Forge ahead or stop and wait?

[littlebylittle]

Philosophy #1: You want your child to begin formal education early, want them to be an early reader. You plug away. There are challenges, sometimes brick walls, the progress 'feels' slow(er) sometimes, and sometimes you come across what seems like inability on your child's part. Even though they are learning, it seems slow. You thought your child was ready but they don't seem to be grasping the material as quickly as you thought.

 

Philosophy #2: You wait until your child is at the actual 'appropriate' age for Kindergarten before you start any 'formal' learning, before any kind of phonics or math, etc. Your child seems to pick up on things quickly but things almost seem too easy. You wonder if you should even bother with what you think is the age-appropriate material and actually seek something more advanced for the age.

 

Either "philosophy" you choose, your child might end up working on more advanced material than what is considered 'age-appropriate' (example: reading well age 3 because you started early. Tough road at first. Or taking the 'easy road' at first and starting your child later than normal or even on time with public school kids, and giving harder material at that point?) If you have an early learner but the going is slow, do you just stop and wait until they're the 'normal age'? Do you stop until you feel they are 'ready' or forge ahead because you think no matter how old they are, there will be tough spots, brick walls and tears? There is no 'normal age' with learning, just guidelines and averages, but what are your thoughts on those philosophies?

[Pretty in Pink]

Either "philosophy" you choose, your child might end up working on more advanced material than what is considered 'age-appropriate' (example: reading well age 3 because you started early. Tough road at first. Or taking the 'easy road' at first and starting your child later than normal or even on time with public school kids, and giving harder material at that point?) My experience is that kids don't read early because you push early, they read when they are ready, when reading clicks for them. Never before. It's kind of like potty training in that regard: even though I know people swear by various training techniques my own experience tells me that kids use the potty regularly and without prompting when they are darn good and ready and not a day before. If you have an early learner but the going is slow, do you just stop and wait until they're the 'normal age'? Yes. Do you stop until you feel they are 'ready' or forge ahead because you think no matter how old they are, there will be tough spots, brick walls and tears? Nope. I pushed early learning with my eldest when he really wasn't ready. It is one of the things I regret having done, WRT homeschooling. There is no 'normal age' with learning, just guidelines and averages, but what are your thoughts on those philosophies?

 

I ascribe to the second philosophy, obviously. I see a lot of first-time homeschoolers who are so eager to begin formal schooling with 3 or 4 year olds (sometimes even 2 year olds!) and I always advise against it when asked. There are lots of threads on this topic if you are up for some forum searching.

[MeghanL]

Philosophy 3: Start schooling subjects when there is an interest, with adding the "required" subjects when age appropriate. Slow down when you need to and forge ahead when things are going fine. Don't worry about "grades" or "levels" and get yearly testing for your own peace of mind that there are no significant gaps and child is where they "should" be (as required by law).

[Leav97]

Philosophy #3: You wait until your child is a year or 2 older than the 'appropriate' age for Kindergarten before you start any 'formal' learning, before any kind of phonics or math, etc. Your child is at different levels in different areas of learning. You meet the child at their level.

 

I have a second grader that would be a first grader if she were in PS. When she was 5 we played with M&Ms, did mazes and dot-to-dots, and started working a little on handwriting. When she turned 6 we started working on 1st grade math and learning to read. Once math and reading were off the ground we added in science and history. She's now 7 and on grade level for a second grader.

[Pretty in Pink]

I have a second grader that would be a first grader if she were in PS. When she was 5 we played with M&Ms, did mazes and dot-to-dots, and started working a little on handwriting. When she turned 6 we started working on 1st grade math and learning to read. Once math and reading were off the ground we added in science and history. She's now 7 and on grade level for a second grader.

 

This is what we do, too. I don't start formal work until age 6 (unless they are asking for something, and then I give them HWOT and ETC and we work on those when they ask to).

 

I didn't think about that when I posted my response. I was thinking about what I do with my kids when they are 6, not 5.

