How long does it take your child to silent read a Magic Tree House book?

[rocassie]

My DD was 6.5yo at the time, and Magic Treehouse was probably her first chapter books reading on her own.  She would usually read one in about 15-30min.  I don't know how much she retained, but would mention things at various times so I know she was getting some of it.  By book #29, she was done with them however because she became bored by their serial nature, but they really gave her confidence in reading "real" books like mom and dad read.

 

Oh, DD plays the online games at Magic Treehouse, and can usually answer 100% on the questions even the books that she hasn't read.  I don't think that 20min is the gold standard.  I, myself, read one in 5min.  I found the story line and writing very simplistic and quite basic, but that is great for new readers of chapter books.  They don't have to work double hard at decoding and comprehending, and gain confidence in reading.  At least that's my humble opinion.

[OneStepAtATime]

My DD was 6.5yo at the time, and Magic Treehouse was probably her first chapter books reading on her own.  She would usually read one in about 15-30min.  I don't know how much she retained, but would mention things at various times so I know she was getting some of it.  By book #29, she was done with them however because she became bored by their serial nature, but they really gave her confidence in reading "real" books like mom and dad read.

 

Oh, DD plays the online games at Magic Treehouse, and can usually answer 100% on the questions even the books that she hasn't read.  I don't think that 20min is the gold standard.  I, myself, read one in 5min.  I found the story line and writing very simplistic and quite basic, but that is great for new readers of chapter books.  They don't have to work double hard at decoding and comprehending, and gain confidence in reading.  At least that's my humble opinion.

I agree, the stories are more predictable and the word choices easier to decode.  I also very definitely agree that this can be very encouraging for an early reader.  I don't think anyone disagrees with this.  And some kids can skim through a book and not need to read every word to comprehend it and enjoy reading it.   Some kids are great at speed reading and really prefer to read that way.  Books like MTH can lend themselves to that type of reading since there is a predictability to them.

 

But would you consider a child in 2nd grade "behind" because they don't skim through a MTH every night in 30 minutes or less?  And not every reader reads very quickly.  I never liked rushing through a book but I was an excellent reader and read very, very early.  

 

I could be misunderstanding but I believe OP started this thread because of something her sister said.  OPs sister, a teacher, considers OPs daughter "behind" in reading because she does not skim through a MTH in 30 minutes or less every night.  I do not agree with the gold standard for reading success being rapid reading of lots of grade level books over a short period of time.  If a child has no fluency/decoding/comprehension issues and can read books at grade level without a problem, why would the child be considered "behind" just because they didn't rapidly read a MTH book in 30 minutes or less?  Why is speed reading the definition of a "good" reader?  Some kids read quickly.  Others don't.  That doesn't automatically mean that either one is a better reader or that one is "behind" or the other is "ahead", IMHO.  I think the OPs sister is doing OPs child a disservice by labeling her as "behind".

 

Best wishes.

[rocassie]

I agree, the stories are more predictable and the word choices easier to decode.  I also very definitely agree that this can be very encouraging for an early reader.  I don't think anyone disagrees with this.  And some kids can skim through a book and not need to read every word to comprehend it and enjoy reading it.   Some kids are great at speed reading and really prefer to read that way.  Books like MTH can lend themselves to that type of reading since there is a predictability to them.

 

But would you consider a child in 2nd grade "behind" because they don't skim through a MTH every night in 30 minutes or less?  And not every reader reads very quickly.  I never liked rushing through a book but I was an excellent reader and read very, very early.  

 

I could be misunderstanding but I believe OP started this thread because of something her sister said.  OPs sister, a teacher, considers OPs daughter "behind" in reading because she does not skim through a MTH in 30 minutes or less every night.  I do not agree with the gold standard for reading success being rapid reading of lots of grade level books over a short period of time.  If a child has no fluency/decoding/comprehension issues and can read books at grade level without a problem, why would the child be considered "behind" just because they didn't rapidly read a MTH book in 30 minutes or less?  Why is speed reading the definition of a "good" reader?  Some kids read quickly.  Others don't.  That doesn't automatically mean that either one is a better reader or that one is "behind" or the other is "ahead", IMHO.  I think the OPs sister is doing OPs child a disservice by labeling her as "behind".

