Article- Why reading ahead of your grade level isn’t necessarily a good thing.

[jennynd]

http://www.babble.com/kid/kids-school-learning/children-early-reading-age-childrens-books/

 

What do you think??

[khall]

Wonderful article, thanks for posting! I'm the children's librarian at our public library, and I see this played out all the time. Parents wrenching picture books out of their kids hands once they are in K or 1st and steering them towards the juvenile fiction, while loudly proclaiming (usually with nervous glances in my direction) that this is where books at "their level" are kept.

 

I bring home picture books all the time, and my kids (ages 9 & 11) adore them. They both read ahead of grade level, for those of you keeping track. :D

 

Something the article didn't mention is that many picture books have a higher reading level than many popular chapter books. Picture books by Patricia Polacco, Chris VanAllsburg, Robert Mcclosky, and many others are a higher reading level ( and have gorgeous pictures), than Junie B., Magic Tree House, Ready Freddy, and Horrible Harry.

 

I'll be interested to see what others think...

[3peasinapod]

Wonderful article, thanks for posting! I'm the children's librarian at our public library, and I see this played out all the time. Parents wrenching picture books out of their kids hands once they are in K or 1st and steering them towards the juvenile fiction, while loudly proclaiming (usually with nervous glances in my direction) that this is where books at "their level" are kept.

 

I bring home picture books all the time, and my kids (ages 9 & 11) adore them. They both read ahead of grade level, for those of you keeping track. :D

 

Something the article didn't mention is that many picture books have a higher reading level than many popular chapter books. Picture books by Patricia Polacco, Chris VanAllsburg, Robert Mcclosky, and many others are a higher reading level ( and have gorgeous pictures), than Junie B., Magic Tree House, Ready Freddy, and Horrible Harry.

 

I'll be interested to see what others think...

 

:iagree: Definitely. DD8 is constantly reading and re-reading many of our picture books. She reads to DD4 nearly every day, and she loves them. She gets upset if we read picture books without her. Heck, even I love the pictures in some of them! We always choose a certain type of picture book from the library, and they are exquisite.

 

I would rather them read lovely language in a picture book than to read a bunch of twaddle in a book "at their level."

[LisaKinVA]

I agree with the author here. Every book a child reads does not have to be at their reading level, or pushing them to higher levels of achievement. Every book I read isn't (Thank the good Lord!). While designing my son's transition history course, I purposely chose books across a wide reading level... including books from St. George and the Dragon to Shadow Hawk to the Children's Herodotus. He's got time to read more difficult books. His whole life. And, while I do choose some books to stretch all of my children a bit (usually genres they haven't really read, or possibly a book they would think of as girly or for a boy), their free reading time is theirs and theirs alone. Although I will insist that my oldest read something different in between the Star Wars fan fiction my dh has gotten him hooked on (more, so that dh can re-read and make sure nothing in the fan fiction is more than ds should be reading)

[boscopup]

My 7 year old reads around an 8th grade level, and he reads TONS of picture books. :D I assign him one "good chapter book" at a time (age appropriate content, and not necessarily up to his reading level), where he needs to read 1-3 chapters (depending on length), and he also likes to read things like SOTW and Apologia books straight through, but good old picture books are a huge part of his reading, and I intend to keep it that way until he decides he no longer wants to read them. I agree that the reading level is usually fairly high in those books.

 

He also reads Magic Tree House sometimes. Those are a great gateway chapter book, though I will never again read one out loud. :lol: He also reads plenty of Star Wars/Clone Wars chapter books. The "easier" chapter type Clone Wars books have a high reading level too, so I considered them "advanced twaddle" when he was just starting to read chapter books last year. He reads a variety of things, including Garfield books he found on his father's bookshelf. It's all good. ;)

 

I think sometimes we parents think we need to push the reading level at all times, but when you have a young child reading several grade levels ahead, you probably don't have to worry about them increasing reading level. They'll likely do it on their own when they're ready. So it's perfectly fine to let them read "fun stuff" at whatever reading level they want. My son enjoys most the stuff around a 4th grade level. It's easy for him, and he can focus on the content instead of how to read. The books I've picked for his "literature" range from 4th grade to 7th grade reading level. We actually got a couple of the 7th grade books out of the way already, and now are in the 4th grade level again. They're fun books, and I have no need to try to increase his reading level. It will increase on its own as he becomes ready.