[regentrude]

I strongly believe in delayed formal academics until about age 6, because I have not seen data that show that all the effort that goes into a push for early academics translates into a measurable advantage after several years. (For example, coming from Germany where kids do not begin half-day school until age 6 or 7, I find full day school at age 5 in the US unreasonably early, and, looking at 10 or 11 year olds, the early start does not seem to have produced a higher learning outcome.)

 

This said, I would never prevent my child from learning by themselves what they are ready for. Even if I do not believe in formal reading instruction for 4 year olds, had my kids decided they wanted to learn how to read I would have let them teach themselves and provided them with books. (I taught myself to read before school.)

 

I personally think that there is a lot children are learning before they are starting formal academics. We have always traveled and exposed them to a variety of experiences, but both started formal schooling at age 5 in public K. My DD was the only kid who did not know her abc's at the beginning of K (not having gone through a formal preschool program) - yet she was the first in her class to read fluently. It came effortless. And she very quickly performed several grades ahead of her age level.

[SKL]

I do feel that some challenge is desireable beginning around 4-5. It doesn't have to be reading, but that can be something to try and see if it clicks. Could be music, languages, or puzzles. Or all of the above.

 

I do believe that there are windows of opportunity that can be missed if one is too rigid about this or that philosophy.

 

I have to say that with one of my kids, I didn't think she'd be ready for what awaited her in KG (they have to learn 10 sight words per week). I figured we'd give it an honest try, and if it didn't click, oh well. But she did quite well and is now reading better than I imagined possible for her at this age. I'm so glad I encouraged her.

 

I've also heard of some research proving that challenging kids as opposed to "the gift of time" has long-term benefits. I'm sure there are exceptions as all kids are different.

[happyhomemaker25]

I tend to be more relaxed in the early years. With my K'er I do phonics maybe 3x a week and wait for him to get it. Trust me, pushing this kid would get me no where. My baby on the other hand loves, loves, loves letters. We did what SWB suggested andsang the ABC song to her at diaper changes. We have always made books available to her. We read every day even when she was an infant. She truly loves letters. She can recognize most letters at 19m and we've been singing songs and reciting poems to learn basic sounds. I do think she'll be an early reader but not because we forced it on her. We just made it available. It helps my younger son, also. He loves teaching his baby sister the sounds and our phonics lessons have been so much easier. :)

We do start more formal schooling around 6, but it's still only about a half hour to an hour and it's at their pace. Around 3rd grade when I have a more solid phonics and math foundation I push a little harder. It seems to be working.

[Teachin'Mine]

Philosophy 3: Start schooling subjects when there is an interest, with adding the "required" subjects when age appropriate. Slow down when you need to and forge ahead when things are going fine. Don't worry about "grades" or "levels" and get yearly testing for your own peace of mind that there are no significant gaps and child is where they "should" be (as required by law).

 

I agree with this philosophy. :)

[WeeBeaks]

Depends on the child. With one child I did start at 3 after he taught himself to begin to read. Writing was hard though and we delayed that until 6 or so mostly. If he wasn't stimulated enough mentally he got into some major trouble, in fact went looking for something more interesting than those Legos and such ... He is almost 10 now and still charging ahead at an incredible rate, nowhere the burnout people warned me about. He still wants more, more and more as he heads into logic stage with his question types.

 

With another of my children he is 6 is still not terribly interested. We do a little. I push a little bit outside his comfort zone (which would be zero), but he is still probably doing K work in a lot of areas. That is okay. He'll catch up later on. I pushed a bit on books and now he has some he likes, some he still doesn't and we dropped those. Exposure is the name of the game for us in terms of his learning. I push to give exposure and then he decides that maybe he does like something after all or maybe doesn't. I occasionally see a flicker of interest on certain subjects I introduce. Love that! :) We'll get there, slowly.

 

Child #3 is somewhere in the middle so far. She asked to start reading practice. We do a lesson when she asks. She is 4. She likes some workbook stuff, some she doesn't. She likes to be at the table with her brothers. :D

 

I think as long as you are pretty much listening to your kids' inclinations in the early years, you are going to be okay no matter what this site or anyone else things. Whether that means you are doing 100 things at age 2 or nothing at 5 is more dependent on the child and you.

