Early Learning... What say you?

[LibraryLover]

Repeter. Sorry.

Edited March 13, 2012 by LibraryLover

[LibraryLover]

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

Yes, this. Well, except for the "my older kids" part. I've only got one kid! :D

 

astrid

 

:) I did mean read/not read. :)

[ktgrok]

OP, your kid has nothing on mine. Mine was doing calculus by 9 months. Yup...totally normal and every kid could do it.

 

Please. Seriously, my daughter couldn't SAY more than 1 or 2 words at that age, let alone read words. Gimme a break.

[stripe]

:confused: not here for the critics, just opinions pls:D

 

As Henry Ford said, "Any customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black."

 

Given the billboards for adult bookstores and gentlemen's clubs I seem to always be driving past (there's one RIGHT BY the airport, thank you), knowing how to read is not always a case of earlier is better. Sometimes I am glad for ignorance on their part.

 

I have decided what I want most in life is my kids to be nice people. Being cute is fine, being smart is great, but I want decent people.

[beaners]

 

Given the billboards for adult bookstores and gentlemen's clubs I seem to always be driving past (there's one RIGHT BY the airport, thank you), knowing how to read is not always a case of earlier is better. Sometimes I am glad for ignorance on their part.

 

 

This is the part of every trip where my livestock-noticing skills go into overdrive.

[stripe]

Yeah, my son apparently perked up when driving past one named Club Venus. I think he thought it was for young astronomers. Sigh. My husband had to pull one of those, "Look over there!" moves.

[Ellie]

Thanks for all the posts... Not surprised by the range of responses either. :bigear: like I said I'm a horrible optimist so forgive me my hopes of an improved education system.I also believe that the public schools struggle with the one size fits all approach. In fact I'm more focused on what parents are doing at home before formal schooling begins more than what teachers are doing at school when it comes to early learning. The idea is, I agree, a little Utopian in nature, but can't blame a girl for looking at the glass half full ;) whatever you're doing, keep on keeping on. :) can't wait to see what the future has in store for these kiddos!

I'm sort of puzzled as to why you even bring up your hopes for an "improved education system" on a forum populated by homeschoolers, who have already found their "improved education system" by getting out of public school.

 

And you're following in the footsteps of such well-known former public schools folks as John Holt and John Taylor Gatto. John Holt, especially, began by hoping he could have a positive influence on public schools by writing books such as "How Children Learn" and "How Children Fail"...which is how he eventually came to "Teach Your Own." That's what we're doing.

[susankenny]

I'll be honest. I find teaching a baby to read ridiculously unnecessary. When your child is 5 and starting kindergarten (assuming you don't homeschool) you are going to b*tch up a storm about the academic standards for that age. And more and more the standards continue to lower in PS systems, expecting children to read even younger and younger. And people like my nephew become casualties and have to wear labels because something must be wrong with "them" for not reading sooner.

 

 

Susan

[Rivka]

:iagree: This original post has a really odd tone that says troll but who really knows.

 

I wouldn't say "troll" so much as "shill." I'm sure she has many excellent early-learning products which she would be happy to recommend.

 

When I hear people boast about some feat of academic memorization which they have taught to their toddler, I remember one of my college professors, who taught pigeons to distinguish between Bach and Stravinsky. (Really!)

 

I think that many people do underestimate the amount that very young children can memorize through classical conditioning techniques... and many others overestimate the value of memorizing information that way.

 

It's unlikely to confer any lasting advantage over children from equally advantaged backgrounds and genetics, but I well remember that it's hard to take the long view when your child is only 16 months old.

[Pamela H in Texas]

Well, I have my pages set to 30 pages each and see that this thread has 3 pages. So I guess I'm a bit late to the party (and I'm going to bed so won't be staying long either).

 

I absolutely believe in early childhood education as well as that babies and toddlers can enjoy reading, math, etc. I believe that early learning doesn't detract from "developmentally appropriate" learning. Kids can still be "just kids" and do early reading, baby signs, etc. I also believe that more children could be reading as toddlers if given the chance and that there are benefits to it. I also believe there are people who shouldn't do it. I think it can be done inappropriately. I think we absolutely must be mindful of their time and lives. And I don't think it is necessary. I don't believe EVERY child will learn everything we could put in front of them. I also believe there is no way it would cure everything wrong with education in this country.

