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

[freesia]

 

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.

 

Yes, this.

 

Anne

[The Governess]

My dd7 learned how to read at three. At four she was reading at a second grade level, fluently. Now at seven she is reading fluently at a sixth or seventh grade level and is comprehending at that level. So, since she finished phonics instruction she has continuously advanced one or two grade levels per year. I don't see that progress ceasing anytime in the near future. I guess I would say that the leveling off rule has not applied in her case. However, she is a voracious reader and I am continually challenging her by bringing home and assigning books that are at her grade level. I do think this has made a difference in her progress.

[Crimson Wife]

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.

 

Why push it before the child is developmentally ready to learn? Quite a bit more children will wind up disliking reading when drilled on phonics at 3 and 4 than if they wait until 5 or 6 to start phonics instruction.

[SKL]

Quite a bit more children will wind up disliking reading when drilled on phonics at 3 and 4 than if they wait until 5 or 6 to start phonics instruction.

 

Is there evidence behind this statement?

 

My early writing sucked and I hated handwriting all my life, but I never hated composition. Not sure if there really is a connection there, or if we just theorize about it.

[Iucounu]

Why push it before the child is developmentally ready to learn? Quite a bit more children will wind up disliking reading when drilled on phonics at 3 and 4 than if they wait until 5 or 6 to start phonics instruction.

Who decides when children are developmentally ready to learn? I know of nothing suggesting that children are not developmentally ready to learn to read at age 3. In fact these days we hear more and more stories of self-taught readers who begin at age 2 and up. What statistics show "quite a bit more children" disliking reading based on being "drilled on phonics"? Do you think it's possible to teach reading in a non-stressful way?

[OHGrandma]

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.

 

 

I have found the most adamant in support of this belief also believe whole-heartedly in gov't programs like HeadStart.

 

In general, a child who has the internal drive to read early tends to be gifted and will maintain an educational advantage over non-gifted children. The opposite is not true. A lack of drive to read early does not mean the child is not gifted. Giftedness can be expressed in other ways.

[Embassy]

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.

 

Avoiding something because the child might not be developmentally ready isn't the same as avoiding something because the child might not like it.

[Embassy]

Who decides when children are developmentally ready to learn?

 

Hopefully the parent who is around the child all the time and can observe reading readiness skills. IME, I've known my children were ready when they knew all their letter sounds and were starting to blend letters or were already reading:tongue_smilie:

Edited September 5, 2011 by Wehomeschool

[nmoira]

In general, a child who has the internal drive to read early tends to be gifted and will maintain an educational advantage over non-gifted children. The opposite is not true. A lack of drive to read early does not mean the child is not gifted. Giftedness can be expressed in other ways.

I would rephrase that to say, "a child who is physiologically ready and has the internal drive." :001_smile:

[nmoira]

I have one of those kids who taught themselves to read at two and another who was "stuck" on cvc words for the better part of a year before having a breakthrough at about 6.5 yo, and who, only a few months later, is reading at between a fourth and fifth grade level (though she prefers to read the Bad Kitty books rather than novels, which is perfectly fine given her age and interests). I don't believe that starting earlier would have affected the timing of the breakthrough as it seemed obvious to me that DD the Younger wasn't ready, and I think she benefitted immensely from a few years of benign neglect on the academic front.

 

FWIW I think vocabulary development through reading aloud and everyday conversation is more important than early reading lessons. While my personal bias is not to do formal lessons before five or six unless asked, I don't think a willing young child will be harmed by short, pleasant lessons unless they somehow are made or become to feel like they are not meeting some arbitrary set of expectations.

Edited September 5, 2011 by nmoira

[Iucounu]

Avoiding something because the child might not be developmentally ready isn't the same as avoiding something because the child might not like it.

... nor did I say anything to the contrary.

[boscopup]

Who decides when children are developmentally ready to learn?

 

It's usually pretty obvious to the parent in a homeschooling situation. ;)

 

In a school situation, they just have to make a general guess of when the average is ready, which seems to be around age 5.

[8filltheheart]

I know of nothing suggesting that children are not developmentally ready to learn to read at age 3.

 

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.

 

If you are interested in the subject, research psychological studies on cognitive development, brain maturation, etc. 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.

 

I tried to find a site that was accessible and informative on the multiple simultaneous process that are required for reading. This one seems like it fits the bill, however, I really didn't spend more than a couple of minutes skimming it.

