Could Your Child Read Before Starting School?

[Spy Car]

Bill, for a child who learns to read easily, there is no dichotomy between outdoors and reading. For the child who will not be there developmentally until seven, they spend hours a day doing a developmentally inappropriate task and feeling behind.

 

I think that's detrimental.

 

FWIW in our district when people realized reading was expected in K they just started entering kids later.

 

I'm sympathetic to the problems, but less certain what the answer is. Should students who are ready to read (or who are already reading) be reigned in because some others in the class are not? That doesn't seem like the answer.

 

Having students feel like failures in Kindergarten when they're struggling to read while classmates are not is a bad situation. 

 

Having children start K later if a parent expects their child is not developmentally ready to read seem like a wise option to me given current expectations (here, in the better schools, anyway).

 

I do not believe children should be forced to do things that are not developmentally prepared to do. I also believe we fail to see what young children actually are capable of doing, and what means are best to reach them, and we end up with a choice between "delay or "inappropriate," when there is a third way.

 

I don't have all the answers here (by a long shot). I feel for the children who were not ready for the program at my son's school. Feeling "behind" or feeling stupid is a very bad way to begin ones school experience.

 

Bill

[MistyMountain]

The third way should be targeted help for kids who need it in ways that are effective without permanently placing them on a lower tract. In my area there is help in some schools but it is more of the same sight word heavy method that was not effective. Dyslexia isn't rare and there are other reasons why reading is hard for some kids. Higher standards for getting into teaching programs would probably help too. If we do not stigmatize needing help and tell kids that it is ok when things are sometimes hard and you need to work at it since it helps you grow. We just need to help kids who are struggling at any given time until they get it. Lots of schools do anything to get out of giving extra help to kids and if they do happen to help it is not effective methods.

[wapiti]

I do not believe children should be forced to do things that are not developmentally prepared to do. I also believe we fail to see what young children actually are capable of doing, and what means are best to reach them, and we end up with a choice between "delay or "inappropriate," when there is a third way.

 

FWIW, I agree with this.

Edited January 12, 2016 by wapiti

[Tsuga]

Bill, I do agree there is a third way.

 

The third way is letting kids develop as they do and supporting the most needy in particular. Montessori, or any good school system including homeschooling, is that way.

 

However, if we insist that the "norm" and "well-prepared" means reading in K, then those services will be labeled as "remedial". My posts are to argue that intensive help in K-2nd grade for reading should be the norm, not remedial; advanced children should be allowed room to flourish as well, and not be placed in other classrooms or get a label, but just be allowed to develop as they do. Completely agree.

 

That's why your post, that kids who were ahead early went on to be advanced, prompted my response. I think the connection between very early reading and later success is part of what supports the "remediation" thinking around reading in K, and what could reinforce the stigma that further reinforces social exclusion and lack of success.

 

I can't find the study now, but one group did a study on enthusiastic readers and found that without exception the parents were enthusiastic readers. Many read early, but some read late. What made the biggest difference was not instruction, but a love of reading.

 

I get that some kids learn to read with plenty of time left over. But some kids require hours and hours to learn to read ahead of schedule. That takes away from time they could be building dams outside. I think my experience abroad colors my thinking in this. I've lived in some of the top-scoring nations for tests and US college admissions. The children are in the dirt. Especially the boys, but girls as well. They are dirty, playing, working with their hands. Using their eyes to look at things other than the same damn 26 letters over and over. Some kids just get to reading from a different place. Their parents NEED to know that it's okay to do that so that the feeling of "you are okay, you are doing great, keep going" is transmitted to the kid.

 

Kids sense when we think they aren't doing well. So when they actually are, we need to stop moving the bar to say they're not. Not reading in K is FINE in and of itself. If it's a sign that mom and dad are working class, well, why on EARTH hammer that home to the kid so early? The LAST thing our working class needs is to be marked as not good enough from day one, put in the last group. Ugh.

 

[IsabelC]

No, no and yes. When Ms. 6 started 4yo kinder, being able to read fluently was fine because their program was play based and didn't include much reading. But when she started Prep (equivalent of 5yo K) they started serious reading instruction and it was a problem. 

[Library Momma]

The third way, used when I was a kid, was grouping by instructional need. Everyone advanced, no one sat around free reading while pullouts and pushins were going on for certain subgroups. Instruction wasnt restricted to grade level or below. No one walked around feeling ahead or behind, we all tested in to the group right for our instructional level. Everyone had to learn, no one got an easy A reviewing for years.

