Better Late Than Early -- What do you think?

[Sahamamama]

I've come across this before, but have spent a bit more time exploring lately.

 

http://www.moorefoundation.com/article/68/about-moore-home-schooling/moore-formula

 

Do you subscribe to this philosophy of education? What do you think of this paragraph, in particular:

Read to them several times a day, and they will learn to read in their own time-as early as 3 or 4, but usually later, some as late as 14. Late readers are no more likely to be retarded or disabled than early ones. They often become the best readers of all --

with undamaged vision

and acute hearing, more adult-like reasoning (cognition) levels, mature brain structure and less blocking of creative interests. Yet late readers are often falsely thought to be in need of remedial help. If you have any doubts about your youngster, have specialists check vision and hearing; possibly see a neurologist. If there are no problems, relax. If your children are early readers, 15 or 20 minutes at a time is enough for children under ages 8 to 10. They can use a kitchen timer. Then take an hour or two for distant vision play

.

Do you believe that early academics causes vision problems? The Moore website seems to imply that this is so.

 

What do you say about learning to read by age 14? :bigear:

[Ester Maria]

Yeah. Right. :glare:

[Sahamamama]

Yeah. Right. :glare:

 

:lol: Oh, come on, EM. My husband is taking a nap. Help me out here. :lol:

 

 

 

 

Reality check: My husband wouldn't discuss this if he was fully conscious, BTW.

[happyhomemaker]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that not teaching a child to read so that you can protect their eyesight is CRAZY (do we have a proper "crazy" emoticon?)

:001_huh: Not quite there :w00t::eek: Better.

[wapiti]

Do you believe that early academics causes vision problems? The Moore website seems to imply that this is so.

 

No, that's absurd. However, (1) far-sightedness is not uncommon amongst kids of a certain young age (ask any eye doc), which may be more obvious when a kid is reading than not; this is usually fixed with glasses temporarily and then outgrown; and (2) some late readers may have undiagnosed vision problems. While the quote does recommend seeing specialists "when in doubt," the general better-late-than-early philosophy is often cited as a reason not to seek evaluations.

 

What do you say about learning to read by age 14? :bigear:

 

Tragic, criminal and limiting.

[mytwomonkeys]

Honestly, I think a child not reading before 14 is awful, assuming there is no learning disability. My son is only in grade 2 and aged 7 and reading and writing are already assumed skills in many activities he participates in. Most kids that are struggling, the teacher is told beforehand so they don't make the child uncomfortable. I can only imagine how difficult it would be for a teenager trying to adapt without the ability to read independently.

[razorbackmama]

I used to "unofficially" believe this philisophy. By "unofficially" I simply mean that I bought into the believe that I needed to just wait and they'd eventually become great readers. I remember hearing Little Bear Wheeler tell his story and finding such great encouragement since my then 7yo wasn't reading yet.

 

I now believe it was a mistake and that if a kid isn't reading by 7ish then one should look into some sort of learning issue.

 

4 of my 5 readers didn't learn until 7 or later. Of those 4, all 4 have/had some sort of learning problem that interfered with learning to read:

#1 - CAPD

#2 - visual tracking problems that we finally got corrected last year when he was 12

#3 - dyslexia

#4 - CAPD and I suspect either a visual processing problem that will require vision therapy OR dyslexia OR both

 

So now, as a veteran homeschooler, while I don't encourage people to push their 3-4yos to read, I definitely discourage the whole "Oh, he'll read when he's ready" mindset.

[razorbackmama]

And as far as eyesight goes...spare me.:glare:

[Ester Maria]

I am in an evil mood. :lol:

 

Philosophies like this desire to romanticize things. Unfortunately, extremely late readers (here we are talking absurd ages) ARE much more likely to have some kind of a cognitive deficit than early readers. Retardation in academics DOES mean, on the literal level, picking things later, with a certain tardiness, when they are normally picked up earlier - that is how being "behind" or "advanced" is DEFINED. The sentence in which "late readers are not likely to be late" is nonsensical.

 

Vision problems are caused because of a light refraction / eye nerve problems / and other tangible Earthy medical matters, not "hocus-pocus level" considerations and "prevention" of vision problems by avoiding book learning.

 

Adult-like cognition and mature brain structures, whatever that means, is a question of... wait... MATURING into an adult!

 

I am going to censor myself at this point. :D LOL.

[laughing lioness]

Do you believe that early academics causes vision problems? The Moore website seems to imply that this is so.

 

What do you say about learning to read by age 14? :bigear:

 

I heard the Moore's speak in S.CA years ago and had the greatest respect for them. I don't, however, agree with them. I have taught all of my kids to read, beginning around late 4, at least 5 with phonics. They have all disliked learning to read, per se, but they all LOVE reading. They would have missed thousands of words, hundreds of books, the great ideas of many, many authors and great thinkers if we had delayed reading instruction.