 

http://www.sedl.org/reading/framework/elements.html

 

 

As far as who decides when kids are ready......that is what we do as homeschoolers. We are our children's advocate and IEP creator.

[quark]

I think (and know from experience) that it's completely possible to start teaching an interested child (ETA interested) to read from as young as 6 months old (possibly younger). The aim wasn't to have him reading at a year old or to hothouse him. The aim was to give him every advantage necessary in a gentle, loving way. We didn't know he is gifted. We just wanted to surround him with words and show him their power and see if he was interested to learn. He was.

 

I'm not going to defend what we did because I don't need to. The results speak for themselves. But my question is how do you know that a young child doesn't want to learn? What makes one assume that just because a child is not yet verbalizing his thoughts, he won't want to learn how to put sounds together or learn how written language works and discover all these wonderful, intricate patterns?

 

Something must have worked out right. Our 8yo has never disliked reading. He would make up word games with words he read on airport/ bus/ subway terminal signs when he was 2. He loved it. He still entertains himself with words.

 

I don't know if we'll be able to replicate results for another child. Although repetition was used, he wasn't "drilled" or asked to read aloud flashcards or anything such thing. We taught him in response to his natural inquisitive personality. So I know it's possible to teach reading in a pleasant, fun way. It doesn't depend so much on the materials IMHO. It's the method of delivery parents choose, the motivation to keep it meaningful to the child, and the innate willingness of the child him/herself. In our son's case, we saw an intense thirst to learn and catered to it. If he hadn't been as interested as he was, we wouldn't have pursued it.

Edited September 5, 2011 by quark

[Iucounu]

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.

I still haven't seen any, and would add that the Piaget developmental stages, a similar notion, have been the subject of heavy debate according to what I have seen. I know that reading involves lots of different, complementary cognitive skills; but I also agree with boscopup that public schools just take a stab at a rough average, based really not on the most recent research but usually on historical procedure in a region. We know that this varies widely by country, too. So indications are that a seat-of-the-pants guess based on historical practice of beginning to teach reading in first grade is bound to be on the late side for when a great many children are ready to begin to learn to read.

 

As far as who decides when kids are ready......that is what we do

I know. It was rhetorical. :)

Edited September 5, 2011 by Iucounu

[8filltheheart]

I still haven't seen any, and would add that the Piaget developmental stages, a similar notion, have been the subject of heavy debate according to what I have seen. I know that reading involves lots of different, complementary cognitive skills; but I also agree with boscopup that public schools just take a stab at a rough average, based really not on the most recent research but usually on historical procedure in a region. We know that this varies widely by country, too. So indications are that a seat-of-the-pants guess based on historical practice of beginning to teach reading in first grade is bound to be on the late side for when a great many children are ready to begin to learn to read.

 

 

Would you care to share research that disproves brain maturation and reading readiness? I have never seen any and I would truly like to read it.

[Embassy]

What makes one assume that just because a child is not yet verbalizing his thoughts, he won't want to learn how to put sounds together or learn how written language works and discover all these wonderful, intricate patterns?

Developmentally, it would be very rare for an infant to be interested in phonics. And if a little one is expressing sounds in a word or reading a word before being able to express thoughts I would question comprehension. Playing with sounds is a normal part of babyhood. Babies love to make different sounds and even make sounds in different languages. Play skills are related to language skills and language skills are related to reading skills. So, I would assume based on normal development that an infant would be focused on oral communication first.

[SKL]

...public schools just take a stab at a rough average, based really not on the most recent research but usually on historical procedure in a region. We know that this varies widely by country, too. So indications are that a seat-of-the-pants guess based on historical practice of beginning to teach reading in first grade is bound to be on the late side for when a great many children are ready to begin to learn to read.

 

I recall when my kid sister and her same-age niece were beginning elementary school. Their school systems were in the same county. But the niece's school started kids reading phonic storybooks in KG. My sister's class wasn't reading the first pre-primer until mid-1st grade. And it isn't because my sister was in a low reading group - she began reading phonic readers at 4.5, before entering KG. Nor was there a socio-economic explanation, as the niece's district was more poor and had more minorities, etc. There is definitely a range of arbitrary ages at which schools start with reading.