[Mom22ns]

What a wonderful article. I completely agree. As a mom whose kids started reading early and read at very high levels all the way through, I've struggled with this issue. I've tried to find books that were age appropriate and at their reading level, but I chose age appropriate over reading level many times. Both my kids got ahead of age appropriate levels in the Harry Potter series and took breaks. My youngest is still working her way through.

 

I don't think my kids would love books like they do if I had forced them to read anywhere near their reading level all the way through.

[Sevilla]

My DS started reading at 4 and his steady diet of books are picture book - I love that he can enjoy a wide variety of topics. I read chapter books aloud with him as he follows along, but that is not what he reads on his own (he's just now starting to get into them on his own but still prefers them as a read aloud).

 

I just get excited about kids reading, frankly. And I love that our public library has a whole selection of more advanced picture books in the elementary kids section too!

[jennynd]

I am(was) the pushy type. That is why I post the article. This confirm what I feel this past year that I was wrong regarding "reading". boscopup is right. My DS is also 7 years old and reads 7-8th grade level. And there is really no need to push more. I backoff this year and choice from 4th-7th grad books with pictures instead of picking tougher book for him.

 

I feel DS do not like to read as much as he used to because MY bad approach, He used to have to have a stack of books as his pillow to sleep.... grrr... How I gonna fix it

Edited December 20, 2011 by jennynd

[Alice]

Totally agree. To me, the basic idea is a that a good book is a good book and can appeal across multi-ages. I sometimes hold things back from my kids that deal with topics that they aren't ready for but otherwise I let them read whatever. I hate the idea that a book is only for certain ages.

[choirfarm]

Well.. I do have my boys read adult books, but they are teenagers because teen books are a wasteland.

 

I guess I don't see this so much as the opposite. I was in 5th grade and tried to check out Huckleberry Finn and the librarian strongly urged me not to. You won't understand it.. GRRR. I checked it out and came back and put it on the desk and gave her an oral narration. Now did I get all the nuances? Probably not. Same year I ordered Jane Eyre through the scholastic book club. This is my all time favorite book and that poor copy has lost the first few pages of the intro. I read that book every year.

 

I hear many more parents and teachers not allowing kids saying, "Oh you aren't ready for that yet.. You won't understand it." Ok, maybe not but if THEY want to read it, let them!!! (I'm not talking about objectionable material.) And if it is too hard then they will give up. All 3 of my children love to read and are voracious readers. Picture books are great, but if THEY want more, let them.

 

Sorry, but my pet peeve.

[Soror]

I think the point is that moving beyond picture books isn't necessarily a step up, in skill level or complexity of story. I don't think the point is to go the other way and ban all the older books, but to use a little discretion and not push it. There are so many good books to read on all levels. Of course it doesn't all have to be about pushing the limits either, as pp said, sometimes we all just like to enjoy a simple book. My friends 4 yo was reading at 2nd grade and she was one of those that bought all the 2nd grade reader books for pre-k. It did not make a good match for his maturity level.

Edited December 20, 2011 by soror
spelling/grammar/etc

[choirfarm]

I think the point is though that what they move *up* to isn't necessarily better/more. As pp pointed out the language in picture books can be more complex and even beautiful(imo) in picture books especially when compared to those readers and a lot of kids chapter books. I wouldn't be telling mine no don't read this(ha if I ever get to that point) but it is more of the pushing into higher readers before they are ready. My friends 4 yo was reading at 2nd grade and she was one of those that bought all the 2nd grade reader books for pre-k. It did not make a good match for his maturity level.

 

That I get. To be honest, I've always just let my kids read what they want to once they get to a certain reading level. My youngest had vision issues and wasn't reading in 1st grade. She finally clicked in 2nd. I had to take turns reading out loud the simple, simple, simple, simple bob books or other things. After vision therapy, she picked up the fairy series books and wanted to read them. Some people probably looked at them as twaddle.. I didn't care. She wanted to read them. This same child now in 4th grade has read the entire Mandie series and now this year the entire boxcar children series and is making her way through Hardy Boys..reading 4 and 5 books at a time. I couldn't stop her if I wanted to... I'll let her read what she wants.