[rwjx2khsmj]

Philosophy #3: You wait until your child is a year or 2 older than the 'appropriate' age for Kindergarten before you start any 'formal' learning, before any kind of phonics or math, etc. Your child is at different levels in different areas of learning. You meet the child at their level.

 

I have a second grader that would be a first grader if she were in PS. When she was 5 we played with M&Ms, did mazes and dot-to-dots, and started working a little on handwriting. When she turned 6 we started working on 1st grade math and learning to read. Once math and reading were off the ground we added in science and history. She's now 7 and on grade level for a second grader.

:iagree:

My dd7 had lots of learning materials to play with from the time she was born. When we began homeschooling three years ago I was busy figuring out what to do with her older siblings so keeping her occupied while I was schooling the others was my priority. She had magnetic letters, wipe off puzzles and mats, lacing cards, busy bugs, etc. Again, lots to keep her busy. We spent time each day reading but nothing formal.

 

Last year, shortly after she turned six, she became really interested in money and time when the older dc were reviewing those concepts. From that she became more interested in math. She also began to see benefits in learning to read. We worked at her pace and with her interests.

 

We did testing last spring and while I didn't consider her reading to be "at grade level" her scores indicated she was doing fine. Over the summer, while we weren't doing any formal lessons, her reading took off. She finished OPGTTR in a few months at the beginning of the year and is now reading anything she chooses.

 

Giving her the space and time to love learning and want to learn has made school with her so enjoyable. I can't even imagine how miserable we would both be if I'd spent two or three years trying to make her learn what came easily by just waiting until she was ready.

[Embassy]

I pretty much identify with #2. My third child has challenged me with that philosophy though. I started schooling her this month and she isn't even 4 yet. My 3 year old was showing some behaviors that I interpreted to mean that she needed structure and challenge. It has been only 2 weeks, but so far it looks like it was a very good move for her. She is content now.:thumbup: She was restless, controlling, needing constant interaction, and becoming very rigid with her play skills. More playtime with different people didn't help. I still agree with #2, but think that it may not always be the best choice for every kid out there.

[littlebylittle]

Thanks for your input, folks! Like a previous poster, my oldest son (5) really likes, wants, needs structure and for him the early learning has been a really great choice for him. I started this thread because someone I know says to start much later, especially if they show the slightest amount of "I don't really want to do this" mentality. To me, all kids at one point or another will exhibit this. We have great days where my son is totally excited to get started, learn, he's thrilled when things progress for him. There are other days where it's like pulling teeth to help him finish one concept in math or phonics. My 2nd born is a fast learner a good listener and she is only 3.5. She picks up on things faster than the oldest sometimes. She wants to learn, asks to do stuff with me but I don't sit with her each day to do something... just when she feels like it mostly. Anyways, it is interesting to hear other approaches on the whole when to start debate.

[angela in ohio]

None of the above. Start a (very) slow and (very) gradual increase in "sitting and concentrating on what mom says" from a very young age, work informally on math and reading skills from a very young age, but do less 'formal' work even at K and 1 than most.

[Parrothead]

With dd it has always been a matter of waiting until she was ready. We tried reading at 3.11 years. She wasn't grasping it. No biggie. I closed the book and moved on to something else. I opened the book again at 4.6 years and she picked it up quickly and easily.

 

Math had to wait until she was 6, almost 7. But in that one year she did both Alpha and Beta from MUS.

 

She is now 12.3 doing 8th grade literature, pre-algebra, 7th grade work in everything else but spelling which is book 6.

 

So I say whichever philosophy says "meet them where they are." Otherwise it is like Impish's siggy line about how teaching pigs to fly only frustrates the pigs and makes one nutso.

[Bluegoat]

I pretty much follow #2.