[SKL]

Developmentally, it would be very rare for an infant to be interested in phonics. And if a little one is expressing sounds in a word or reading a word before being able to express thoughts I would question comprehension. Playing with sounds is a normal part of babyhood. Babies love to make different sounds and even make sounds in different languages. Play skills are related to language skills and language skills are related to reading skills. So, I would assume based on normal development that an infant would be focused on oral communication first.

 

My slow reader initially learned letter sounds before letter names - beginning before age 2 - and I certainly was not pushing her. I think this is in the "all kids are different" category.

 

I'm not a fan of "teach your baby to read," but I do believe in exposing kids to all kinds of things, including letters, all the time. If they pick it up early, awesome. If not, no harm done. I'm not sure what the great fear is, knowing that most people who do this only spend a few minutes a day on it. There's plenty of time for other "developmentally appropriate" activities.

[Embassy]

My slow reader initially learned letter sounds before letter names - beginning before age 2 - and I certainly was not pushing her. I think this is in the "all kids are different" category.

 

I'm not a fan of "teach your baby to read," but I do believe in exposing kids to all kinds of things, including letters, all the time. If they pick it up early, awesome. If not, no harm done. I'm not sure what the great fear is, knowing that most people who do this only spend a few minutes a day on it. There's plenty of time for other "developmentally appropriate" activities.

 

I think learning letter sounds before letter names is pretty equal to learning letter names before letter sounds cognitively. But understanding phonics and written language before being able to express your thoughts would mean an infant had a huge discrepancy between receptive and expressive language skills. Many bright or gifted infants will have a discrepancy with receptive language skills higher than expressive language skills, but I have never heard of one so huge at so young an age.

[Iucounu]

Would you care to share research that disproves brain maturation and reading readiness? I have never seen any and I would truly like to read it.

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.)

Edited September 5, 2011 by Iucounu

[SunshineMom]

.

Edited March 22, 2016 by Lilypad2

[boscopup]

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.

 

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.

[quark]

I'm not a fan of "teach your baby to read," but I do believe in exposing kids to all kinds of things, including letters, all the time. If they pick it up early, awesome. If not, no harm done. I'm not sure what the great fear is, knowing that most people who do this only spend a few minutes a day on it. There's plenty of time for other "developmentally appropriate" activities.

 

We were the ones spending a few minutes a day. Or skipping whole weeks and then resuming few minutes a day and then skipping whole weeks again whenever mom got lazy or bogged down by WAHM work. I wanted to add though that I don't think the world will end if all a toddler wants to do every day is learn to read or play with reading software or audiobooks or whatever. I'd think once they had their fill for a certain period of time, they'd naturally move on to something else. Some kids are just different that way.

[quark]

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.

 

I echo this. Anyone have a child who consistently chooses to read a book that is consistently one level higher every single time? Ha! I don't have one of those. It could be Roald Dahl one day, Sherlock Holmes the next, Penrose the Mathematical Cat or Murderous Maths or Moomin several days in a row and then wham! A psychology text for college bound students!

 

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.

 

I have no personal experience with the DRA but based on what I've seen with other reading level testing, :iagree:

[Crimson Wife]

Who decides when children are developmentally ready to learn? I know of nothing suggesting that children are not developmentally ready to learn to read at age 3. In fact these days we hear more and more stories of self-taught readers who begin at age 2 and up.

 

Of course there are SOME children who are developmentally ready to learn to read at 3. I was one myself and my oldest child was, too. But we're talking kids who are on the far end of the bell curve.

 

Non-gifted kids who are spending several hours per week being drilled on phonics at Jr. Kumon because their "Tiger Moms" have ambitions for them to attend the "right" private elementary school *IS* developmentally inappropriate. And sadly, it's very common these days in certain places.

[elizabeth]

Generally the" average out" line is used by those who teach in an institutional setting be it public, private or charter. This is used exclusively to avoid having to do any testing or actual teaching of gifted children. Total and utter bull*hit. If we had elementary education teachers who were not held back from improvising by administrators then there would be a chance for gifted children to learn . As it stands now if asked I always tell the parents to home educate unless they want a miserable, bored and underachieving student. The phrase "hothousing" really chaps my ass. It is called good parenting.

[Mandy in TN]

Of course there are SOME children who are developmentally ready to learn to read at 3. I was one myself and my oldest child was, too. But we're talking kids who are on the far end of the bell curve.