 

 

It is still this way in many places.

[kubiac]

I do want to voice my belief that "playing in the dirt" and "reading instruction" need not be in conflict with each other. There are many hours in every day. 

[LaughingCat]

The third way, used when I was a kid, was grouping by instructional need. Everyone advanced, no one sat around free reading while pullouts and pushins were going on for certain subgroups. Instruction wasnt restricted to grade level or below. No one walked around feeling ahead or behind, we all tested in to the group right for our instructional level. Everyone had to learn, no one got an easy A reviewing for years.

The problem with this comes if once you are assigned you are there to stay -- which happens quite a lot in this type of grouping from what I have read.  I like some ideas I have read lately that involve re-grouping based on specific skills-- so that overall advanced kids could be grouped in the struggling group for any specific skills they needed to work on.  And less advanced kids would be in the advanced group in areas where they shone.  Still not a perfect system of course.      Although it fits what I have read of one of the advantages of the Finland system -- that they focus in on the specific areas that need help rather than just being put in the 'bad' reader group (and yeah, we all knew which one that was).

[Bluegoat]

I'm sympathetic to the problems, but less certain what the answer is. Should students who are ready to read (or who are already reading) be reigned in because some others in the class are not? That doesn't seem like the answer.

 

Having students feel like failures in Kindergarten when they're struggling to read while classmates are not is a bad situation. 

 

Having children start K later if a parent expects their child is not developmentally ready to read seem like a wise option to me given current expectations (here, in the better schools, anyway).

 

I do not believe children should be forced to do things that are not developmentally prepared to do. I also believe we fail to see what young children actually are capable of doing, and what means are best to reach them, and we end up with a choice between "delay or "inappropriate," when there is a third way.

 

I don't have all the answers here (by a long shot). I feel for the children who were not ready for the program at my son's school. Feeling "behind" or feeling stupid is a very bad way to begin ones school experience.

 

Bill

 

But who would be reigning them in?  Someone telling kids that are trying to read to stop?  That seems unlikely.

 

There are some kids who are far ahead in all kinds of areas, but we don't bring those lessons down to be generally expected of all or most kids in lower grades, and give them special help if they are not getting there.  It's part of teaching kids in groups that you are going to have to try and place things where they are developmentally appropriate.  Reading in K has not become the expectation in some countries because the kids have changed.  Outside of the English speaking nations, most of Europe waits a little longer to teach reading.  Somehow, their students don't seem to be suffering from it - they aren't unemployable when they graduate, they aren't lacking in culture, they don't have depressed gammar school students throwing themselves out of trees because they haven't been taught reading yet.

 

The third way IMO is just wait until six or seven to expect kids to read or teach it in  classrooms, and do other things in K if you must have it at all.  It might also make sense to have mixed age classes so children who are at different levels from their peers, or in different subjects, can more easily be taught in an appropriate way.

 

[Tsuga]

I do want to voice my belief that "playing in the dirt" and "reading instruction" need not be in conflict with each other. There are many hours in every day. 

 

My child attends kindergarten from 8 to 2. She gets an hour's worth of recess through the day. After school, we have all of two hours of daylight during the winter, less because I get home later.

 

For many families, there is one hour of free time before dinner. You can dedicate that to reading practice or send them outdoors.

 

So it can be mutually exclusive, particularly for those not homeschooling.

[Bluegoat]

One thing I think is interesting is that there is on the one hand all this focus on producing graduates who are into STEM, and on the other all of this academic seat work at young ages.

 

If you want students who could be good engineers, maybe it would be a good idea to spend as much time in the early years encouraging kids to work with their hands and use their bodies as they do on reading?  Maybe if you want graduates who are interested in the natural world, and who have a facility for thinking about it, you should really have kids spend time in the natural world?  My husband is a scientist, but he doesn't spend all his time writing at a computer.  A lot happens in a lab, a lot is trying to make equipment work, or work better, sometimes it is even things like building a shed or attaching an antenna to a roof.

 

The hand work to me is especially weird, because it really is a skill that needs to be practiced from a young age. 

[horsellian]

For many families, there is one hour of free time before dinner. You can dedicate that to reading practice or send them outdoors.

 

So it can be mutually exclusive, particularly for those not homeschooling.

 

But who needs to spend an hour a day teaching reading one-on-one?  My kids learned in about 10mins a day: 5 in the morning straight after breakfast and 5 in the evening, before bed  (they loved reading me a bedtime story before I read them a bedtime story).