 

Basically, I believe a different balance is very possible and we, if we got a baby, would live by that different balance (and yet, not go so far as iahp.org or anything).

Edited March 13, 2012 by 2J5M9K

[GingerPoppy]

I'll be honest. I find teaching a baby to read ridiculously unnecessary. When your child is 5 and starting kindergarten (assuming you don't homeschool) you are going to b*tch up a storm about the academic standards for that age. And more and more the standards continue to lower in PS systems, expecting children to read even younger and younger. And people like my nephew become casualties and have to wear labels because something must be wrong with "them" for not reading sooner.

 

 

Susan

:iagree: Stop the insanity! Just because some kids can learn to read early, doesn't mean all of them can or should. I agree there are casualties, and it's a shame.

[momtoamiracle]

:iagree: Stop the insanity! Just because some kids can learn to read early, doesn't mean all of them can or should. I agree there are casualties, and it's a shame.

 

 

:iagree:as well. My son could identify letters and colors by pointing at 16months but he didn't speak a word until age 3. No issues, just didn't want to.

 

 

There are lots of things kids can learn, they don't have to learn to read at age two. Just exploring the world around them does amazing things for their little brains. Goodness, I didn't learn to read until I was age six. When I started school in 1972 no one expected you to read before then. And look at all the people that have done very well before and since then. Pushing children if they aren't ready or willing will not have good results. It all depends upon the child.:auto:

[meggie]

I am a huge fan of early learning. Kids that age learn a lot. To me, reading at 16 months is more akin to a parlor trick that any other 16 month old could do. A very advanced parlor trick. Right now my baby girl likes to bounce on command. It's very cute.

 

I do think that all babies are geniuses! I mean, they go from laying there to looking at their hand to grabbing things with their hand to putting those things in their mouth to using a pincer grasp etc. It's a lot to learn in a short amount of time. However, you're assuming that all children will be geniuses in the same way. On this board, I have heard of an 18 month old who managed to get from the floor to the top of a refrigerator without help from a chair. That right there is a feat of physical genius. So yes, your daughter may be a genius at reading, but every other child is a genius at their own thing. Even if it's genius at being "normal." That's pretty impressive too.

[Bang!Zoom!]

It's too late in the evening for this kind of thing....theories on genius syndrome just isn't on my radar tonight.

 

Best of luck OP. :lol:

[stripe]

I am a huge fan of early learning. Kids that age learn a lot. To me, reading at 16 months is more akin to a parlor trick that any other 16 month old could do. A very advanced parlor trick. Right now my baby girl likes to bounce on command. It's very cute.

 

I do think that all babies are geniuses! I mean, they go from laying there to looking at their hand to grabbing things with their hand to putting those things in their mouth to using a pincer grasp etc. It's a lot to learn in a short amount of time. However, you're assuming that all children will be geniuses in the same way. On this board, I have heard of an 18 month old who managed to get from the floor to the top of a refrigerator without help from a chair. That right there is a feat of physical genius. So yes, your daughter may be a genius at reading, but every other child is a genius at their own thing. Even if it's genius at being "normal." That's pretty impressive too.

 

My baby is an artistic genius. I think he's the next Diego Rivera. He won't stop drawing on the walls.

[Jujubeesmama]

So... I DO understand that this is a home-Schooling forum, cause I plan on teaching from home, so challenging the public schools when she gets to age ino probably not going to be an issue. My view was simply this... If a majority of the children entering school were already reading and doing those things they are currently learning in Kindergarten, the system would have to change for the new populace.

[SKL]

So... I DO understand that this is a home-Schooling forum, cause I plan on teaching from home, so challenging the public schools when she gets to age ino probably not going to be an issue. My view was simply this... If a majority of the children entering school were already reading and doing those things they are currently learning in Kindergarten, the system would have to change for the new populace.

 

So how do you propose to get the majority of parents to make this happen? So far you have not provided any specific ideas - just basically implied that those who don't drill flashcards at age 1 are lazy.

[meggie]

My baby is an artistic genius. I think he's the next Diego Rivera. He won't stop drawing on the walls.

 

You must encourage this! Think of all the possibilities. It would be a shame to try and curtail those artistic capabilities!!!!!