[Veritaserum]

Hogwash. :tongue_smilie:

 

The Moore philosophy reminds me a lot of the TJEd philosophy. I wonder if DeMille pirated Moore's ideas (wouldn't surprise me). In TJEd circles, direct and early instruction is discouraged because it might cause "hate of learning." Kids are supposed to (in DeMille's opinion) learn to read by osmosis. And, he says, it doesn't matter if they don't learn to read until age 12. They'll "catch up" on everything they "really" need to know. (If your kid only wants to read about motorcycles, that's fine because he'll get a little math and science as he's reading. :rolleyes:)

 

So, I think I'm inclined to dismiss Moore just like I learned to dismiss DeMille. ;)

[garddwr]

I take hold a somewhat modified version of this view: I don't think that reading (and most sit-down type schoolwork) should be pushed on five and six year olds. In any group of children that age, some will be ready to learn to read (and some will have been ready earlier) and some will not--I think it is consistent with normal brain development to have a range of ages when the appropriate skills and abilities come together. I do, however, believe that most developmentally normal children will have the abilities needed to learn to read by about age 8, and a child who is struggling past that point should receive extra help. I'm talking here about fluent reading--if I had a 7 year old who had been diligently taught and still could not sound out simple three-letter words, I would seek help. If I had a 6 year old who consistently failed to recognize individual letters, I would probably seek help. It seems there must be some research out there on when the majority of children are able to accomplish particular skills--if a child falls too far outside the normal range, intervention is called for. I think it is normal for children's abilities to develop on somewhat different time frames--some walk at 8 months, some at 16, both those would I believe still be within the range of normal. A child who is 18 months and not walking probably needs extra help. Reading is a very complex skill that depends on many other skills coming together, so I would expect there to be a fairly wide range of ages when different children will be ready. With homeschooling I think it is entirely reasonable to gear a child's learning activities to their actual abilities.

[Iucounu]

Hogwash.

Of the unmitigated variety.

[Ellie]

I"m not convinced that early reading instruction causes vision problems in all children, but I am comfortable with delayed formal academics. There are so many things children can be learning that are valuable even though they don't look like School. I understand that some children teach themselves/learn to read on their own at very young ages, but even in those cases, it isn't necessary to whip out the school books.

[LMD]

I have taught all of my kids to read, beginning around late 4, at least 5 with phonics. They have all disliked learning to read, per se, but they all LOVE reading. They would have missed thousands of words, hundreds of books, the great ideas of many, many authors and great thinkers if we had delayed reading instruction.

 

:iagree:

 

So refreshing to read a similar perspective, laughing lioness! I don't advocate pushing young children, but if a 4y/o is interested and capable (like my oldest two were) then not teaching them to read feels more like depriving them IMO. They don't necessarily jump for joy every lesson, but they do when it starts to click.

 

LMD - who's 4.5 y/o son is at the very exciting 'sounding out words on signs all around us' stage.

[garddwr]

And as far as eyesight goes...spare me.:glare:

 

Actually, I think this is an argument worth examining. Here's an article that discusses some of the possible ways environmental and lifestyle factors such as large amounts of reading or close work versus spending a lot of time outdoors seem to affect the development of vision problems.

[oraetstudia]

I have one friend who more or less followed this. Her son is 10 now I think. I'm not sure if he can read even now. He memorizes well, but he always seems to be somewhat of a feral child, though not in that he's totally without discipline.

 

As for the eyesight thing. Without reading instruction, I never would have figured out that my oldest daughter was severely far-sighted and needing bifocals at age 5. That part reminds me of another friend who doesn't let her kids who need glasses have them, because she believes wearing glasses causes your eyes to go bad. :confused1:

[Mrs Twain]

I agree with the "hogwash" comment.

 

IME reading is a very difficult skill to learn which takes a lot of hard work and perseverance. Reading starts to be enjoyable only after a child has become proficient at this skill. The argument of not teaching children to read because it may hurt their love of learning is backwards IMO. I think the better approach is to teach them the skill of reading so that they can appreciate, enjoy, and love learning.

 

My kids didn't enjoy learning to read because it was extrememly difficult work. However, now they all love reading because it has opened up a whole new world to them. I don't have a lot of time to read aloud to them, but they are not limited by that since they can pick up whichever book they like and read it for themselves. Going to the library and loading up on books to check out is an activity they look forward to. I would feel sad for them if I had deprived them of the opportunity to learn to read early and experience so many wonderful books.

[sewingmama]

I'm talking here about fluent reading--if I had a 7 year old who had been diligently taught and still could not sound out simple three-letter words, I would seek help. If I had a 6 year old who consistently failed to recognize individual letters, I would probably seek help. It seems there must be some research out there on when the majority of children are able to accomplish particular skills--if a child falls too far outside the normal range, intervention is called for.

 

I agree with this. Most children become ready to learn to read between ages 4-7 - anything outside that range might need looking into.