 

Best wishes.

No I don't believe the OP's child is behind because it takes OP's child longer than 15-20min.  A child reading at that pace would be above normal reading speed, I would guess, but I don't have a lot of other experience as DD is my oldest.  She does love reading and reads all the time.  Much like me when I was young.  I could lose all awareness of what is going on around me even in a crazy busy classroom.  

 

Reading speed and comprehension do not necessarily go hand in hand.  Just because one can read fast doesn't mean he comprehend nor does reading slow indicate that comprehension is any better. I think the two are independent skills that may never mesh up even into adulthood.  My DH reads very slowly but comprehends quite a bit.  I, on the other hand, can read in a few hours what takes him a month or more.  I just have to be patient before we can discuss whichever book we are "reading together." 

 

I answered OP's question about age and time, and then realized OP had another post, and I attempted to address that a child doesn't actually have to read the book or comprehend the what they are reading to do well on a test. I will fully admit, I am not the most eloquent of writers.  ;)

[Nart]

Starting to get some responses rolling in. My sister is a second grade public school teacher. She says some of her students read an entire Magic Tree House book in 20 minutes. (I also think this time includes taking a multiple choice test on a computer, but let's say they get an extra five minutes for that.) I'm getting from her that this is the gold standard for measuring whether a student can read well and on target in second grade. I've told her time and again that I don't believe it...that they aren't really "reading" it. While I haven't timed myself or my DD reading a Magic Tree House book, it takes Mary Pope Osborne about 60-70 minutes or more to read one of her books aloud on audiobook (deduct a few minutes for intro, etc.). I think she reads them at a good pace for her target audience and that a child might read them at a similar pace in his/her head, if said child made no mistakes and did not look at any pictures. My sister has pretty well said that my DD who is 7.5 is behind in reading because she can't/doesn't/wouldn't do this.

 

Thoughts? Be back later...DD's finished with her work.

 

Where is your sister teaching because I just don't believe it?  I work in a public school and see plenty of kids reading MTH and strong second grade readers can finish under an hour. Average readers are not finishing the book in one sitting but are able to read MTH (the first 30 or so), and weaker students can't yet read a MTH book.  I looked up the word count for one MTH book - Lions Before Lunchtime  - it has 5,313 words in it.  It has a Grade level Equivalent: 2.8. Lexile Measure: 370L. DRA: 24. Guided Reading: M. 

One of the most widely used reading fluency measures is called the DIBELS oral reading fluency. Midway through second grade the average (50th percentile rank) student is reading 85 words per minute.

so 5513/85 = 62.5 minutes for an average reader (and that's being generous because it takes time to turn pages and look at pictures)

On the DIBELS reading fluency an advanced reader at the 95th percentile rank is reading 151 words per minute

so 5513/150 =35.42 minutes 

To reach this so called gold standard a second grader would have to be reading at 265 words per minute. 

5513/265 = 20 minutes 

While I am sure many people on these boards have young kids reading that fast, that is NOT anywhere close to reading at a second grade level. That is a remarkably advanced reader.

Using these figures I think if you have a second grader who can finish a MTH book in under 75 minutes you have a pretty solid second grade reader who has developed reading stamina to read for that long without stopping. I know in the public schools I have worked at, all the second grade teachers I have met would consider a second grader who could read a MTH in one sitting a good, solid reader. 