 

Non-gifted kids who are spending several hours per week being drilled on phonics at Jr. Kumon because their "Tiger Moms" have ambitions for them to attend the "right" private elementary school *IS* developmentally inappropriate. And sadly, it's very common these days in certain places.

Has your child ever been enrolled at Kumon?

 

The first two levels of Kumon reading are just vocabulary building. There are no phonics and no writing. The pages are simply I-Say/ You-Say.

 

In the first level the child points to the word truck under a picture of the word truck. I say truck and the child repeats truck after me. The entire ten page pack takes less than ten minutes. There are 200 sheets or 20 ten page packs like this. Each sheet is the size of a sheet of typing paper cut in half and contains 4 words on the front and the same 4 words on the back.

 

The second level has prepositional phrases like on the bus- off the bus. This is below a picture of a child getting on a bus and a child getting off the bus. They also contain silly rhyming phrases like candy cane airplane I say the phrase and the child points to the phrase and repeats it. These contain two phrases on the front and virtually the same two phrases on the back. Again, there are 200 sheets or 20 ten page packs like this.

 

Only ESL students could possibly have trouble and need repetition with this even at 3-4 years old. This is Fox in Socks stuff. If an ESL family wants to pay for these sheets and have a native English speaker read them to their child one or two days each week, that doesn't make them "Tiger" parents.

 

Also, I can count on one hand the number of 3yos I have had and in every case it was because they had an older sibling at Kumon and wanted to be included. It was never because there was some pushy mom.

 

During the second level, I start exposing them to the alphabet. My chart has both the upper and lower case letter and a picture below it. I point to the upper case B and say <b>. I point to the lower case b and say <b>. I point to the picture and the child says ball. At some point they naturally join in.

 

The first 100 sheets of the third level just have the child tracing lower case letters next to pictures that begin with the letter sound- only hard c, hard g, and short vowel sounds. Unless the child is older and/ or already knows these sounds along with good fine motor skills, I cut them down to 5 pages. The child traces the letter, makes the sound, and says the word. Until they have this mastered they don't move forward.

 

The second half (last 100 pages) of the third level is CVC words, but the words are included under a picture of the word. The child says the word under the picture. Then, the bottom of the page has the words for the child to trace. The child makes the letter sounds as he traces the words and then the whole word when he is through writing it. The sheets include pages where only the vowel is different- big, bag, bug. They also include rhyming sheets (cat, hat, sat) and sheets where only the last consonant is different (can, cap, cab). In the second half of the third level, the sheets always have pictures and a pattern. Pages 5 and 10 contain some matching and a short three to four word sentence or phrase that includes a picture. (The bed is red.)

 

During the second half of the third level I work on some basic words that they shouldn't need to figure out every time they see them. (I, am, the, is, etc.)

 

The first half of the third level contains consonant blends (bl, cl, sl, fl, etc.). The sheets have 3 words on the front beside a picture of the word. The child traces the words. The same three words are on the back in two short sentences that include a picture. (The class claps.) I also go over these blends from a sound chart that again includes pictures.

 

The sixth level of Kumon is the first level without color pictures.

 

Are you getting the idea? JrKumon is very, very low stress and takes almost no time.

Mandy

[momma2three]

I've seen quite a few people here say that this is something that only teachers say to hold bright kids back.

 

Personally, I've only ever heard it as a way to ease the minds of parents who have late readers. As the age at which children are expected to read has moved back, and as more parents introduce workbooks and private tutoring and "Your Baby Can Read" and whatever, not to mention all the bragging Facebook posts people post about their amazing brilliant genius 18 month old who is reading Kant and putting together 1000 piece jigsaw puzzles, I think that many parents do worry that their child will be left in the dust.

 

I think that if you look at it from this angle, it is true. Most kids will be proficient readers by 3rd grade. They may be on a 2rd grade level v. a 6th grade level, but they will still be reading well enough to be able to succeed in school.

[Mommy22alyns]

From my personal experience, it's not true. Both girls were self-taught and read at 4. Rebecca is in third grade now and is far above a third grade reading level. Sylvia is above a third grade reading level, so (as someone has pointed out) unless she regresses, she will not have "averaged out" by third grade.

 

I think it's a load of crap that people say to make themselves feel better.