 

My 4yo learned to read by osmosis - my 5yo needed many lessons - I consider them both normal.

 

I learnt to read at 6 - I spent the rest of my life reading - seriously - a chapter book a day - every day of my life. I have perfect vision.

 

My kids will in all likelyhood need glasses at some point - if they do I wouldn't blame it on reading early - I would blame it on the fact that they got their dad's genes where every single person in his family needed glasses at a young age :001_smile: With that in mind I took them to have their eyesight tested before they started reading and so far they have no issues.

 

I think it is sad that some people don't realise what a gift being able to learn to read is. In many places in this world people would give anything to learn to read but they don't have access to that education. Many people in underdeveloped countries make great sacrifices to send thier kids to school because they realise what a great blessing it is to be able to read and that it's a factor in being able to escape poverty.

 

Learning to read late keeps your kids dependent. I want my kids to learn to read so they can follow their interests without having to ask me every five seconds to read information for them. I believe it retards their education because so much of it is reading dependent.

 

Sure they can probably learn at 14 but think of all the great things they will have missed by then. There is also a stigma attatched to an older child who can't read which may be hard to shake off - their playmates may wonder wht is wrong with them and adults may treat them as if they have a learning disability even when they don't. It makes it hard for them to participate in a society where everyone expects them to be reading at a younger age which could lead them to start avoiding group learning opportunities.

[garddwr]

I"m not convinced that early reading instruction causes vision problems in all children, but I am comfortable with delayed formal academics. There are so many things children can be learning that are valuable even though they don't look like School. I understand that some children teach themselves/learn to read on their own at very young ages, but even in those cases, it isn't necessary to whip out the school books.

 

Some of the things children learn and do that don't look like school may actually be more important to their mental development than time spent reading and writing. I highly recommend Jane Healy's books on brain development and education: Your Child's Growing Mind and Endangered Minds (oh, I just discovered she has a new book out I haven't read yet: Different Learners--I'll have to see if my library has it!) It's been awhile since I read her books, but something I took away from them is that activities such as climbing trees, building with blocks, and imaginative play have a much larger role in the development of a child's higher thinking abilities than time spent on formal academics in the early years. I don't interpret that to mean that formal academics are necessarily harmful, but they're not necessarily very helpful either--and they can do harm if too much time spent reading and doing worksheets (and more especially watching and interacting with visual media and two-dimensional screens) is preventing a child from spending time in more active, imaginative, and hands on pursuits.

[Meriwether]

My MIL firmly believes that early reading damages eyesight. Dd has read 4-5 hours at a time for years. Who wants to read for 10 minutes at a time?

[Hunter]

My oldest was a late bloomer to start, then took off and became an an early bloomer, even going through an early puberty, and being graduated from college, financially independent, and living across the country at age 19.

 

He was in PS. I can only wish he was at home, and that I had been comfortable with late reading for him. He just needed more time to wake up. I read some Waldorf child development information recently, and thought...that is a PERFECT description of my DS!

 

The other son started out drastically accelerated, and then fizzled...at least for now.

 

And I absolutely do believe that early reading if a child sits and reads for hours at a time is harmful to eyesight. And not good for their physical development.

 

I attended school full days at 4 and saw extreme stress in myself and fellow students. Sometimes we would just sit and silently cry at recess instead of playing. And EVERY day we talked about how eternal the days were.

 

I'm not going to address age 14, as I don't know the context that was said in. But I don't think 8 is late for some children especially boys. There is a reason many European school still don't start school until 7. It's a more efficient way to do things and those schools continue to out perform earlier starting nations.

[Butter]

Definitely do not think early academics damages eyesight. That's absurd.

 

My 10 year old wasn't into academics when he was little (opposite of his sister). Everyone kept saying he'd read in his own time, just read to him. I read to him tons. I still read to my kids (even though the oldest is 12 and can read anything she sets her mind to reading). I heard lots of stories about kids who read just fine in their own time, as late as 12 or 14. These stories were kids I know the families of personally. So I waited. Until I realized something was *wrong* with my son. First clue was when it took him, no kidding, 4 months to get the word "the" down pat. It turns out he's dyslexic. If I had continued with the "wait until he's ready" idea, he most likely would never have been ready. What has improved his reading? Lots and lots of work and practice.

 

So I've come to the conclusion that some kids will be fine. Other kids could be harmed. I was actually told by someone (who had a non-reading 12 year old at the time, about my then-8 year old son) "What's the worst that could happen? He could be illiterate. There are worse things than that. It's no big deal not to know how to read." Every fiber in my being screamed "You are crazy!" to that. Sure, he could function as an illiterate, but is that what I wanted for him? No way. And that's when I started paying more attention to what was going on with him and began to suspect dyslexia.

[TranquilMind]

I now believe it was a mistake and that if a kid isn't reading by 7ish then one should look into some sort of learning issue.