[butterflymommy]

As with academic readers, a lot of children's literature has been increasingly dumbed down over the years. I have second grade readers from the 1930s and 1980s respectively (I used to collect them). The 1930s reader has pages of text with a half-page picture every 4 to 5 pages. The 1980s reader has a a full page picture on every page, with few easy sentences underneath it.

 

Screening for content is a whole different issue than reading at grade level-- though once your child is reading fluently it's inevitable they're going to come across something disturbing.

 

We let the kids take anything out of the children's section and hope for the best-- my kids read so much I couldn't possibly screen everything they read.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

I think there is a lot of wisdom in considering not only the reading level but maturity level of a reader when picking books. The Chinaberry has a phrase: precocious readers, for those who can handle the upper level text but aren't ready for upper level discussions.

 

I would say a lot of this goes on in high school too, where books often have quite adul themes before the readers have the experiential scaffolding to deal with them. Or where books like Lord of the Flies are read because the characters are children even though the action is quite brutal.

[Mommy_of_4]

I agree with it. I did buy DS some "big boy" books for Christmas because he asked for them but he is welcome to put those aside and just read picture books. I don't care as long as he is reading something!

[Sebastian (a lady)]

I think what bugs me about both sides of this coin is the attitude that what matters in a book can be measured in sentence length and syllable count. That kids need to be held back from books because they aren't old enough or in the right grade. Or that they need to be pushed into ever more difficult books (per lexile or other measurement ) or the book "won't count".

 

When kids are consuming lots of books there is room for books that stretch as well as books that satisfy. And this can be happening via language or plot or imagery or other aspects of a novel.

 

Be a reading omnivore.

[beaners]

While I agree with most of the content in the article, the headline at the top of the page (not the article) is phrased for shock value. I disagree with the conclusion that children are reading too early.

[arghmatey]

One of my unwritten goals is to check out and read every picture book at our library to each of our children. We will never stop sharing them with our children.

 

I would never discourage picture books, regardless of my child's reading-level.

[arghmatey]

I think what bugs me about both sides of this coin is the attitude that what matters in a book can be measured in sentence length and syllable count. That kids need to be held back from books because they aren't old enough or in the right grade. Or that they need to be pushed into ever more difficult books (per lexile or other measurement ) or the book "won't count".

 

When kids are consuming lots of books there is room for books that stretch as well as books that satisfy. And this can be happening via language or plot or imagery or other aspects of a novel.

 

Be a reading omnivore.

 

Yes, a reading omnivore. That works for our family!

[...................]

One of best the highlights of my motherhood has been cuddling up and reading children's picture books. I would never take that away from my children, at any age. In fact, I would never take that away from myself.

[SailorMom]

Great article.

I still experience this myself. I get something entirely different from a book now than I would have (or did) from the same book when I was 20.

[luvnlattes]

Something the article didn't mention is that many picture books have a higher reading level than many popular chapter books. Picture books by Patricia Polacco, Chris VanAllsburg, Robert Mcclosky, and many others are a higher reading level ( and have gorgeous pictures), than Junie B., Magic Tree House, Ready Freddy, and Horrible Harry.

 

Good point! Off to read the article...

[boscopup]

While I agree with most of the content in the article, the headline at the top of the page (not the article) is phrased for shock value. I disagree with the conclusion that children are reading too early.

 

:iagree:I think the title of the article doesn't quite match the content of the article. She really didn't prove that reading ahead of grade level was a bad thing.

[Crimson Wife]

Well.. I do have my boys read adult books, but they are teenagers because teen books are a wasteland.

 

I guess I don't see this so much as the opposite. I was in 5th grade and tried to check out Huckleberry Finn and the librarian strongly urged me not to. You won't understand it.. GRRR. I checked it out and came back and put it on the desk and gave her an oral narration. Now did I get all the nuances? Probably not. Same year I ordered Jane Eyre through the scholastic book club. This is my all time favorite book and that poor copy has lost the first few pages of the intro. I read that book every year.