 

So... I DO understand that this is a home-Schooling forum, cause I plan on teaching from home, so challenging the public schools when she gets to age ino probably not going to be an issue. My view was simply this... If a majority of the children entering school were already reading and doing those things they are currently learning in Kindergarten, the system would have to change for the new populace.

 

I am going off the assumption that you are not a troll; just a little over-eager. So here's my honest reply:

 

There are a billion and twelve things that parents ought to be doing. And if they did all those things, we wouldn't have so much reliance on government schtuffs. (I'm not saying 'no government schtuffs' just less of it). For example, if parents provided wholesome, nutritious meals then we wouldn't have as big of a federal lunch program. I mean, heck, if parents stopped abusing and neglecting their kids we could do away with 90% of CPS!!!!!!! (I'm assuming some would still be needed for orphans and others as a result of tragedy).

 

Sure if all parents worked with their kids, I bet there would be more kids reading by the age of 5 (I still think that 16 months is a parlor trick though). But there is no way of actually FORCING them to get it done. No parent can fulfill all of a child's potential 100% of the time. There is just not enough hours in the day, especially with pesky things like eating and sleeping.

[Jujubeesmama]

So how do you propose to get the majority of parents to make this happen? So far you have not provided any specific ideas - just basically implied that those who don't drill flashcards at age 1 are lazy.

 

 

OK... I need to be very careful on this forum apparently, cause I never IMPLIED any laziness nor ever mentioned drilling flashcards... I think the reason why this topic is so hard to have a real discussion about is because most people get immediately defensive. Specific ideas... Getting classes implemented in high schools similar to parenting, but focusing on the importance of early childhood education and the impact it could have in our futures. I'm pretty sure close to 100% of people leaving high school (grads or not) are going to have kids one day... Cn't be too far off. Making early learning resources available to new parents. They make you watch shaken baby videos, why not early learning?

[Bang!Zoom!]

Juju, do you have any idea of the size or complexity of American public school systems and the politics within that system?

 

And if you are immersed in a culture of early childhood learning under regulation with 85 kids, you need to look in the mirror, all the answers to those questions are right there in the stories of the children in your care.

 

How long have you owned this center?

[Jujubeesmama]

You must encourage this! Think of all the possibilities.

 

Sure if all parents worked with their kids, I bet there would be more kids reading by the age of 5 (I still think that 16 months is a parlor trick though). But there is no way of actually FORCING them to get it done. No parent can fulfill all of a child's potential 100% of the time. There is just not enough hours in the day, especially with pesky things like eating and sleeping.

 

I get this... This is definitely not something that's going to take place overnight. It will be a slow process, but as more parents become educated regarding early childhood learning (not just reading) the hope is that the scales will tip in the other direction and we can then begin implementing some change.

[wapiti]

. 

 

Edited January 12, 2016 by wapiti

[bolt.]

Even if 'most' toddlers can/could memorize a range of sight words, that doesn't strike me as a useful skill, and I don't see that it is much of an advantage to them, to be able to do it sooner rather than later. Toddlers have a vast ability to memorize... but reading is a distinct skill which is not developmentally expected at that age.

 

And really, there's no rush.

 

And I have very little personal interest in adjusting a schooling system (which already works out to the best advantage for children whose parents are highly involved in their learning) in such a way as to even start less fortunate children even further behind their flash-card peers. Public schools are designed to begin with the expectation of academic knowledge or skills as-of the first day. If you propose to change that, you might want to think about what that would mean for society at large.

[Jujubeesmama]

Juju, do you have any idea of the size or complexity of American public school systems and the politics within that system?

 

And if you are immersed in a culture of early childhood learning under regulation with 85 kids, you need to look in the mirror, all the answers to those questions are right there in the stories of the children in your care.

 

How long have you owned this center?

 

Going on ten years... And being involved in this field has definitely encouraged and influenced my perspective.

[Bang!Zoom!]

How many of your kids are enrolled in Head Start?

[Jujubeesmama]

How many of your kids are enrolled in Head Start?

 

Not a single one... We have a handful that attend the early 3-4 pre k in the local school district. They use the same curriculum we do except ours is slightly modified.

[Bang!Zoom!]