 

4 of my 5 readers didn't learn until 7 or later. Of those 4, all 4 have/had some sort of learning problem that interfered with learning to read:

#1 - CAPD

#2 - visual tracking problems that we finally got corrected last year when he was 12

#3 - dyslexia

#4 - CAPD and I suspect either a visual processing problem that will require vision therapy OR dyslexia OR both

 

So now, as a veteran homeschooler, while I don't encourage people to push their 3-4yos to read, I definitely discourage the whole "Oh, he'll read when he's ready" mindset.

Veteran homeschooler with teens here too. I just wanted to mention that one of mine began reading fluently at 4, and I assumed the other (boy) would follow. He didn't. He was nearly 7.5 when it clicked in for him. Same with writing. It was a terrible uphill battle in those days, that I was too dumb to delay for awhile.

 

Fast forward to age 13 for this kid. In a heavily academic co-op + home classes and a top performer, especially in math and science. There was absolutely nothing wrong; he simply wasn't ready. 99th percentile in those subjects in national tests/ 94% in language arts. So far.

 

I just wanted to provide an alternative view to the suggestion that if the kid isn't reading by 7, there MUST be something wrong. Not always.

[regentrude]

There is a reason many European school still don't start school until 7. It's a more efficient way to do things and those schools continue to out perform earlier starting nations.

 

:iagree:

I am all for delayed academics- until age 6 or 7.

If a kids teaches himself to read at age 4, fine - but I would not spend energy trying to make him read that early.

 

OTOH, waiting until age 14 before becoming active, is, to me, educational neglect. Very likely, this child has issues which would have been treated more easily if identified earlier.

And yes, I consider being illiterate a really big deal.

[razorbackmama]

Actually, I think this is an argument worth examining. Here's an article that discusses some of the possible ways environmental and lifestyle factors such as large amounts of reading or close work versus spending a lot of time outdoors seem to affect the development of vision problems.

I actually agree with you. We need to be looking at things far away and close up, not just all close up. That's one reason why kids start out farsighted. But that doesn't mean that reading will lead to eyesight trouble, nor does it mean that if we delay reading a person will have excellent eyesight, which is what the quote seemed to imply and what I said "spare me" to.

 

Veteran homeschooler with teens here too. I just wanted to mention that one of mine began reading fluently at 4, and I assumed the other (boy) would follow. He didn't. He was nearly 7.5 when it clicked in for him. Same with writing. It was a terrible uphill battle in those days, that I was too dumb to delay for awhile.

 

Fast forward to age 13 for this kid. In a heavily academic co-op + home classes and a top performer, especially in math and science. There was absolutely nothing wrong; he simply wasn't ready. 99th percentile in those subjects in national tests/ 94% in language arts. So far.

 

I just wanted to provide an alternative view to the suggestion that if the kid isn't reading by 7, there MUST be something wrong. Not always.

I didn't say that something MUST be wrong if a child was not reading by age 7. I said that one should look into a learning issue if a child is not reading by age 7. Big difference.

 

I did forget to add, however, that that's if the child has been taught since age 5ish. If the child hasn't had the opportunity to read until age 7, then of course it won't hold true. With my kids, they all started receiving reading instruction around age 5-6, and they still weren't reading until age 7-7.5 (except for the one who taught herself to read using starfall.com when she was 5 LOL). Since I had been working with them for a couple years, I should have known something was up, but I had fallen prey to the "oh they'll catch on eventually!!!" crowd.

[garddwr]

I am all for delayed academics- until age 6 or 7.

If a kids teaches himself to read at age 4, fine - but I would not spend energy trying to make him read that early.

 

OTOH, waiting until age 14 before becoming active, is, to me, educational neglect. Very likely, this child has issues which would have been treated more easily if identified earlier.

And yes, I consider being illiterate a really big deal.

 

I agree with you, although I would say delaying most formal academics until age 7-8 is fine. My goal with my own children is to have them reading well and with a basic grasp of writing mechanics and arithmetic concepts by age 8, and at that point move towards more structured study.

 

There is also a huge difference between delaying formal academics and delaying teaching/learning. I believe, for example, that a language-rich environment is critical to young children--parents should be actively engaging them in conversation, stories, games, and reading aloud from a variety of materials. I think children should be immersed in mathematics and music in a similar way. It is more abstract-level instruction that I think can and in many or most cases should be delayed.

 

When it comes to skills such as reading, handwriting, playing a musical instrument, I tend to introduce the concepts when my children are young but back off if the child doesn't take to the activity. I will re-introduce later, maybe with a different approach, as many times as it takes to catch the child at the right moment of readiness. So far I have been comfortable with what seem to be my children's natural timeframes--the skills seem to become manageable to them before they are old enough for me to be worried. I would not "wait" for a child to develop indefinitely if the child's ability to learn a skill seemed unreasonable for the age of the child.

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

Well.

 

Considering that you are asking this question on one of the most academic homeschool forums that exist, I hope you know our answers are obviously going to be biased toward high acheivement.