[pitterpatter]

They use DIBELS too. I think she's gotten so used to the kids doing this over the years that she doesn't want to believe they are pulling one over on her. I've told her the entire year and beyond that they are simply not reading. Not in a way that I would think a teacher might want anyway. She says they're getting 100% on the tests. (Yeah, so.) I've thought about pulling up one of the AR MTH tests and answering the questions based only on pictures and my prior knowledge of MTH. I haven't done it yet, though. I do not encourage my DD to rush through her reading. Her independent reading is primarily done during lunch. She takes a nice, long lunch after school and reads for fun and to relax. Most of what she reads during this time falls into the ATOS 3.6 category and are quite a bit longer than MTH. DD doesn't even read MTH. She listened to so many of them when she was younger via audiobook for history that she would rather read something new and different on her own time. The closest thing to MTH she's read lately is probably Calendar Mysteries: December Dog, which is on the lower end of what she typically reads, but she just loves those A-Z kids (and siblings).  :001_rolleyes: She thinks they're so funny. It's ATOS 3.1 with a 7,117 word count. Anyway, I think it took her 2-3 days to finish it while reading during lunch. I think the last day was just a couple of pages. I didn't clock the time, but I know she was really into it and read longer than usual the first day. Could have been up to an hour that day, but not longer.

 

As far as I remember, my sister has no exceptional students in her class this year. She has a couple of high students, but a lot of them are low. I think she regrets saying what she did to me the other day (there was more). Her phone calls after that have been the chatty, helpful, how-can-I-make-it-up-to-you kind. She adores DD and I think was actually trying to be helpful in a weird way. Since DD would have been in her grade this year, I think she is still sad that she's not there...not involved in her education at all. Thing is, I didn't ask for help. DD's not a perfect reader, but DH and I are pretty happy where she's at. She's a May birthday, so she would be one of the youngest in her grade in public school. Even six months can be huge in the academic realm at this age. Some in her Girl Scout troop turned eight months ago. I mentioned that. Heck, some of those "speedy readers" could be red shirts for all I know.

 

 

Where is your sister teaching because I just don't believe it?  I work in a public school and see plenty of kids reading MTH and strong second grade readers can finish under an hour. Average readers are not finishing the book in one sitting but are able to read MTH (the first 30 or so), and weaker students can't yet read a MTH book.  I looked up the word count for one MTH book - Lions Before Lunchtime  - it has 5,313 words in it.  It has a Grade level Equivalent: 2.8. Lexile Measure: 370L. DRA: 24. Guided Reading: M. 

One of the most widely used reading fluency measures is called the DIBELS oral reading fluency. Midway through second grade the average (50th percentile rank) student is reading 85 words per minute.

so 5513/85 = 62.5 minutes for an average reader (and that's being generous because it takes time to turn pages and look at pictures)

On the DIBELS reading fluency an advanced reader at the 95th percentile rank is reading 151 words per minute

so 5513/150 =35.42 minutes 

To reach this so called gold standard a second grader would have to be reading at 265 words per minute. 

5513/265 = 20 minutes 

While I am sure many people on these boards have young kids reading that fast, that is NOT anywhere close to reading at a second grade level. That is a remarkably advanced reader.

Using these figures I think if you have a second grader who can finish a MTH book in under 75 minutes you have a pretty solid second grade reader who has developed reading stamina to read for that long without stopping. I know in the public schools I have worked at, all the second grade teachers I have met would consider a second grader who could read a MTH in one sitting a good, solid reader. 

 

[hepatica]

 

While I am sure many people on these boards have young kids reading that fast, that is NOT anywhere close to reading at a second grade level. That is a remarkably advanced reader.

 

Completely agree! And, most forum members do not have remarkably advanced readers. It's just that those with advanced readers are always the ones posting about how early and how fast and how much their children read.

 

I have been following this thread with my jaw to the ground. I can't even really believe that this fast reading stuff is really a thing. Thank goodness we are homeschoolers.