 

I hear many more parents and teachers not allowing kids saying, "Oh you aren't ready for that yet.. You won't understand it." Ok, maybe not but if THEY want to read it, let them!!! (I'm not talking about objectionable material.) And if it is too hard then they will give up. All 3 of my children love to read and are voracious readers. Picture books are great, but if THEY want more, let them.

 

Sorry, but my pet peeve.

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

I see FAR more adults discouraging their children from reading books that are "too hard" than "too easy". Not books that are too mature but titles that are perfectly fine for kids just more challenging. I always tell my advanced readers that assuming the content is appropriate, they are welcome to tackle any book. I do warn them that they'll probably get a lot more out of certain books if they wait until they're older (Jane Eyre is actually a recent oneI said this about), but they can go ahead and try it if they wish.

 

The only time I object to my 9 y.o. reading picture books is if she's nabbed them before the 6 y.o. or 2 y.o. has gotten a chance to look at them.

[Rivka]

Five in a Row has been really good for encouraging my advanced reader to continue on with picture books - not just the ones we study, but the many great books we get as "go-alongs." There are so many excellent picture books that are best suited for older children. I missed out on them as a child because I went straight to chapter books at around age 4, so I'm making sure that there are plenty in my daughter's book basket.

 

That said, I agree that the title of the article is misleading. True, there are books that you don't want an advanced reader to tackle too young because of subject matter... but that doesn't mean that the child shouldn't "read above grade level," it just means that books need to be chosen carefully.

[kiana]

That said, I agree that the title of the article is misleading. True, there are books that you don't want an advanced reader to tackle too young because of subject matter... but that doesn't mean that the child shouldn't "read above grade level," it just means that books need to be chosen carefully.

 

It also means, imo, that you shouldn't stop your child from reading books as free reading that are perfectly age-appropriate just because s/he can read higher level books.

 

I 100% agree. But then I still love picture books now. As a matter of fact I gave my adult brother a picture book for Christmas last year and he loved it.

[acurtis75]

While I agree with most of the content in the article, the headline at the top of the page (not the article) is phrased for shock value. I disagree with the conclusion that children are reading too early.

 

:iagree: The subtitle didn't seem to correlate to the content of the article. I agree with the points in the article but they really had nothing to do with whether or not the ability to read above grade-level is a good thing or not. A more appropriate subtitle might have been "Is forcing your child to read only at or above grade-level a good thing?.

 

I'm not really sure what level my daugher reads currently because I've never tested her but she can read anything we put in front of her. Sometimes she chooses to read books like Narnia, The Hobbit or Secret Garden and other times she chooses picture books. She's only 6 so at this point I "assign" a little non-fiction reading but other than that I let her choose. The only screening I do is for content. She reads way too much for me to screen everything but if it's a novel that cames out of the juvenile section I check common sense media and/or squeakycleanreviews.com before I give her the go-ahead.

[eloquacious]

What a wonderful article. I completely agree. As a mom whose kids started reading early and read at very high levels all the way through, I've struggled with this issue. I've tried to find books that were age appropriate and at their reading level, but I chose age appropriate over reading level many times. Both my kids got ahead of age appropriate levels in the Harry Potter series and took breaks. My youngest is still working her way through.

 

I don't think my kids would love books like they do if I had forced them to read anywhere near their reading level all the way through.

 

I think the challenge of the Harry Potter books, for anyone with children reading them now, rather than when they were released, is that no one wants to wait a full year to read the next one. Of course, the characters and situations do get much darker and increasingly complex, so pacing it appropriately is difficult. Then again, I was in college when I read them (and among those scolded by Harold Bloom for doing so!).

[Haiku]

Great article. I have always been suspicious of people who proudly announce that their six year old reads on a 10th grade level. I'm always thinking, "Why would a six year old want to read the same stuff a 16 year old reads?"

 

My dd9 can read very well, but I steer her toward things that are interesting and fun for a 9 year old . I don't want her reading stuff that's geared toward a teen. She still loves picture books.