 

That said, there's a balance. As I reach the mature old age of 31 I'm just less and less likely to run lock stock and barrel into one dogmatic posotion.

 

It's unwise and probably nearly fruitless to push unwilling 3 and 4 year olds into

Intensive reading lessons.

 

On the other hand, why in the world wait? My children, when they began to read well, gained these blessings:

 

1. Safer. They can read road signs, airport signs, name tags, directions, warning signs, labels, etc.

2. More independent. Children who can read can study independently, cook independently, teach themselves Board games, follow directions on any label, bottle, or box.

3. Self entertainment. Children who can read can entertain themselves for hours and hours with wholesome, well chosen material.

4. A head start. My 9 year old has read 7 Science encyclopedias, thousands of picture books, about 400 (well chosen, morally upright) novels, many history books, and taught himself computer programming.

 

So although I agree that the push, push push to get four and five year olds to read is not so healthy, I see so much benefit to early reading that I am super glad I taught my children to read starting gently at age 5.

[Sahamamama]

Actually, I think this is an argument worth examining. Here's an article that discusses some of the possible ways environmental and lifestyle factors such as large amounts of reading or close work versus spending a lot of time outdoors seem to affect the development of vision problems.

 

And this.

[Sahamamama]

My MIL firmly believes that early reading damages eyesight. Dd has read 4-5 hours at a time for years. Who wants to read for 10 minutes at a time?

 

Yes. All three of my girls are early, avid readers, too. My oldest is very myopic, so that's why that particular comment on the Moores' website stood out to me.

 

Do you think your MIL is correct in her assessment? What does she base this on?

[Spy Car]

 

 

Reality check: My husband wouldn't discuss this if he was fully conscious, BTW.

 

I'd prefer to be unconscious than to discuss this carp :D

 

Bill

[Meriwether]

Yes. All three of my girls are early, avid readers, too. My oldest is very myopic, so that's why that particular comment on the Moores' website stood out to me.

 

Do you think your MIL is correct in her assessment? What does she base this on?

 

MIL has many strong opinions on medical issues.;) I take a middle road on this. I think it can affect vision, but I don't subscribe to my MIL's "you are ruining her eyes" hysteria. My dad needed glasses in 3rd grade. My siblings and I all needed glasses in 3rd grade. I've read more than the rest of my family put together. Dad and Ds have worse eyesight than I do. I am legally blind. I did read up to 12 hours a day (usually 5-6). I still can't get too worked up over this theory. I do think wearing glasses causes you to need ever stronger perscriptions, but my eyes deteriorated at a far greater rate when I was still growing. My mom, who reads more than most adults, still has great eyesight. Dd spends hours reading, but she spends hours and hours not reading, too.

Edited March 19, 2012 by Meriwether

[Bluegoat]

I agree with you, although I would say delaying most formal academics until age 7-8 is fine. My goal with my own children is to have them reading well and with a basic grasp of writing mechanics and arithmetic concepts by age 8, and at that point move towards more structured study.

 

There is also a huge difference between delaying formal academics and delaying teaching/learning. I believe, for example, that a language-rich environment is critical to young children--parents should be actively engaging them in conversation, stories, games, and reading aloud from a variety of materials. I think children should be immersed in mathematics and music in a similar way. It is more abstract-level instruction that I think can and in many or most cases should be delayed.

 

When it comes to skills such as reading, handwriting, playing a musical instrument, I tend to introduce the concepts when my children are young but back off if the child doesn't take to the activity. I will re-introduce later, maybe with a different approach, as many times as it takes to catch the child at the right moment of readiness. So far I have been comfortable with what seem to be my children's natural timeframes--the skills seem to become manageable to them before they are old enough for me to be worried. I would not "wait" for a child to develop indefinitely if the child's ability to learn a skill seemed unreasonable for the age of the child.

 

:iagree:

 

Delayed academics is a relative idea I think. 14 is too old IMO. But in a culture where academics start at four or five, I would tend to advocate six to eight as a better place to start.

[Sahamamama]

I'd prefer to be unconscious than to discuss this carp :D

 

Bill

 

Well, my husband was super tired, so I let him sleep. For three and half hours. I even cleaned up the entire kitchen, after a big Sunday dinner, though he said he'd do it after nap time. So I'm not a totally onerous wife. :001_smile:

 

But something about that article bugged me... let's see, all of it? And because my daughter needs glasses to see at a distance, and the article felt so judgmental to me, I felt condemned.

 

Not wanting to awaken said husband from said sound sleep in order to engage in stimulating conversation about said topic, I posted my carp on here. :lol: Anyway, on to more pleasant thoughts.... kilts, anyone?

[LucyStoner]

Considering that a sign of untreated vision issues in school age children is delayed reading, I tend to fall onto the hogwash side.