[SKL]

But understanding phonics and written language before being able to express your thoughts would mean an infant had a huge discrepancy between receptive and expressive language skills. Many bright or gifted infants will have a discrepancy with receptive language skills higher than expressive language skills, but I have never heard of one so huge at so young an age.

 

I'm not sure I understand this. Doesn't every baby have a huge discrepancy between receptive and expressive language skills? They can understand a lot more than they can say. Many babies also have a bigger sign language vocabulary than spoken vocabulary. The ability to say a word or name an abstract, essentially meaningless shape (the letter "Em") comes much later than the ability to understand what is heard or remember what is seen. I recall when my kids were learning animals, and they would see a picture of an elephant and make an elephant sound, for example. They could not say "elephant," so does that mean they couldn't recognize and elephant and remember the sound it makes? No, and the same could be true of letters/words for some kids.

 

There is definitely a broad range of visual memory abilities in kids, though. My two are at opposite ends of the spectrum, despite having exactly the same exposure.

Edited September 6, 2011 by SKL

[Parker Martin]

But understanding phonics and written language before being able to express your thoughts would mean an infant had a huge discrepancy between receptive and expressive language skills. Many bright or gifted infants will have a discrepancy with receptive language skills higher than expressive language skills, but I have never heard of one so huge at so young an age.

 

My son started reading at 14 months. He was obsessed with phonics. We had those refrigerator phonics with the letter magnets where you put the letter in the little machine and it says the letter's name and sound. He'd play with it for hours. He was our first, so we didn't realize how strange that interest was. We were, however, stunned when he started reading. He was not, however, particularly expressive.

 

His brother is the exact opposite. Extremely expressive, but I've never seen him read. A friend read an alphabet book with him, and she said that he knew all of the letter sounds. I assume he learned that from watching Leap Frog Letter Factory.

 

I, on the other hand, didn't read until I was seven years old. Phonics made no sense to me at all. ("Short vowel? How is it shorter? Does it sound shorter? Maybe it's almost imperceptibly shorter...") But I was reading on a "post 12th grade" level three years later. Go figure.

 

Fascinating to imagine what might be going on in all our brains.

[SKL]

I've seen quite a few people here say that this is something that only teachers say to hold bright kids back.

 

Personally, I've only ever heard it as a way to ease the minds of parents who have late readers.

 

I have no problem with parents of non-readers being reassured that some kids are late bloomers and progress quickly once they start. But my personal experience is that the educators are trying to make me shut up and be satisified with my kid being in pre-K.

 

So I'd really like to see some research that show that a child who is on the 2nd grade RL at age 4 is better served by staying in pre-K than by attending KG (assuming no issues other than age are holding her back).

[Mandy in TN]

I have no problem with parents of non-readers being reassured that some kids are late bloomers and progress quickly once they start. But my personal experience is that the educators are trying to make me shut up and be satisified with my kid being in pre-K.

 

So I'd really like to see some research that show that a child who is on the 2nd grade RL at age 4 is better served by staying in pre-K than by attending KG (assuming no issues other than age are holding her back).

I don't believe there is a legitimate reason to withhold education (although there may indeed be other reasons why I wouldn't want my 12yo in a ps class with 16yos). This would be one of the many reasons why I home educate. ;)

Mandy

[Embassy]

I'm not sure I understand this. Doesn't every baby have a huge discrepancy between receptive and expressive language skills?

 

No, most babies have receptive and expressive language skills around the same level. This doesn't mean an infant doesn't understand more than he says. It just means that at age 6 months certain skills are generally expected for receptive language skills and certain skills are expected for expressive language skills.

 

For instance

 

Receptive language skills at age 7-12 months are

The 7 to 12 months period is exciting and fun as the baby now obviously listens when spoken to, turns and looks at your face when called by name, and discovers the fun of games like: "round and round the garden", "peep-oh", "I see" and "pat-a-cake" (These simple games and finger plays will have regional names and variants). It is in this period that you realise that he or she recognises the names of familiar objects ("Daddy", "car", "eyes", "phone", "key") and begins to respond to requests ("Give it to Granny") and questions ("More juice?").