 

I rarely read adult fiction. If I read fiction, I usually read children's fiction. I jsut put The Book of Three on reserve at the library because it was mentioned in the article. I'm currently re-reading The Moffats.

 

Tara

Edited December 20, 2011 by TaraTheLiberator

[TranquilMind]

Wonderful article, thanks for posting! I'm the children's librarian at our public library, and I see this played out all the time. Parents wrenching picture books out of their kids hands once they are in K or 1st and steering them towards the juvenile fiction, while loudly proclaiming (usually with nervous glances in my direction) that this is where books at "their level" are kept.

 

I bring home picture books all the time, and my kids (ages 9 & 11) adore them. They both read ahead of grade level, for those of you keeping track. :D

 

Something the article didn't mention is that many picture books have a higher reading level than many popular chapter books. Picture books by Patricia Polacco, Chris VanAllsburg, Robert Mcclosky, and many others are a higher reading level ( and have gorgeous pictures), than Junie B., Magic Tree House, Ready Freddy, and Horrible Harry.

 

I'll be interested to see what others think...

I agree that it is stupid to try to direct their reading only to the "appropriate level". My kids still reread favorite childhood books. One of them is 15! She probably reads 5-10 books a week outside of going to school full time. She began reading at age 4 and I never pushed her and still don't. She just scored higher than 99% of all sophomores on the writing part of the PSAT and close to that on the reading part. It obviously didn't hurt her.

[boscopup]

I rarely read adult fiction. If I read fiction, I usually read children's fiction. I jsut put The Book of Three on reserve at the library because it was mentioned in the article. I'm currently re-reading The Moffats.

 

I'm reading The Secret Garden right now. :D I never actually read the book as a child, and I'm enjoying it, though thinking about the ages of these kids and how they act compared to kids those ages today... it's a bit weird. :lol:

 

I also have been reading my son's lit books that I picked out (I bought them so we can spend as much time as we want on them). I had never read any of them. The Book of Three is in there. We'll get to that this spring, probably.

[eloquacious]

Great article. I have always been suspicious of people who proudly announce that their six year old reads on a 10th grade level. I'm always thinking, "Why would a six year old want to read the same stuff a 16 year old reads?"

 

When it means reading a "teen" book in the first grade, I would agree. However, historically, books aimed at younger children had a far higher reading level. In fact, I would argue that having your children read these classics - sometimes called the "good books" that precede the "great books," prepares them for reading truly challenging works when they are older. My son, for instance, is 3.5, and LOVES Pinocchio. He has had me read it (the original, unabridged version) to him, and I imagine that in a year or so he may be able to read it himself. I still fully expect him to get excited about the books on trucks and airplanes we've seen in the library, as well as picture books, but I also think he'll want to exercise his skills. Then I can bump up my read aloud level, too. As a former reading teacher, I know that there are easy books, for fun and confidence, books that are right around the proper level, for instruction, and those which challenge. The key is to provide (or guide) them towards a good mixture, without killing the spark.

 

Will I encourage my son to read challenging books? Certainly, just as we read them aloud ... but I will also be steering him to the beautifully-illustrated picture books. (Besides, we've got the perfect excuse, if one were needed: he is reading to his brother. I've already found him doing just that with the "baby" board books.)

[boscopup]

When it means reading a "teen" book in the first grade, I would agree. However, historically, books aimed at younger children had a far higher reading level. In fact, I would argue that having your children read these classics - sometimes called the "good books" that precede the "great books," prepares them for reading truly challenging works when they are older.

 

Also a "10th grade level book" may not be only appropriate for 10th graders on up. Take a look at the Sonlight read-alouds. Detectives in Togas is grade level 7.3, according to Scholastic Book Wizard. It's a read-aloud in Sonlight Core B, which is meant for 1st-3rd graders. The content is appropriate for 1st-3rd graders, but the actual words and sentences are a 7th grade reading level. So it's a good choice for a 1st-3rd grader that reads at a 7th grade level (and is why my son read it this summer at the beginning of 2nd grade).

 

Reading level and level of content are two completely different things. I wouldn't have my son reading about mature themes that are best left for high school, regardless of whether he's capable of reading the words on the page.