 

I read late- 7, almost 8, and my vision was then and is now truly horrible. My self taught early reader son reads hours a day and he has terrible vision. Given that his mom and dad are both 4 eyed glasses wearin' sorts, not all that surprising.

 

I think that the world we live in is more accessible to those who are strong readers. Reading also does not prevent kids from learning other things. In fact it can help them. My son is 8, read his first words before 2 and first books at 3 and was reading at a 5th grade level in K. He also cooks dinner one night a week. He reads his recipes and writes his plans. He is learning to sew and just finished making a stuffed reindeer for his little brother. He has been gardening and fishing and tying flies since he was an older tot, all at some point advanced or enhanced by reading in addition to hands on instruction. Reading does not preclude people from learning a broad base of practical, hands on skills and makes doing so easier IMO.

 

I would consider not being able to read at 10, 12 or 14 to either be due to a developmental disability or due to educational neglect. I am not saying that you need to push and stress a 6 or 7 year old but I would be worried as 8 comes and goes for sure and after 7 I would definitely screen for vision and other issues.

 

Kids who don't read until after 3rd grade are at a pretty high risk for some degree of illiteracy as adults. I have family members who are illiterate or functionally barely literate so this is not abstract to me. Some might romanticize the types of things later readers learn to do instead but there are many negative things that follow from illiteracy or are more common with people who can't read. While there is always the nice tale of the hard worker who is illiterate at 50, many more are unable to work much at all and when they can find work, it is likely to be for very low wages. The incarceration rate for illiterate adults is very high compared to those who can read at a 5th grade or above level. 7 in 10 inmates score below the 4th grade level on reading tests. Almost 5 times as many inmates are illiterate as the population as a whole (19% to 4%) and about three times as many inmates are functionally illiterate as the population overall. While I get that correlation is not causation, that is a very high number and gives me pause. Illiteracy is one of the main markers of generational poverty. I have no doubt that one of the main reasons I am the first person in my mother's family to graduate from high school and college is because my mother was a strong reader and a big self educator who inspired her kids to reach higher. Both of her sisters are barely literate.

 

http://kenmentor.com/papers/literacy.htm

Edited March 19, 2012 by kijipt

[TranquilMind]

I didn't say that something MUST be wrong if a child was not reading by age 7. I said that one should look into a learning issue if a child is not reading by age 7. Big difference.

 

 

I see what you mean. I guess I simply took your statement that every single one of your kids that did not read before 7 had some learning issue to be a suggestion that this would likely be true for others as well. It wasn't true here.

 

I meant only to point that out as encouragement to anyone who would be worried because of what you said. It may or may not be true, and not to jump to conclusions or worry unnecessarily. That's all.

 

My apologies for failing to state it more clearly.

[razorbackmama]

I see what you mean. I guess I simply took your statement that every single one of your kids that did not read before 7 had some learning issue to be a suggestion that this would likely be true for others as well. It wasn't true here.

 

I meant only to point that out as encouragement to anyone who would be worried because of what you said. It may or may not be true, and not to jump to conclusions or worry unnecessarily. That's all.

 

My apologies for failing to state it more clearly.

Apology accepted. And I apologize for failing to mention the other factor: a couple years of reading instruction in addition to not reading by this time.

 

My main purpose in mentioning my kids was to show how I had missed the boat big time with them because I listened to too much "better late than early" advice.:thumbdown:

[sagira]

I have one friend who more or less followed this. Her son is 10 now I think. I'm not sure if he can read even now. He memorizes well, but he always seems to be somewhat of a feral child, though not in that he's totally without discipline.

 

As for the eyesight thing. Without reading instruction, I never would have figured out that my oldest daughter was severely far-sighted and needing bifocals at age 5. That part reminds me of another friend who doesn't let her kids who need glasses have them, because she believes wearing glasses causes your eyes to go bad. :confused1:

 

:001_huh: All I can say is, you have some interesting friends ;)

 

I remember reading about the Moores about six years ago. No, I do not think they are right about the reading aspect. I teach formal reading at age 5. My dd4 is getting informal lessons from me once in a while (she asks me), and she's learning through the 3-hour Montessori program she's in.

 

My mom thinks the opposite- the earlier, the better.

[Laughingmommy]

Learning to read late keeps your kids dependent. I want my kids to learn to read so they can follow their interests without having to ask me every five seconds to read information for them. I believe it retards their education because so much of it is reading dependent.

 

and

 

So although I agree that the push, push push to get four and five year olds to read is not so healthy, I see so much benefit to early reading that I am super glad I taught my children to read starting gently at age 5.

 

:iagree:

Edited March 19, 2012 by Laughingmommy

[sarah.]

I don't have a problem with delayed academics per se.

 

My own son initially came through the Italian school system where formal instruction, including learning to read and write, does not commence until 6/7. Which is shocking to many of my British counterparts. Most of us learned to read at 4. I personally could not get my knickers in a twist about it.