 

 

 

And expressive language skills for age 7-12 months are:

The sound of your baby's babbling changes. This is because it now includes more consonants, as well as long and short vowels. He or she uses speech or other sounds (i.e., other than crying) in order to get your attention and hold on to it. And your baby's first words (probably not spoken very clearly) have appeared! ("MaMa", "Doggie", "Night Night", "Bye Bye")

 

Quotes taken from http://speech-language-therapy.com/devel2.htm

 

Receptive and expressive language skills are different, but age-appropriate for a 7-12 month baby. Understanding of language comes before speaking in a typically developing child so it is normal to have an understanding of more words than what is spoken or signed. But that doesn't put the infant in a category where receptive and expressive language skills are at vastly different levels.

 

If an infant was fully understanding phonics and how words are broken down into sounds and is able to put those together in his mind and is not yet able to speak then you are dealing with skills that are years apart developmentally. If that were the case I think you would have a very frustrated infant on your hands.

[SKL]

If an infant was fully understanding phonics and how words are broken down into sounds and is able to put those together in his mind and is not yet able to speak then you are dealing with skills that are years apart developmentally. If that were the case I think you would have a very frustrated infant on your hands.

 

Well, at the risk of being run out of town, I would say that reading isn't necessarily about phonics. For some kids, it is, and for others, not so much. Personally I don't give any thought to individual letter sounds when I read, and that doesn't mean I'm not reading. A child with unusual visual memory can remember words before he can apply phonics rules, and might be a very early reader (or might not). It's individual.

 

It isn't all that unusual for kids to be on different levels with different skills. I'm not sure why having a great visual memory would make for a frustrated baby. One doesn't need to speak in order to process reading.

[pookel]

I think it's simplistic and not really accurate, but it IS good to remember that early reading isn't the be-all and end-all of giftedness.

 

I have a 6.5yo who can explain what infinity is and do math with negative numbers, who can narrate back to me his SOTW chapter or a science lesson with great comprehension, but who still struggles with sounding out words like "did" and "had."

 

And I have a hyperlexic, probably autistic 4yo who taught himself to read at 2, who could easily read this post over my shoulder if he were standing here (he might stumble a bit over "hyperlexic" and "comprehension"), but who doesn't really understand what time is, or how his relatives are related to him, or the difference between girls and boys. He certainly doesn't get the idea of history.

 

It's not as simple as "early reading = gifted." Sometimes early reading comes at a deficit of other skills. Sometimes really bright kids struggle with reading. I used to be a big promoter of the idea that all kids were ready to read at 3 if you just taught them, and then I had a kid who *wasn't*. And he wasn't at 4, either, or at 5 (and yes, I was trying to teach him!). Now at 6 he's finally starting to get it, and I'm OK with that. I don't think it means he's not gifted or that I've done something wrong.

[pookel]

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.

[WIS0320]

Well, at the risk of being run out of town, I would say that reading isn't necessarily about phonics. For some kids, it is, and for others, not so much. Personally I don't give any thought to individual letter sounds when I read, and that doesn't mean I'm not reading. A child with unusual visual memory can remember words before he can apply phonics rules, and might be a very early reader (or might not). It's individual.

 

 

I've always compartmentalized "average" language learners into two distinct groups: those who acquire it naturally and do not need to rely on phonics and those that do.

Edited September 6, 2011 by drexel

[Mommyof4ks]

I don't think there is any time when kids 'even out'. For my kids it has been more of one strength vs. another. My dd started to read in kindy, and a year later she was reading at a 6 th grade level and taught herself to speed read. She could not figure out how to add no matter how many ways I tried to show her. I must have spent a small fortune on manipulatives, workbooks, and so on. My second child could easily figure out how to fix electronics at 3, but at 7 he is still not reading very well (processing issues that we are working on). My youngest is a math whiz, and he is doing well with reading, but he cannot figure out how to tie his shoes or do other tasks that require fine motor skills plus coordination. All kids have strengths and weaknesses, and putting a child ahead a grade level for one subject could cause them to struggle with others. that is why we chose homeschooling, all needs are met and we don't have to choose a grade for the kids.

 

You might look into Monissori schools. The ones here do let the kids work at different levels for different subjects. Those schools are pricey, but there is a good deal more flexibility.

[Embassy]

Well, at the risk of being run out of town, I would say that reading isn't necessarily about phonics. For some kids, it is, and for others, not so much. Personally I don't give any thought to individual letter sounds when I read, and that doesn't mean I'm not reading. A child with unusual visual memory can remember words before he can apply phonics rules, and might be a very early reader (or might not). It's individual.