 

I really like looking at the Sonlight read-alouds for ideas of books at higher reading levels that are still appropriate for young children to read. And yes, the old classics are often more difficult in reading level because of the language used, and they're excellent for young children also.

 

I've never assumed that a 6 year old reading at a 10th grade level was reading books with content only appropriate for high schoolers.

[eloquacious]

Reading level and level of content are two completely different things. I wouldn't have my son reading about mature themes that are best left for high school, regardless of whether he's capable of reading the words on the page.

 

I really like looking at the Sonlight read-alouds for ideas of books at higher reading levels that are still appropriate for young children to read.

 

Yes, part of our after-schooling strategy for my son will be to read the Sonlight read-alouds alongside his studies at the classical charter school. I love their selections, too!

[staceyobu]

Funny, it never would have occurred to me to tell a child they are too old for certain books. I might make them read something different for "school", but they are free to appreciate whatever they like on their own time. Perhaps it is because we still have a toddler, so I have to make sure that we have easy picture books in the house for her.

 

I will say that picture books do often have really complex vocabulary. They are meant to be read aloud, so the reading level doesn't have to be for a child. However, early chapter books are meant to be read by the child, so the level must be kept easier.

[waa510]

Thanks so much for posting this. You saved me from posting a thread about how to encourage your kid to read more books on their actual reading level :blushing:. As usual, I wasn't looking at the big picture. Thanks for reeling me in :001_smile:.

[ScoutTN]

[quote name=Sebastian (a lady)

Be a reading omnivore.[/quote]

 

:iagree::iagree:

 

Good article, thanks for posting! :)

[leeannpal]

Wonderful article, thanks for posting! I'm the children's librarian at our public library, and I see this played out all the time. Parents wrenching picture books out of their kids hands once they are in K or 1st and steering them towards the juvenile fiction, while loudly proclaiming (usually with nervous glances in my direction) that this is where books at "their level" are kept.

 

I bring home picture books all the time, and my kids (ages 9 & 11) adore them. They both read ahead of grade level, for those of you keeping track. :D

 

Something the article didn't mention is that many picture books have a higher reading level than many popular chapter books. Picture books by Patricia Polacco, Chris VanAllsburg, Robert Mcclosky, and many others are a higher reading level ( and have gorgeous pictures), than Junie B., Magic Tree House, Ready Freddy, and Horrible Harry.

 

I'll be interested to see what others think...

 

:iagree:I really don't understand why reading is a competition. Kids should be able to enjoy the books they read. I still like quality picture books myself.

[Beth in SW WA]

I do warn them that they'll probably get a lot more out of certain books if they wait until they're older (Jane Eyre is actually a recent oneI said this about), but they can go ahead and try it if they wish.

 

.

 

Dd8 would tell you her favorite book is Jane Eyre. In Nov she read the original and the graphic novel and watched 3 versions of the movie. She even gave a 5-min presentation on the book at CC. I know she missed the adult themes but she devoured the book. She is rereading Little Women now and just loves it. I know she'll peel back more layers of these books after she understands complex relationships and romance. She is reading along with the audiobook of Tom Sawyer. She can recite huge sections of chapter 5. She is befuddled as to Tom's disdain of Sunday school.

 

Today she is huddled over our Calvin & Hobbes collection. Calvin is surely a worse influence than Edward Rochester on her fragile young mind.:001_smile:

 

I vote for letting kids read books as their interest dictates.

[Aspasia]

I love this article! I think too often we focus on the difficulty of reading material rather than its content. Reading isn't just about decoding, it's also about comprehending and experiencing. The content of picture books can be superior in a number of ways. First of all, its age appropriate, meaning tht it is about things kids can relate to and understand or learn from. Secondly, i recently read a similar article that pointed out that many picture books present a broader range of vocabulary in their short 32 pages than some of those Junie B. Jones type books present in an entire chapter book! Third, the content of picture books can really be quite sophisticated on an emotional and even literary level. Seriously, some of these picture books are deep! They give a child a lot to think about and a lot to talk about. Many chapter books are only good for sustained reading practice, which is fine, but it doesnt represent intelligence or excellence or sophistication.