 

My issue lies with

 

1) assertions for which there is no solid evidence to support what is being stated as FACT! TROOF!

 

2) people swallowing such assertions whole, despite lack of good evidence, and labelling it "research".

 

3) the wholesale dismissal of learner autonomy.

 

Learner autonomy appears to have taken on a somewhat limited slant in the home ed field. It seems focused tightly on the choice to do, or not do something. (Very similar in some ways to the over embracement that leads to new teachers failing because they over focus on the students' responsibility for their own education and never get around to actually teaching them anything).

 

Whereas in a wider educational context it relates to giving students both the tools and opportunities to detach from of teacher dependance. An older child or young adult that cannot read is faced with dependance on another person (in home ed circles, usually the parent) to "translate" the written word into the spoken word in order for it to accessible to them. Or deal with the time consuming task of finding what they wanted to access in a different format (DVD, CD). Thus being forced to seek any specifics they were looking for in a perhaps less efficient, more frustrating manner. Try fast forwarding and rewinding a DVD to find the snippet of info you wanted, and then compare that to flipping through an index and going to the relevant pages.

 

Until a person can read independently they cannot even effectively evaluate (via skimming) if a book might be of interest to them, because images can communicate only so much regarding content and style of the text. They have to rely on another to make that value judgement for them and to do so honestly, without filters.

 

In essence, focusing on learner autonomy is about making your own role in the learner's journey ever more redundant as they take over the reins thanks to having developed and honed the skills, tools and capabilities required in order to do so.

 

Avoiding teaching a fundamental skill like reading for a significantly extended period of time smacks to some degree of "job protection" and control, thanks to a state of on-going learner dependance.

 

I doubt very much it is a conscious decision to maintain control and preserve dependance, but married with other priorities in *some* of those who practice long term delayed academics, yes I certainly think it *might* be utilised by some individuals on a sub conscious level to delay "separation". By making themselves indispensable in certain spheres of a learner's life for as long as feasible.

[ALB]

I was an early reader, and am far-sighted. My dd was a very early reader and is also far-sighted. IMO, if there is any connection, it's worth it in my mind! I was never forced to learn reading, and neither was my dd. We both LOVE books, and at 6 she spends literally hours each day reading wonderful, quality books completely at her own choosing. I can't imagine trying to limit her to 20 min. a day to save her eyes! Not to sound harsh about it, but her mind and heart are more important to me and I'm thrilled with her passion for reading.

 

I'm not trying to downplay bad eyesight. I would love for my dd not to have to wear glasses, but I'm not actually convinced that there is a direct correlation between the two issues. It seems very hereditary in my family (who are also all avid readers :tongue_smilie:)! Who knows?

[Ester Maria]

For the record, I am in the "school should start at 6 for most children, even at 7 for some, and only exceptional 5 year olds should be in the mix" camp too. It is not that level of "delaying" that I have problems with, I see that as normal, being European.

 

But that is pretty much where my personal tolerance line is. The unrealistic relativizations of the learning process and pretending problems do not exist if a child does not read at... double digits :001_huh:... seem to me like educational neglect, not a philosophy of intentionally delaying things a little.

 

I do think the Anglo-American culture of early start is a bit insane. You guys seem to be very hard, in terms of your expectations, on the littles (academic pre-K and K and alike, with a lot of seatwork and forcing certain skills which would have come a lot more naturally to children if you only gave them a year or two more to play and mature), but then somewhere about upper elementary you start erring on the lax side. From middle school onwards, there is little place for comparison, because by that point the educations our children receive are so fundamentally different (and, if you ask me, in Europe it is typically academically superior). And ironically, kids still spend often less TIME in school.

 

So, that kind of "delayed" approach is a very different boat in my eyes than the tone of the article.

[Tanikit]

I think most of this argument revolves around what formal education is. For most people this seems to mean seat work and possibly worksheets. I think a child can be taught to do a large number of things including reading at a young age with no formal education (and without even forcing them to watch endless DVDs) and this could possibly even be extended to much older children which would then look like education had started much later.

 

I do not believe though in not exposing children to education as much of what we teach them informally makes their play so much more rich and exciting for them. I do not even think "seat work" is that bad even for young children as many enjoy making projects, colouring in, painting and listening to stories all of which often involves sitting down for even extended periods of time. Some even enjoy worksheets.

 

Many children who are homeschooled use the unschooling method which has limited formal education unless the child wants it. Hands on learning approaches are often seen as less "formal." Its all education.

 

My entire family though does believe in teaching children to read early but the methods used are far from formal until the child shows an interest in something that we think requires a more formal approach.

[Joyofsixreboot]

As so many have said, it depends on your definition of delayed and school work. I don't do planned lessons and seat work until 6 and then it is very limited. I find waiting for my kids makes the whole process quicker in the end. That doesn't mean we don't read, do puzzles, color, paint, count or any of the other fun things that are rich in value.

[sarah.]