 

It isn't all that unusual for kids to be on different levels with different skills. I'm not sure why having a great visual memory would make for a frustrated baby. One doesn't need to speak in order to process reading.

 

I don't think fluent readers give thought to the sounds in words as they read. They have internalized the rules or memorized the words.

 

Yes, some children learn to read through memorization. Babies can memorize. You still need abstract skills to apply memorization of words to reading in meaningful contexts.

 

A recipe for a frustrated baby or tantrum-filled toddler is one who has the ability to think and reason far beyond the ability to communicate. I don't know if you have ever seen a little one try to communicate something that he wants to say and no one understands. Imagine a little one who understands and desires to discuss things beyond his years and he cannot. That would be frustrating, no? I've worked with many toddlers who could not communicate at their level of understanding and their tears were tears of frustration.

Edited September 6, 2011 by Wehomeschool

[SKL]

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.

 

I'm not lobbying for 2nd grade. I just want her in KG this year. If she were 6 days older, that's where she'd be without further discussion. I could go on about all the reasons she's ready, but the schools won't even talk to me because it would mean they'd have to make an extra effort, or as one principal said, "then we'd have to do it for everyone." ??

[quark]

Well, at the risk of being run out of town, I would say that reading isn't necessarily about phonics. For some kids, it is, and for others, not so much.

 

If you're run out of town, I'd join you. I feel exactly the same way. I don't place a lot of stock on phonics. I didn't use a phonics curriculum to teach my son to read. I know it works for others. Just saying it wasn't what we needed.

[SKL]

A recipe for a frustrated baby or tantrum-filled toddler is one who has the ability to think and reason far beyond the ability to communicate. I don't know if you have ever seen a little one try to communicate something that he wants to say and no one understands. Imagine a little one who understands and desires to discuss things beyond his years and he cannot. That would be frustrating, no? I've worked with many toddlers who could not communicate at their level of understanding and their tears were tears of frustration.

 

Yes, that can be true (not always), but it seems to me that has nothing to do with whether or not the child is exposed to letters or sight words.

 

My own dd was not very verbal but is an exceptional visual learner. I have photos of her trying to read things like the tags on the toys she got for her 1st Christmas. She adored sitting around looking at books, and we used to call her the "little Buddha" because she was so content and good-natured. Maybe she was weird.

[pookel]

I'm not lobbying for 2nd grade. I just want her in KG this year. If she were 6 days older, that's where she'd be without further discussion. I could go on about all the reasons she's ready, but the schools won't even talk to me because it would mean they'd have to make an extra effort, or as one principal said, "then we'd have to do it for everyone." ??

 

Oh, I'm sorry, I misread. And it's ridiculous that they won't even consider putting her in K. I don't think that's appropriate for all 4yos who are gifted readers, either, though. I mean, I think maturity level is a more important factor than academic readiness, at that age. A kid who couldn't read but who could sit still would do MUCH better in K than my own 4yo.

[Embassy]

Yes, that can be true (not always), but it seems to me that has nothing to do with whether or not the child is exposed to letters or sight words.

 

Yes, it isn't about exposure to letters or sight words, but reading. If an infant is able to read in meaningful contexts and not able to speak you are dealing with a vast difference in skill levels which can be frustrating to the child. Now if an infant is exposed to letters and memorizes a few words then you aren't dealing with the vast difference in skill levels.

[SKL]

Yes, it isn't about exposure to letters or sight words, but reading. If an infant is able to read in meaningful contexts and not able to speak you are dealing with a vast difference in skill levels which can be frustrating to the child. Now if an infant is exposed to letters and memorizes a few words then you aren't dealing with the vast difference in skill levels.

 

Still not sure how this is any worse than being able to understand what is heard but unable to speak. And also, I don't think anyone said their infant was reading in meaningful contexts, such as being able to read a picture book, but just playing with words. I think that level of actual reading begins later, when most kids are a little verbal. But I could be mistaken.

 

Frankly, who really knows what our kids understand and remember? I still can't figure out what my almost 5-year-old can and can't see. (And she's been to a couple of specialists.)