[WTMCassandra]

Quality literature transcends form (picture book, chapter book) and reading level.

 

My young people still will pick up a picture book now and then, just as readily as they will browse Bartlett's Quotations looking for juuuust the right quotation to open a literary analysis essay. I had planned to read only Agamemnon, the first of the Aeschylus plays, but they asked to read the next one, Libation Bearers, as well. I say that not to brag but to show you the range of difficulty. They move up and down the spectrum freely.

[jennynd]

If you tell me this last year. I will tell you you full of BC.. Growing up, my education system(Taiwan) Do not have literature per se. So, reading level is really new to me when I have my 1st. When he taught himself how to read before he turn 2, I THOUGHT, that's it. the reading level. decoding level... Like I said earlier. He used to love to read, he used to have to sleep with books. I think I killed it. We are doing a lot better than the pervious years. I let him stay what he is comfortable with and we are not pushing anymore. He focus on he LIKE the book, he UNDERSTAND the book, rather than what he CAN read.

I asked myself what is the goal for teaching kids to read. Certainly not for me to brag that my son can read 8th grade level when he is 7 yo. The goal is he likes the book, He enjoy the book... Right now grade 5 book seem fit the bill. There are plenty of book in that level and he loves to read picture book to his little sister. I am hoping one day, I will get the boy who NEED to sleep with the book back... Also, My dd3 HAS to sleep with books now. I am cautious not to make same mistake again.

Edited December 21, 2011 by jennynd

[NittanyJen]

Funny that I saw this thread just after my husband and I were debating whether to suggest to DS10 that he read Hunger Games.

 

I held off, saying not for a couple of years. He is a very advanced reader. His vocabulary and comprehension are "off the charts." We enjoy reading a lot of good literature together.

 

However, I felt that the allegory in Hunger Games would go over his head still, and the intensity of the personal relationship stressors would be a lot for him. Why not give him a couple more years to grow up naturally first? This article reinforced the feeling we made a good decision. I wouldn't stop him if he picked it up, but I'm not putting it out for him at this time.

 

And I'd he wants to read Chester Comix or Kate McMullin alongside the Aeneid, more power to him.

[In the Rain]

Wonderful article, thanks for posting! I'm the children's librarian at our public library, and I see this played out all the time. Parents wrenching picture books out of their kids hands once they are in K or 1st and steering them towards the juvenile fiction, while loudly proclaiming (usually with nervous glances in my direction) that this is where books at "their level" are kept.

 

I bring home picture books all the time, and my kids (ages 9 & 11) adore them. They both read ahead of grade level, for those of you keeping track. :D

 

Something the article didn't mention is that many picture books have a higher reading level than many popular chapter books. Picture books by Patricia Polacco, Chris VanAllsburg, Robert Mcclosky, and many others are a higher reading level ( and have gorgeous pictures), than Junie B., Magic Tree House, Ready Freddy, and Horrible Harry.

 

I'll be interested to see what others think...

:iagree: I agree with all of this, except of course, the part about being a children's librarian. :D

[EKS]

What's interesting to note is that a lot of picture books are written on a 5th-6th grade level as they are intended for adults to read aloud to children.

[WeeBeaks]

I guess I'm the lone dissenter. I didn't really disagree so much with the content, but honestly she came off to me just as preachy as those who try to push their kids to higher reading level books. Some kids are just not that into the typical picture book anymore.

 

I hear in my circles more parents lamenting trying to find decent content books that their kids want to read than lamenting them choosing picture books? Classics of course often fill that niche, but you even run out of those eventually.

 

I agree 100% some "picture books" are excellent (and some are just as much twaddle as some paperback teen series), and we do use them and love them at all ages. But my oldest reader doesn't want a diet of all picture books either. He wants longer stories, several hundred pages of text, to really delve into a story. So he reads "above grade level" books, and understands them, both vocabulary and theme. I do avoid some books due to theme with him.