*and, if you ask me, in Europe it is typically academically superior*

 

Except for perhaps the more Southern Euro clan.

 

Italy lags on the PISA tables, at one point it looked like Spain, Greece, Portugal and Italy were in an eternal dance to see who could claim the bottom step.

 

In the 2009 review Italy scored below OCED average for....everything.

 

I loved Italian nido (nursery, under 3) and materna (3-6). Fabulous.

 

But elementary, despite delaying the academics which was more than fine by me, and middle school. Those I wasn't so keen on. (understatement of the millenium)

[Ester Maria]

*and, if you ask me, in Europe it is typically academically superior*

 

Except for perhaps the more Southern Euro clan.

 

Italy lags on the PISA tables, at one point it looked like Spain, Greece, Portugal and Italy were in an eternal dance to see who could claim the bottom step.

 

In the 2009 review Italy scored below OCED average for....everything.

 

I loved Italian nido (nursery, under 3) and materna (3-6). Fabulous.

 

But elementary, despite delaying the academics which was more than fine by me, and middle school. Those I wasn't so keen on. (understatement of the millenium)

:svengo:

 

I need air.

 

:D

 

But seriously, would you be interesting in PMing me with where did you find academic deficiencies so far? I am interested in whether we have the same perception.

[oraetstudia]

Oh and my only really early reader? Reading by his fourth birthday. Only child so far who can read and doesn't need glasses.

[garddwr]

 

My issue lies with

 

1) assertions for which there is no solid evidence to support what is being stated as FACT! TROOF!

 

2) people swallowing such assertions whole, despite lack of good evidence, and labelling it "research".

 

3) the wholesale dismissal of learner autonomy.

 

 

For the record, Raymond Moore was a professional educator who studied the academic research and based his recommendations on what he found. If you read his original books School can Wait and Better Late than Early you will find plenty of documentation. It's been a few years since I read his books, but if I recall correctly he did not start out believing that delaying formal academics was best--he came to that conclusion based on the available research. Also, by formal academics I think he was talking mostly about the type of structure found in institutional schooling, he became an early advocate for homeschooling but initially with the expectation that children would stay home for the first few years and eventually attend an institutional school (this is what his own children did). Some of the problems he saw in early academics were I think linked as much to environment as to content.

[sarah.]

:svengo:

 

I need air.

 

:D

 

But seriously, would you be interesting in PMing me with where did you find academic deficiencies so far? I am interested in whether we have the same perception.

 

Sure, do you want Italian specific or Southern EuroLandias in general?

 

I only have bits and bobs of PISA data and memories of fellow expats getting aerated about Spain, Greece and Portugal.

 

I have data from PISA, their analysis of The Italian Paradox (small class sizes, good investment per head, with not brill results) plus my experiences as a mum of a miniature Italian in the system, my experiences as a teacher within the system and my experiences as a teacher trainer of Italian state school teachers.

 

I also have links to news reports that highlight the essence of one of the major issues here, the inability to do anything other than "shuffle" school personnel who step well outside of educational and pastoral boundaries of acceptable behaviour to another school.

 

I can put the links and the PISA stuff together quickly, I keep it on hand so I can waggle it at the school director when he annoys me.

 

The more personal insight will take longer, because I will need breaks to try and force my blood pressure down to acceptable levels.:D

[Ester Maria]

Sure, do you want Italian specific or Southern EuroLandias in general?

 

I only have bits and bobs of PISA data and memories of fellow expats getting aerated about Spain, Greece and Portugal.

 

I have data from PISA, their analysis of The Italian Paradox (small class sizes, good investment per head, with not brill results) plus my experiences as a mum of a miniature Italian in the system, my experiences as a teacher within the system and my experiences as a teacher trainer of Italian state school teachers.

 

I also have links to news reports that highlight the essence of one of the major issues here, the inability to do anything other than "shuffle" school personnel who step well outside of educational and pastoral boundaries of acceptable behaviour to another school.

 

I can put the links and the PISA stuff together quickly, I keep it on hand so I can waggle it at the school director when he annoys me.

 

The more personal insight will take longer, because I will need breaks to try and force my blood pressure down to acceptable levels.:D

I am not so interested in PISA or other international assessments (they are too general), I am more interested in (i) the specifics of the *program* that you find academically deficient (I have my views on that too....), regardless of how concrete children are or are not mastering that program and how it is implemented in practice, and (ii) your personal experince with your child as regards practice.

 

I would really, really appreciate those because I quite rarely have an opportunity to hear such insights from somebody who is both fully "in" the system, but also has the option of seeing it with "foreign" eyes and experience - and you seem to have researched it a lot too. So, if you could somehow share it with me without your blood pressure escalating... I would be really thankful. :)

 

(ETA: Ah yes, I mean Italy-specific... the more personal the better - albeit anecdotal - because you seem to be a LOT around these things if you also teach and work on teacher training.)

Edited March 19, 2012 by Ester Maria