 

The previous poster who commented that her sons were slow - sounds like they are totally normal to me. Just to balance the scale a bit, my eldest DD could not even read a MTH book until she was at least 8 1/2. She is now a lovely 14yo, very smart, and still a somewhat slow reader (big deal), but she reads voraciously. She loves reading.  My middle DD could read MTH in second grade, but wasn't really interested. I don't think she ever read one in just one sitting, and if she did it would never have crossed my mind to see how long it took her to read it. My DS, who is almost seven, can't read MTH yet. He's a fine, fantastic, interesting, loving human being who is learning to read at a completely appropriate age. Never in a million years would I suggest that he is "behind."Behind what? 

 

Please, please, please do not buy into the great lie that reading early or fast is a sign of academic strength or intelligence. It's just something that is easy to measure so schools have used it as a shorthand for gauging strength. It's a big mistake. It tells you something about the ease with which young kids engage in a certain type of processing. That's it. 

[SKL]

Does your sister consider the possibility that some of those kids have MTH books at home?  Maybe they are not doing all of their silent reading in the classroom.  That is certainly the case for my kids.  I would think it was rather typical.

[forty-two]

Please, please, please do not buy into the great lie that reading early or fast is a sign of academic strength or intelligence. It's just something that is easy to measure so schools have used it as a shorthand for gauging strength. It's a big mistake. It tells you something about the ease with which young kids engage in a certain type of processing. That's it. 

 

Thinking aloud here - is there really no benefit to having or working to develop "ease...in [that] certain type of processing"?  AKA, does the ability to read not just fluently but *rapidly* really have no impact on one's academic strength or crystallized intelligence?  I'm a fast reader, and ime the ability to interact with more material in a given time has been of *great* help in doing well academically and in increasing my stored knowledge (which is half of what makes up intelligence, at least from a fluid/crystallized view of intelligence).  The reading load in some professions is immense - a slow reader, no matter their intelligence, might find themselves shut out. 

 

Of course my lack of physical skill has shut me out of probably at least as many professions, and has definitely sharply reduced my experiential and bodily knowledge, but part of the reason my physical skills suck is because I combined lack of natural talent with zero effort to improve.  I'm never going to be an Olympic athlete, but with deliberate practice I could be in the typical range, which opens quite a few doors.  IDK, the ability to read relatively rapidly seems similarly useful and teachable - worth some degree of deliberate effort to cultivate where it doesn't flower naturally.

 

Of course, it doesn't sound like the AR program involves any actual *teaching* wrt increasing reading speed - rather that continual untutored practice will magically work, or not work.  Any failure is either due to lack of incentive (thus the rewards for meeting goals) or lack of natural ability, and it's not as if actual *teaching* could make up for *that*.  /sarcasm  (And expecting too much too soon, as seems very like wrt expecting off the charts performance as the goal for all, and 2nd graders at that, is also a typical American educational problem.)

[hepatica]

Reading quickly is just a skill. At the younger ages it tells us that they are using the most efficient part of their brains for processing written language. We know that kids with "reading disabilities" often use many more parts of their brain when they are reading. That slows them down. But, reading slower can also have it's benefits. Using more parts of the brain leads to greater creativity, a greater ability to find connections between seemingly disparate ideas. 

 

I expect there is a whole spectrum of reading speeds. Most kids will come to a reasonable speed as they mature. And, even slow readers usually find means of accommodation (try text to speech speed listening) Certainly, you can read more in a shorter amount of time. I'm not sure that actually means you will interact with more material, or interact in a qualitatively better way with more material. So, it might take one person two weeks to absorb the same amount of material as you can absorb in one week. Over the long haul, I don't see that as more important. 

 

It is more important in schools and college because we have chosen to privilege that skill over other skills (especially through testing). That is a choice. I don't think it says much at all about crystallized intelligence. I know tons of kids and adults who can spout facts, but don't have much interesting to say about them, or any novel ways of applying them. 

 

I just think the focus on speed is ridiculous, damaging and inefficacious. 