 

I pretty much identify with #2. My third child has challenged me with that philosophy though. I started schooling her this month and she isn't even 4 yet. My 3 year old was showing some behaviors that I interpreted to mean that she needed structure and challenge. It has been only 2 weeks, but so far it looks like it was a very good move for her. She is content now.:thumbup: She was restless, controlling, needing constant interaction, and becoming very rigid with her play skills. More playtime with different people didn't help. I still agree with #2, but think that it may not always be the best choice for every kid out there.

 

I think it's worthwhile to keep in mind though that more structure and challenge doesn't have to mean academic work - a child could want the former without being ready for the latter.

[TheReader]

Philosophy 3: Start schooling subjects when there is an interest, with adding the "required" subjects when age appropriate. Slow down when you need to and forge ahead when things are going fine. Don't worry about "grades" or "levels" and get yearly testing for your own peace of mind that there are no significant gaps and child is where they "should" be (as required by law).

 

This.

 

with three boys I've done early, "on-time" and "late" but all worked around this philosophy here.

 

my oldest at 3 was arguing the pronounciation of/spelling of his brother's name because 3 yr old knew that A sounds like the a in apple, yet brother's name has an a like in hay. When I spelled brother's name to 3 yo son, he told me that my way forced a mispronunciatioon of his brother's name and would I please tell him the REAL way to spell his brother's name. We started phonics, reading, etc. at that point and by the time he was K age (adding in a late birthday that makes him miss the cut-off), he was reading between a 3rd/4th grade level and doing math between a 2nd/3rd grade level.

 

My middle son we started phonics work at K age and he stuck at decoding simple cvc words for a year or so, and then one day around age 6.5 he was reading fluently and now at 11 he'll read anything you hand him and often has 3 or 4 books going at once. Again, I followed his lead, neither pushing ahead early nor ramping things up once it started seeming easy.

 

My youngest is most decidedly "late". He turns 7 next week and is still not decoding cvc words. But rather than having spent the past 2 yrs forcing and fighting and pushing and making reading a thing to be dreaded, I've occassionally offered/exposed him to games, activities, instruction to test the waters, only going in deeper as he's shown readiness and willingness. Same with math.

 

And so even though if you looked at my 3 boys and when they started reading, etc. you might think I had different philosophies for each, but no. It all boils down (for me) to "give them what they're ready for, when they're ready." Too much, too soon and you risk them hating it and killing the love of learning; too little, too late and you risk them bored and hating it and lost the love of learning.

 

I try to balance and just dodge the questions when parents/relatives ask why the youngest isn't reading yet, because really, once he's applying to college, no one will ever ask him what age he was when he first read a book.

[SailorMom]

I'm all for letting kids have a relaxed, fun childhood. I see no reason to push them ahead at any age. A kid pushed in K ends up pretty much in the same place as a kid not pushed in K by the time they are in 5th grade.

I also have a sort of Waldorf mentality - although I did start teaching reading earlier than they believe is appropriate. I think kids younger than 8 learn best playing with blocks, working with play doh and measuring cups, etc.

This is regardless of whether they are gifted, normal, or LD.

[RoundAbout]

Philosophy 3: Start schooling subjects when there is an interest, with adding the "required" subjects when age appropriate. Slow down when you need to and forge ahead when things are going fine. Don't worry about "grades" or "levels" and get yearly testing for your own peace of mind that there are no significant gaps and child is where they "should" be (as required by law).

 

:iagree:

 

Excellent advice. I started phonics lessons with my son at 4 because he was starting to become a self-taught reader but was doing a ton of guessing. I thought it was better to have a strong foundation and it seemed pointless to wait another full year based on an arbitrary state cut-off date. We've added math and handwriting based on interest ("I want to write a note to Grandma") but we keep everything short and sweet and fun so both the academics and presentation are age appropriate.

[Embassy]

I pretty much follow #2.

 

 

 

I think it's worthwhile to keep in mind though that more structure and challenge doesn't have to mean academic work - a child could want the former without being ready for the latter.

 

:iagree: It doesn't seem to be the case with my kid though.