[SKL]

When my kids were 4.5-5.5yo, each would read roughly 10-15 minutes before bed each night.  Maybe 20 max when they could really read.  This would have been our normal "story time" anyway, so having them read some materials was just a variation on that.

 

If the kids weren't progressing with that much practice or were quickly reaching frustration levels, I would have dialed it back.  But then, they would not have been accelerated in school, so there would have been a lot more time to mature and get ready to read.

[VANURSEPRAC]

I could use some help please.

 

My DD is a 6th grade public student. She starting reading in K.  Our district took phonics out while she was in the early elementary years and really struggles with phonics. She loves to read. She just glosses over the words she can't pronounce.

 

She loves to read dystonia type books.

 

I just worry about her lack of phonics, will this hurt her? What could I be doing to help develop her reading skills?

[Arcadia]

I just worry about her lack of phonics, will this hurt her? What could I be doing to help develop her reading skills?

I used this reading book a few years ago for my younger boy who is a early reader but average speller. I use a library copy. It isn't "babyish"

http://www.amazon.com/Uncovering-Logic-English-Common-Sense-Approach/dp/1936706210

[eloquacious]

Yes. My oldest was at a mid 2nd-grade level, my middle son who starts K in August will be at a mid 1st-grade level.

[Renai]

I could use some help please.

 

My DD is a 6th grade public student. She starting reading in K.  Our district took phonics out while she was in the early elementary years and really struggles with phonics. She loves to read. She just glosses over the words she can't pronounce.

 

She loves to read dystonia type books.

 

I just worry about her lack of phonics, will this hurt her? What could I be doing to help develop her reading skills?

 

I tutored a lot of 4th-6th grade students that were missing phonics, and they did the same thing - glossed over words they couldn't pronounce. Interestingly, their goals stated they had comprehension problems. The real problem was mispronouncing or skipping words, so that is why they were missing the meaning of the text. I spent time each session just working on phonics. I used the lessons on The Phonics Page with them.  http://thephonicspage.org/On%20Phonics/onphonicslinks.html

[Tsuga]

But who needs to spend an hour a day teaching reading one-on-one? My kids learned in about 10mins a day: 5 in the morning straight after breakfast and 5 in the evening, before bed (they loved reading me a bedtime story before I read them a bedtime story).

Wow, congratulations.

 

Sounds like your kids didn't need extensive support to learn at five

 

You might want to consider the tens of thousands, if not millions, of children who are not ready to learn to read at five.

 

Some of them are even profoundly gifted; many are average to above average.

 

But they aren't ready.

 

So demanding they learn a year early takes extensive instruction.

 

Or is the thought that we just dismiss those children?

 

Can I officially say my kids could ride bikes at three, so if your kid could not, there is something wrong with them?

 

What about math. Both my children could do math, multi digit addition and subtraction, before the age of six.

 

How about we put all the other kids in the remedial group?

 

Either people are really mean or you all don't get it.

 

While a few precocious kids learn to read early, and some by five, most won't, even with reading 20 minutes per night. Setting the norm at the top 10% just puts pressure on parents to get their kids there ahead of developmental issues and takes time from the other skills the kid could be learning, you know, like problem solving, physical instincts, etc.

 

I get that your kid is brilliant and it wasn't hard.

 

Congratulations. Now let's talk about kids for whom this is not easy at four-five. I know, I know, your kid, your kid.

 

But there are millions of kids out there. Are we going to compare them all to your kid?

 

My daughter is six grade levels ahead.

 

She learned to read at six and a half.

 

Thank GOD she was not in the hands of people who would have forced her to learn early because one kid did it.

 

The other one started out second to last in her class. Honestly, my kids prefer nature to kids' books and I don't blame them. Lord, dr. Seuss, was he on LSD? Now she's average. I have zero doubt she'll be fine.

 

We have to leave room for diversity in our expectations. Morning and labeling people at every point, shoving round little pegs into square holes... Why?

 

What is the point?

 

No research suggests this works. Reading is getting earlier, sat scores are going down. Natural early readers are usually bright, other early readers have a lot of family resources. Control for that and it does nothing for your success.

 

And yes, it is a trade off for some kids. Read about Harlem succes academies in the NYTimes this week. The kids who are begin stay after school... Even from kindergarten on. They most certainly are sacrificing play for reading.

[Tsuga]

Sorry for grammar. I am typing on a phone with a small screen. Also short sentences sound terse. I think the American system of education, and around the English speaking world, is generally poor. Pushing early reading has done jack all to improve anything, and yes, five is early.