 

Maybe I'm just in a negative mood. I didn't think the article was all that good and came off very snobbish. We don't need to careen from one side of the reading road (*my* child reads Shakespeare or whatever) to the other (looking down on parents who do let their kids read higher level books). But I guess middle of the road is too boring, with not enough catchy titles to be interesting, huh? :tongue_smilie:

[Julie Smith]

I guess I'm the lone dissenter. I didn't really disagree so much with the content, but honestly she came off to me just as preachy as those who try to push their kids to higher reading level books. Some kids are just not that into the typical picture book anymore.

 

I hear in my circles more parents lamenting trying to find decent content books that their kids want to read than lamenting them choosing picture books? Classics of course often fill that niche, but you even run out of those eventually.

 

I agree 100% some "picture books" are excellent (and some are just as much twaddle as some paperback teen series), and we do use them and love them at all ages. But my oldest reader doesn't want a diet of all picture books either. He wants longer stories, several hundred pages of text, to really delve into a story. So he reads "above grade level" books, and understands them, both vocabulary and theme. I do avoid some books due to theme with him.

 

Maybe I'm just in a negative mood. I didn't think the article was all that good and came off very snobbish. We don't need to careen from one side of the reading road (*my* child reads Shakespeare or whatever) to the other (looking down on parents who do let their kids read higher level books). But I guess middle of the road is too boring, with not enough catchy titles to be interesting, huh? :tongue_smilie:

 

Thank you for putting into words how I felt about the article. :)

[WeeBeaks]

Funny that I saw this thread just after my husband and I were debating whether to suggest to DS10 that he read Hunger Games.

 

 

OT, but we held off on this one too. My 9yo son loves sci-fi, but that has a theme that IMHO can be scary to a kid. I'm sure he will read and love it as a teen.

[AdventureMoms]

I guess I'm the lone dissenter. I didn't really disagree so much with the content, but honestly she came off to me just as preachy as those who try to push their kids to higher reading level books. Some kids are just not that into the typical picture book anymore.

 

I hear in my circles more parents lamenting trying to find decent content books that their kids want to read than lamenting them choosing picture books? Classics of course often fill that niche, but you even run out of those eventually.

 

I agree 100% some "picture books" are excellent (and some are just as much twaddle as some paperback teen series), and we do use them and love them at all ages. But my oldest reader doesn't want a diet of all picture books either. He wants longer stories, several hundred pages of text, to really delve into a story. So he reads "above grade level" books, and understands them, both vocabulary and theme. I do avoid some books due to theme with him.

 

Maybe I'm just in a negative mood. I didn't think the article was all that good and came off very snobbish. We don't need to careen from one side of the reading road (*my* child reads Shakespeare or whatever) to the other (looking down on parents who do let their kids read higher level books). But I guess middle of the road is too boring, with not enough catchy titles to be interesting, huh? :tongue_smilie:

 

Not alone, no. I don't have any readers yet (my 3.5yo is close, but not ready). I found the tone annoying though. We're still solidly in picture-book land, but I've been upgrading DD's book collection lately to include more "advanced" picture books. I've had a few people suggest that I shouldn't "push", etc, and let her just enjoy the easier books.

 

The thing is I'm not pushing. She LOVES a longer, more complex, more in-depth story. The one sentence per page books often just don't do it for her anymore. Her favorite books include Beatrix Potter (very sparsely illustrated) and Charlotte's Web. She also enjoys little board books and Sandra Boynton. I'm happy to read her whichever books she wants at this phase. She has two little brothers right behind her, so I'm not getting rid of the board books anytime soon, but I'm not going to sit around and try to convince her that we should be reading "Goodnight Moon" when she wants the Tale of Benjamin Button.

 

I was an early reader and an advanced one from an early age. My mother would have had a mutiny on her hands if she had tried to push me toward reading that was "age appropriate", so I wouldn't encounter complex themes before I was "ready" for them. My kids will be welcome to more advanced reading (screened for content that would be traumatizing while they're little, of course) as they are ready for it.

 

However, I won't take away their picture books either. I still like picture books, and I've been reading adult literature since I was 10.

[musicianmom]

Sometimes it's just logistics. A longer book keeps the kid occupied longer and is easier to keep up with than a stack of picture books.