So you have a center with 85 kids, all above the poverty level? All parents are independent pay, no issues with federal funding, lunch programs, none of it? You are totally private?

[Pamela H in Texas]

If a majority of the children entering school were already reading and doing those things they are currently learning in Kindergarten, the system would have to change for the new populace.

 

In my daughter's class (and the other two kindy classes), the average child is on a late 1st grade level with a good number of kids higher than that. Most of these kids will enter 1st grade over a grade level "ahead" of kids the next district over. The system, however, does not change for the new population. Instead, these kindy teachers have shown awesome abilities with these students. And then the children go to 1st and 2nd grades. This is a good district, but the average 3rd grader is most certainly on a 3rd grade level by state standards. Most kids will pass the test and that is that. A few years later, you cannot tell that these kids had such wonderful Kindy teachers. Now, would that change if ALL kindergarten classes in the district, region, state, country were as good? Maybe at some point. Or not. School serves purposes OTHER THAN educating children academically.

[Embassy]

I get this... This is definitely not something that's going to take place overnight. It will be a slow process, but as more parents become educated regarding early childhood learning (not just reading) the hope is that the scales will tip in the other direction and we can then begin implementing some change.

 

It is more than that though. My background is in early education and I worked in the field as a Speech-Language Pathologist for many years. I even worked for a place called the Early Learning Program, lol. I strongly believe early childhood education should focus on developing strong play skills. Research shows that time spent developing complex play sequences does more for future cognitive development than working on anything academic. People educated on this issue may not come to the conclusion you are hoping. The early years should not be about academics, but about building strong connections for future success with academics.

[Jujubeesmama]

So you have a center with 85 kids, all above the poverty level? All parents are independent pay, no issues with federal funding, lunch programs, none of it? You are totally private?

 

 

We have less than ten percent that receive CCS childcare tuition assistance, five percent that have childcare funded through the local college, and yes we are enrolled in the federal food program because at least 25 percent are considered below the poverty level.

[Bluegoat]

So... I DO understand that this is a home-Schooling forum, cause I plan on teaching from home, so challenging the public schools when she gets to age ino probably not going to be an issue. My view was simply this... If a majority of the children entering school were already reading and doing those things they are currently learning in Kindergarten, the system would have to change for the new populace.

 

English speaking countries generally have been reducing the age that kids are going to school, just because of ideas like this. They figure since they can't make parents do these things, they will get the kids ij K, pre-K, or even pre-pre-K, and start expecting them to read at a level that was previously considered appropriate at age 6 or 7.

 

So your idea really isn't new, its been the dominant paradigm in ps or a while.

 

And it hasn't been particularly good for many children. They get labeled as developmentally abnormal or hyperactive because they aren't ready for that kind of work. This has been especially so for young boys who are typically behind girls in reading readiness. Or in some cases children are later identified as having reading issues because they learned to read in inefficient ways that cause problems later on.

 

This kind of thing is why a lot of parents are not all that geared up about your idea - some here may well have pulled their kids from ps because of the fruits of these approaches.

 

Also - kids today are becoming increasingly deprived of some of the most important things they need: time to have free play, quiet time alone, time to muck around in nature, and time to muck around outside of parent's direct supervision. We are scripting our kids lives to the point that they are hardly lives of their own at all. This kind of push for early academics seems to just play into what is already a fairly serious problem.

[astrid]

I get this... This is definitely not something that's going to take place overnight. It will be a slow process, but as more parents become educated regarding early childhood learning (not just reading) the hope is that the scales will tip in the other direction and we can then begin implementing some change.

 

And how do you propose to equip parents of children enrolled in underperforming school districs, many in poverty-ridden urban areas, with the skills and resources necessary to deliver a second-grade reader directly into the hands of the kindergarten teachers? Especially when may of said children are enrolled come from homes were English is not spoken?

 

What about those parents who are so impacted by mental health issues, substance abuse, domestic violence, etc. that they are, simply put, incapable of taking such an active role in the educational lives of their children? What happens to those kids?

 

astrid

[wapiti]

. 