 

I recall a day shortly after I brought my kids home from their non-English-speaking birth country. My kid who was about 13mos (home 1 month) was lying in a funny position and someone said, "your daughter could scratch her head with her toes." Immediately my daughter scratched her head with her toes. Before this, I was wondering if she understood much of anything I said. There's no way to really test it at that age, particularly if they have "stuff" going on affecting their motivation to comply.

[Embassy]

Still not sure how this is any worse than being able to understand what is heard but unable to speak. And also, I don't think anyone said their infant was reading in meaningful contexts, such as being able to read a picture book, but just playing with words. I think that level of actual reading begins later, when most kids are a little verbal. But I could be mistaken.

 

I haven't been talking about being able to understand what is heard and the inability to speak. I have been referring to a little one having complex thoughts and ideas (as one would have if he could read) that they are unable to express. Also if you look back at what I first responded to I believe the poster was referring to combining sounds related to reading with an infant. I suggest then as I do now that if an infant is able to do that meaningfully then you have an infant with receptive skills far beyond expressive skills.

 

Before this, I was wondering if she understood much of anything I said. There's no way to really test it at that age, particularly if they have "stuff" going on affecting their motivation to comply.

 

Actually you can test receptive language skills on a newborn. A newborn's understanding of the world starts young :) I've tested many infants in my professional past as well. As a general rule of thumb if a child demonstrates understanding of a spoken word or phrase in three different contexts then you can say it is understood.

Edited September 6, 2011 by Wehomeschool

[quark]

Also if you look back at what I first responded to I believe the poster was referring to combining sounds related to reading with an infant. I suggest then as I do now that if an infant is able to do that meaningfully then you have an infant with receptive skills far beyond expressive skills.

 

I believe you could be referring to my post (Post#70)? We did have a child who was very easy to anger and cry and have meltdowns. There was a lot of pent up frustration in that little body and now that you mention it (I haven't been the best at making connections about this period in his life, I was so tired all the time!), I wonder if it could be because of the uneven stuff going on in his head. This disappeared almost instantly at age 3-ish...possibly that's when I think the skills could have caught up with each other? He was an early talker but I do suspect he could put things together in his head before that. I don't really know. I'm not sure I have the best memory either. But my main point wasn't that you could teach a child to read at 6 months old or younger. It was that you could begin to teach (maybe teach is not the word I should use) at that age if there was interest and the child was receptive to being surrounded with sounds and words and the loving attention of a mom holding him close reading to him and singing to him every night. We read to him from different sources, not all books meant for children. I do know for sure that the reading aloud and the word games did wonders to calm meltdowns.

 

I think what I really want to convey in this thread is this. There's so much negative feedback in the world at large towards parents who "work" with their kids at young ages to teach reading or math etc. There's a lot of judgement heaped on these parents. A lot of silly remarks like 'why bother, they will level out'. Or 'why are you doing this to your child, he needs to spend his time playing and being a kid'. 'Are you drilling your kid to put him in an elite school?'

 

Why that immediate assumption that the parent doesn't know what s/he is doing?

 

Yes, there are parents who do this for the wrong reasons. And there are parents who do this for the right ones. At least their gut is telling them it is the right thing to do because they see the thirst and wonder in their children. Does this mean their child is gifted? Not necessarily. But then again, who is to know what that child is truly capable of given the opportunity?

Edited September 6, 2011 by quark
accuracy

[Embassy]

I believe you could be referring to my post (Post#70)? We did have a child who was very easy to anger and cry and have meltdowns. There was a lot of pent up frustration in that little body and now that you mention it (I haven't been the best at making connections about this period in his life, I was so tired all the time!), I wonder if it could be because of the uneven stuff going on in his head. This disappeared almost instantly at age 3-ish...possibly that's when I think the skills could have caught up with each other? He was an early talker but I do suspect he could put things together in his head before that. I don't really know. I'm not sure I have the best memory either. But my main point wasn't that you could teach a child to read at 6 months old or younger. It was that you could begin to teach (maybe teach is not the word I should use) at that age if there was interest and the child was receptive to being surrounded with sounds and words and the loving attention of a mom holding him close reading to him and singing to him every night. We read to him from different sources, not all books meant for children. I do know for sure that the reading aloud and the word games did wonders to calm meltdowns.

 

I think you were dealing with the exception and not the norm. So when you said

What makes one assume that just because a child is not yet verbalizing his thoughts, he won't want to learn how to put sounds together or learn how written language works and discover all these wonderful, intricate patterns?

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