 5 y/o read (insert high level book title here)".

 

FWIW I have one dd who just turned 4, and one who will be 6 next month. They are both at roughly the same reading level. Both are on the cusp of fluency, but not quite there yet. But I anticipate they will "even" out by third grade. Not that they will be right at 3rd grade reading level, but that they will both be well ahead of reading level. For my 4 y/o it is rather obvious because she learned to read just by being around when I was working with her sister, and she started reading (not fluently) by 3. My almost 6 y/o is not reading fluently yet, but based on her verbal abilities and ability to comprehend and analyze higher level books read to her, I anticipate she will be an advanced reader once her eyes catch up. I am not sure which girl will be the better reader long term. I need to give them some time to "even" out. (Though I have no intention of picking a better reader ;) )

[nitascool]

The "Even out by 3rd grade" statement is actually not in regards to early spontaneous readers. A quote from the study that so many misunderstand states:

 

"In the final phase of a large-scale randomized, controlled study of nearly 5,000 children, researchers found that the positive impacts on literacy and language development demonstrated by children who entered Head Start at age 4 had dissipated by the end of 3rd grade, and that they were, on average, academically indistinguishable from their peers who had not participated in Head Start."

You can find the whole article here.... I think this is a reprint.

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/early_years/2012/12/head_start_advantages_mostly_gone_by_third_grade_study_finds.html

 

You might consider a few things when reviewing this research... these children where systematically instructed in academic areas that would normally be delegated to their mothers who properly prepared would have done as good or a better job then the instructors. These children's mothers have to meet within the federal poverty lines to qualify. Most of these mothers where not adequately educated themselves to meet the needs of their young children (a high percentage being children themselves) . The parents were not educated in how to assist their children in academics once they entered into school. So head start may have helped them at age 4 but did not continue to help them at age 5-8. A good portion of these children where from broken homes, foster care, and abusive families which all contribute to poor academic performance. These children were compared to age peers in middle class families rather then their socioeconomic peer who did not attend head start.

 

The study only proves that helping children early (not teaching parents to help their children) is not the answer to academic acceleration in bright children who are born into poverty.

 

I was told regularly when my oldest was 3-6  that he would even out by 3rd, then 4th or 5th grade when he hadn't even out yet. When your child is already reading on a 3rd grade level at age 3 (I did instruct him at his behest) then that's not likely to happen. I thought maybe by Jr. High we might find that to be the case. I can say that he is not advancing as quickly at 12 and 13 then he did at 3 and 4, but he is still advancing more then a grade level a year with lot's of depth compared to his PSed peers. He's 13 now and though he has evened out in math (his non-gifted area) he is still years ahead of his NT peers in all things academic, artistic and maturity. Stick him in a room full of gifted Sheldon types and that's another story. He is not a fact seeker that's for sure. With three others on his tale reading at age 4 I am seen the opposite to be true. The farther advanced they were when they started formal school the farther ahead they get as the move through the grades. Excepting my Aspy son who is all over the map academically and behind maturity wise.