 

Edited January 12, 2016 by wapiti

[astrid]

It is more than that though. My background is in early education and I worked in the field as a Speech-Language Pathologist for many years. I even worked for a place called the Early Learning Program, lol. I strongly believe early childhood education should focus on developing strong play skills. Research shows that time spent developing complex play sequences does more for future cognitive development than working on anything academic. People educated on this issue may not come to the conclusion you are hoping. The early years should not be about academics, but about building strong connections for future success with academics.

 

YES. THIS. A HUNDRED TIMES OVER.

 

astrid

[SweetMissMagnolia]

:) awesome...my son was an early reader---he kept asking me to read signs and different things (food labels) to him so I started teaching him to read...he caught on quickly....I think if a child shows interest in it there's no problem with early learning...... :)

[SKL]

I still don't understand what the OP is trying to get at. S/he is being very vague IMO. This sounds like a commercial that ends up with "call 1-800-ABCDEFG" and that's where you find out you have to pay $XXX just to find out what they are talking about.

[Tanikit]

I taught my daughter early and plan on teaching the second one early too. The eldest is now 4.5 and reading at about a grade 3 level, the youngest is one and is actually showing more interest in letters and the written word than her sister did at this age. I do not feel that this early education took anything away from them and they probably play outside more than most children their age.

 

I do believe that eary reading would help most children simply because it opens doors to acquiring information that interests them from a young age - the readers most 6 and 7 year olds are expected to read are very boring and can take away from a love to learn - toddlers are still excited by single words and pictures which makes reading simple books still fun for them.

 

However I doubt if all children knew a lot before school that the schools would change simply because then the teachers themselves have to change their ideas. There are a lot of problems in the education systems of many countries and I think in all countries children are not being taught what they need to survive adult life - and maybe that is because much of it comes with life experience anyway. Just like you cannot expect a 4 year old to write neatly unless their fine motor skills are up to it, perhaps you cannot expect a 20 year old to know how to deal with a difficult boss successfully until he has had some experience with more adults in positions of authority.

[ktgrok]

So... I DO understand that this is a home-Schooling forum, cause I plan on teaching from home, so challenging the public schools when she gets to age ino probably not going to be an issue. My view was simply this... If a majority of the children entering school were already reading and doing those things they are currently learning in Kindergarten, the system would have to change for the new populace.

 

OH great. And what does the school do then with my son, who at 6 years old couldn't blend sounds or read? Not for my lack of trying, let me tell you.

 

Of course, I'm sure he ended up educationally stunted. Except that he hit the maturity and brain ability to read in 2nd grade, and gained 6 grade levels at once almost. And since then has been in the top 1% of standardized tests in reading comprehension, and is reading on a college level or beyond at 12. Yup...too bad he was so delayed by not reading at 2 years old.

[astrid]

:iagree: :toetap05: :lurk5:

 

 

astrid

[Jujubeesmama]

I still don't understand what the OP is trying to get at. S/he is being very vague IMO. This sounds like a commercial that ends up with "call 1-800-ABCDEFG" and that's where you find out you have to pay $XXX just to find out what they are talking about.

 

There are plenty of resources out now... Don't need to sell anything - hell, you could make most of the materials yourself if u wanted.

[astrid]

OH great. And what does the school do then with my son, who at 6 years old couldn't blend sounds or read? Not for my lack of trying, let me tell you..

 

 

Ahh! Vell, ve hav VAYS of DEALINK vith his kind! <slaps riding crop across palm, turns on heel....> :gnorsi:

 

astrid

[SKL]

There are plenty of resources out now... Don't need to sell anything - hell, you could make most of the materials yourself if u wanted.

 

So is your point how "I" can have superkids to show off, or how the American public can become the smartest population overnight, or what? Still no specifics. Is it a special vitamin complex that turns previously non-verbal children into encyclopedias like the flip of a switch? Or do we label all our furniture and take our tots around the house hearing us read the labels every 30 minutes of every day? Or some great video or song? I guarantee I've heard it all before.

[wapiti]

. 

 

Edited January 12, 2016 by wapiti

[stripe]

My view was simply this... If a majority of the children entering school were already reading and doing those things they are currently learning in Kindergarten, the system would have to change for the new populace.

 

Why does a two year old need to do what a six year old is doing now? I mean, girls getting pregnant at fourteen isn't "better" because their eggs are fresher and there is a lower incidence of birth defects, is it? (I've also heard they recover more quickly.) why can't they be imaginative and putting on puppet shows and drawing, and learning to help at home, and going on adventures?