 

 

[Dory]

Thinking aloud here - is there really no benefit to having or working to develop "ease...in [that] certain type of processing"?  AKA, does the ability to read not just fluently but *rapidly* really have no impact on one's academic strength or crystallized intelligence?  I'm a fast reader, and ime the ability to interact with more material in a given time has been of *great* help in doing well academically and in increasing my stored knowledge (which is half of what makes up intelligence, at least from a fluid/crystallized view of intelligence).  The reading load in some professions is immense - a slow reader, no matter their intelligence, might find themselves shut out. 

 

Of course my lack of physical skill has shut me out of probably at least as many professions, and has definitely sharply reduced my experiential and bodily knowledge, but part of the reason my physical skills suck is because I combined lack of natural talent with zero effort to improve.  I'm never going to be an Olympic athlete, but with deliberate practice I could be in the typical range, which opens quite a few doors.  IDK, the ability to read relatively rapidly seems similarly useful and teachable - worth some degree of deliberate effort to cultivate where it doesn't flower naturally.

 

Of course, it doesn't sound like the AR program involves any actual *teaching* wrt increasing reading speed - rather that continual untutored practice will magically work, or not work.  Any failure is either due to lack of incentive (thus the rewards for meeting goals) or lack of natural ability, and it's not as if actual *teaching* could make up for *that*.  /sarcasm  (And expecting too much too soon, as seems very like wrt expecting off the charts performance as the goal for all, and 2nd graders at that, is also a typical American educational problem.)

 

You can get a lot of textbooks and regular books on the computer now instead of on paper. For slow readers using a text to voice program is often a way around slow reading. It's what my boys will probably use in their college and university years. Lack of reading speed no longer needs to hold people back.

[vonfirmath]

Interesting the viewpoints on how the old way led to reading slowly - that was not true for me -- we had no reward system either but I zipped through books.  No slowing down and savoring here - I was far too invested in the story to slow down (or take breaks either - still have that problem actually).  Kinda like the difference in people who like to reread and people who don't perhaps?

 

Agreed. Same here. I have no idea if there were other eyeballs looking back during silent reading time -- because I didn't take the time to look up. I'm sure I occasionally reread -- when I had nothing else to read. But considering I read all the fiction books in the 5th grade library (or had already read before I entered) during that grade -- I was doing a LOT of reading new stuff.

[Korrale]

Agreed. Same here. I have no idea if there were other eyeballs looking back during silent reading time -- because I didn't take the time to look up. I'm sure I occasionally reread -- when I had nothing else to read. But considering I read all the fiction books in the 5th grade library (or had already read before I entered) during that grade -- I was doing a LOT of reading new stuff.

Ditto! I devoured books like a starving person. I was often too into the books to slow down and savour. I preferred to read the entire book in one sitting. Something I struggle with to this day. I go to bed way too late because I am absorbed in a book. Learning to read fast was the only way that I could consume all the books that I wanted to read. Sadly the list never ends.

My son is like me. He reads fast and thinks that books are meant to be read in one sitting. I have told him that he can pace himself but he would rather not because he becomes so engrossed.

I never remember peeking around in reading time in school either.

[SKL]

Thinking aloud here - is there really no benefit to having or working to develop "ease...in [that] certain type of processing"?  AKA, does the ability to read not just fluently but *rapidly* really have no impact on one's academic strength or crystallized intelligence?  I'm a fast reader, and ime the ability to interact with more material in a given time has been of *great* help in doing well academically and in increasing my stored knowledge (which is half of what makes up intelligence, at least from a fluid/crystallized view of intelligence).  The reading load in some professions is immense - a slow reader, no matter their intelligence, might find themselves shut out.

 

I don't know about that.  Despite reading relatively slowly, I have a gifted IQ, graduated HS and went to college at 16, and I'm a lawyer, MBA, and CPA (passed all 4 parts of the CPA on my first try, on the same day, which is reportedly hard to do.)  When someone needs an important document or manual read and interpreted, I'm the person it goes to, because while it will take me some time to get through it, I'll know what it says and what it means when I'm done.  I have a good memory not only for what I've read today and yesterday, but for a lot of things I read when I was 20 and even 40 years younger.