 

There is a school near me that advertises their students are often reading at three and four, and almost all by five, and they have brown-skinned children in the ad. I appreciate the anti-illiteracy sentiment but am a bit uncomfortable with the idea anyhow.

 

I recommend you look at Scandinavian early education. It's quite interesting.

Edited March 13, 2012 by stripe

[wapiti]

. 

 

Edited January 12, 2016 by wapiti

[astrid]

OK... I need to be very careful on this forum apparently, cause I never IMPLIED any laziness nor ever mentioned drilling flashcards... I think the reason why this topic is so hard to have a real discussion about is because most people get immediately defensive. Specific ideas... Getting classes implemented in high schools similar to parenting, but focusing on the importance of early childhood education and the impact it could have in our futures. I'm pretty sure close to 100% of people leaving high school (grads or not) are going to have kids one day... Cn't be too far off. Making early learning resources available to new parents. They make you watch shaken baby videos, why not early learning?

 

Okay, I'm sorry...I just cannot read this one more time in your posts without sending up a silent prayer that your baby's flashcard is spelled correctly, with the appropriate first two letters. It must be on the second grade list that your baby has memorized, no?

 

astrid

[Jujubeesmama]

Okay, I'm sorry...I just cannot read this one more time in your posts without sending up a silent prayer that your baby's flashcard is spelled correctly, with the appropriate first two letters. It must be on the second grade list that your baby has memorized, no?

 

astrid

 

The mean-ness that the tone of this discussion is taking is a bit much for me, being a peace seeker and all... By the way - I have only ever showed her those words once or twice in her life. Just randomly from a stack of cards. Maybe she is just sort of a freak-genius. And I must be pretty intuitive to know she would grasp it all so simply. My apologies for all the negative attention this topic is receiving.

[SKL]

How many posts does jujubees mama have to post before she can start selling her wares? Seriously, this is the first time I've seen someone get on here and post 18 posts without actually sharing anything substantive.

[BatmansWife]

So... I DO understand that this is a home-Schooling forum, cause I plan on teaching from home, so challenging the public schools when she gets to age ino probably not going to be an issue. My view was simply this... If a majority of the children entering school were already reading and doing those things they are currently learning in Kindergarten, the system would have to change for the new populace.

 

Idon't really care what you do. If you want to teach your baby to read....fine. But, I guess I don't really get why you'd want to. It certainly can impress a lot of people, I suppose. My youngest could sign over 100 words before she could talk. That was pretty cool. But, I don't see the reason to rush them into doing things that really can wait for a couple more years. But...that's just me.

 

I know you are new to the boards and hopefully you'll stick around. I know some of the comments do sound a little mean.

 

For what it's worth...I did read Teach Your Baby to Read about 18 years ago. It was a very interesting read. But, I didn't really implement it. I guess I didn't feel that it was necessary. My oldest child learned to read around 4.5. On her 5th birthday she was reading 2nd grade level books. She's a great reader today. This was not TYBTR techniques...we used 100 EZ Lessons back then. My son didn't even speak until he was 3. My youngest didn't learn to read until she was about 6...close to 7. She's doing just fine. To each his own.

 

:001_smile:

Edited March 13, 2012 by ~AprilMay~

[wapiti]

OK... I need to be very careful on this forum apparently, cause I never IMPLIED any laziness nor ever mentioned drilling flashcards... I think the reason why this topic is so hard to have a real discussion about is because most people get immediately defensive. Specific ideas... Getting classes implemented in high schools similar to parenting, but focusing on the importance of early childhood education and the impact it could have in our futures. I'm pretty sure close to 100% of people leaving high school (grads or not) are going to have kids one day... Cn't be too far off. Making early learning resources available to new parents. They make you watch shaken baby videos, why not early learning?

 

You are conflating "early learning" with "early reading." They are not remotely the same thing.

 

Also, you ARE saying that kids are not reading early because their parents are not educated about early childhood learning and/or failed to follow through on what they do know. But that simply is not true.

 

As for giving specifics, please do. The idea of telling new parents about early childhood learning is lovely, but WHAT SPECIFICS would you tell them? Surely more than "teach your child to read."