 

If I try to read faster than my natural pace, I feel pressured and worry that I'll miss important things (if it's work), and I don't enjoy it at all (if it's pleasure).

 

I know there are smart people who are also fast readers.  However, the fact that these sometimes coincide does not prove causation one way or the other.

 

My dad is severely dyslexic and also gifted.  I inherited some of his reading challenges - only a very mild version, but enough that I probably process printed material in a different manner as well as a different speed.  However, it works for me.

 

Beyond reasonable fluency, I don't know if we can teach kids to "speed read," let alone whether we should.  There's nothing wrong with it if some people do this naturally, just like there's nothing wrong if some kids run to school while others walk.  But no, I don't assume that pushing kids to increase reading speed would make them smarter or more productive.  I think it would stress them out and cause them to miss some of the value of their education, and cause them to dislike reading.

[pitterpatter]

You ladies were so lucky! I don't remember reading a real book until fourth grade. My teacher read The Great Brain to us. I was enthralled...I didn't know such books existed. I had plenty of picture books at home, but nothing with kids my age doing cool things. LOL! (I wasn't into talking animals.) After that, I begged my mom every Saturday to take me to a small bookstore 30 minutes away (the children's section was smaller than a typical bathroom) to buy the next book in the series. I remember being so disappointed when it wasn't in stock and they had to special order it. I know we went to the school library and the school sent home book orders, but we must not have received appropriate guidance in book selection. I remember the librarian used to set out a small assortment of books on a table and that's what we had to choose from.

 

This was early- to mid-eighties. We were rural, which was much more rural than it is today. We didn't even have a McDonald's or a Wal-Mart then, much less a bookstore. Library yes, but not much in it.

 

Our silent reading in school during the lower grades consisted of whatever was in our reading textbooks...everyone read the same thing. Fourth grade we had to write book reports. Six grade was the first year we were assigned specific books to read.

 

 

Ditto! I devoured books like a starving person. I was often too into the books to slow down and savour. I preferred to read the entire book in one sitting. Something I struggle with to this day. I go to bed way too late because I am absorbed in a book. Learning to read fast was the only way that I could consume all the books that I wanted to read. Sadly the list never ends.
My son is like me. He reads fast and thinks that books are meant to be read in one sitting. I have told him that he can pace himself but he would rather not because he becomes so engrossed.
I never remember peeking around in reading time in school either.

 

[Dory]

I don't know about that.  Despite reading relatively slowly, I have a gifted IQ, graduated HS and went to college at 16, and I'm a lawyer, MBA, and CPA (passed all 4 parts of the CPA on my first try, on the same day, which is reportedly hard to do.)  When someone needs an important document or manual read and interpreted, I'm the person it goes to, because while it will take me some time to get through it, I'll know what it says and what it means when I'm done.  I have a good memory not only for what I've read today and yesterday, but for a lot of things I read when I was 20 and even 40 years younger.

 

If I try to read faster than my natural pace, I feel pressured and worry that I'll miss important things (if it's work), and I don't enjoy it at all (if it's pleasure).

 

I know there are smart people who are also fast readers.  However, the fact that these sometimes coincide does not prove causation one way or the other.

 

My dad is severely dyslexic and also gifted.  I inherited some of his reading challenges - only a very mild version, but enough that I probably process printed material in a different manner as well as a different speed.  However, it works for me.

 

Beyond reasonable fluency, I don't know if we can teach kids to "speed read," let alone whether we should.  There's nothing wrong with it if some people do this naturally, just like there's nothing wrong if some kids run to school while others walk.  But no, I don't assume that pushing kids to increase reading speed would make them smarter or more productive.  I think it would stress them out and cause them to miss some of the value of their education, and cause them to dislike reading.

 

yes, both my boys are also gifted slow readers. I'm a gifted fast reader. My oldest has an amazing memory if I allow him to read at his own pace. I have a great memory reading at my faster pace. The rate at which one reads doesn't seem to affect a persons intelligence or their memory or their ability to apply what they are reading. At least not in this house.

[pitterpatter]

This is my DD...probably her strongest academic strength. I don't even think she's all that slow. It's not painful, it's not struggling. She has very good reading comprehension. (And, listening comprehension when it comes to stories/literature.) That's why I was so taken aback by the comment.

 

 

yes, both my boys are also gifted slow readers. I'm a gifted fast reader. My oldest has an amazing memory if I allow him to read at his own pace. I have a great memory reading at my faster pace. The rate at which one reads doesn't seem to affect a persons intelligence or their memory or their ability to apply what they are reading. At least not in this house.

 

[debi21]

This thread has gone off on a little tangent, but we might be the slowest readers to post. My son is 5.5, we alternate chapters in MTH and read 4 chapters a night aloud (2 for him, 2 for me) and it takes us an hour for that. So about 3 hours per book. Earlier in the year, he struggled with stamina even more and could barely finish one chapter, so we are seeing progress. But he's not yet making the transition to reading in his head very much. 

 

[pitterpatter]

I think you're doing okay. Reading aloud takes a lot of effort. It definitely takes time to build up stamina. Five-and-a-half is pretty young. I don't think we even attempted MTH at that age due to length. It took 2-3 days for DD to read Henry & Mudge aloud (some are noticeably shorter than the others). After some trial and error, I decided to try to stay at around 30 minutes a day for reading aloud.

 

 

This thread has gone off on a little tangent, but we might be the slowest readers to post. My son is 5.5, we alternate chapters in MTH and read 4 chapters a night aloud (2 for him, 2 for me) and it takes us an hour for that. So about 3 hours per book. Earlier in the year, he struggled with stamina even more and could barely finish one chapter, so we are seeing progress. But he's not yet making the transition to reading in his head very much. 

 

[hepatica]

This thread has gone off on a little tangent, but we might be the slowest readers to post. My son is 5.5, we alternate chapters in MTH and read 4 chapters a night aloud (2 for him, 2 for me) and it takes us an hour for that. So about 3 hours per book. Earlier in the year, he struggled with stamina even more and could barely finish one chapter, so we are seeing progress. But he's not yet making the transition to reading in his head very much. 

 

Your child is 5 1/2, reading chapter books. It's crazy to say he is "slow" or doesn't have stamina. He is an advanced reader. 

[debi21]

Sorry, I wasn't trying to say I was disappointed or anything. I'm really happy with how he's doing. All I was trying to say is that MTH is the right reading level for him in terms of decoding/comprehension, but he's nowhere near being able to read the book in an hour, much less 30 minutes as a bunch of previous posters have indicated. I'm pretty sure I saw some other posts saying 5-6 year olds were doing it in an hour or so.

 

 

[debi21]

I am hitting the double posts tonight.

 

[pitterpatter]

I appreciate your post...it helps balances the responses. I've read a lot of reading threads over the past couple of years. What I've found is that parents of fast and early readers (and parents who read fast themselves) are very proud of this fact. This is a fine and natural thing. If my child read Harry Potter in two days at age three I too would be darn proud indeed. Here's the thing, those parents are confident posters. They are quick to post in reading threads. Parents with average readers (or perhaps less than average readers because their parents really aren't sure) are less likely to post, unless they are genuinely trying to be helpful or wish to make the thread more balanced. I appreciate all posts because you really need a good sampling to get a realistic picture.

 

I may be way off, but that's my observation and interpretation.

 

 

Sorry, I wasn't trying to say I was disappointed or anything. I'm really happy with how he's doing. All I was trying to say is that MTH is the right reading level for him in terms of decoding/comprehension, but he's nowhere near being able to read the book in an hour, much less 30 minutes as a bunch of previous posters have indicated. I'm pretty sure I saw some other posts saying 5-6 year olds were doing it in an hour or so.