[horsellian]

Wow, congratulations.

 

Sounds like your kids didn't need extensive support to learn at five

 

You might want to consider the tens of thousands, if not millions, of children who are not ready to learn to read at five.

 

Some of them are even profoundly gifted; many are average to above average.

 

But they aren't ready.

 

So demanding they learn a year early takes extensive instruction.

 

Or is the thought that we just dismiss those children?

 

Can I officially say my kids could ride bikes at three, so if your kid could not, there is something wrong with them?

 

What about math. Both my children could do math, multi digit addition and subtraction, before the age of six.

 

How about we put all the other kids in the remedial group?

 

Either people are really mean or you all don't get it.

 

While a few precocious kids learn to read early, and some by five, most won't, even with reading 20 minutes per night. Setting the norm at the top 10% just puts pressure on parents to get their kids there ahead of developmental issues and takes time from the other skills the kid could be learning, you know, like problem solving, physical instincts, etc.

 

I get that your kid is brilliant and it wasn't hard.

 

Congratulations. Now let's talk about kids for whom this is not easy at four-five. I know, I know, your kid, your kid.

 

But there are millions of kids out there. Are we going to compare them all to your kid?

 

My daughter is six grade levels ahead.

 

She learned to read at six and a half.

 

Thank GOD she was not in the hands of people who would have forced her to learn early because one kid did it.

 

The other one started out second to last in her class. Honestly, my kids prefer nature to kids' books and I don't blame them. Lord, dr. Seuss, was he on LSD? Now she's average. I have zero doubt she'll be fine.

 

We have to leave room for diversity in our expectations. Morning and labeling people at every point, shoving round little pegs into square holes... Why?

 

What is the point?

 

No research suggests this works. Reading is getting earlier, sat scores are going down. Natural early readers are usually bright, other early readers have a lot of family resources. Control for that and it does nothing for your success.

 

And yes, it is a trade off for some kids. Read about Harlem succes academies in the NYTimes this week. The kids who are begin stay after school... Even from kindergarten on. They most certainly are sacrificing play for reading.

 

Got a bee in your bonnet much?  I didn't say all kids read easily at age 5 (incidentally, I didn't say my kids did either, I said they spent 5 minutes morning and night learning, but never  mind) and I didn't say that there is anything wrong with kids who don't learn at age 5 (again, you're the one who brought up age 5!)

 

However, most kids do not require years and years of an hour a day one-to-one attention to learn to read.  My original point was that for MOST kids there's not a conflict between learning to read and outdoor time.

[Bluegoat]

I will disagree with you Binip on setting expectations by the top 25%. That group shows what happens when a cooperative child has literate parents who are nurturing. Setting the goal based on what can be done with children who are from illiterate families and are who nutritionally deprived and emotionally and culturally neglected is not in anyone's best interest. I know...my child was in an included third grade where kindy work was given out. No one in that classroom learned anything academic as no one was being taught at their instructional level and the violence was so high that the literate couldnt sit in the back and read while reteach was going on. Every child was turned into Goldilocks, but no one ever was offered the 'just right'. You would do well to read the research on the 30 million word gap, FASD, and on the effects of lack of nurturing in birth to 3s, before you dismiss the standards as impossible, or subgroups of children as gifted freaks.There is no royal road....and those children giving up playtime to learn....what would you have them do? Where else will they get the vocab they missed out on? When? What is your proposal to give them language competency? Why isnt the entire evening of play enough? My proposal is to group by instructional need....everyone gets to learn. Advance to the next unit when you have the current one mastered. Exit school at 16 or later, when done with a certain number of units.

 

What?  Why in the world do you think that early readers are early because they have good parents, and late readers are late because they have poor parents?  Children at that age are developmentally diverse, there are particularly large reading differences between girls and boys. 

 

Working at a level developmentally too low for most kids isn't going to be good, but that doesn't mean it is good to suddenly start giving them work that most are not ready for.

 

The tendency in English speaking countries in the last number of years has been to think that by pushing work earlier they will get better results.  These are also the people who fall for useless programs to teach reading to babies and toddlers - the reasoning is false.

 

And if it was a good idea, you might think we would have seen some results by now.  Somehow though, pushing early reading has not improved outcomes.  Europeans that don't teach reading until 6 or 7 are still coming out with better educated, better readers and writers, and often in more than one language as well.

[shawthorne44]

But who needs to spend an hour a day teaching reading one-on-one?  My kids learned in about 10mins a day: 5 in the morning straight after breakfast and 5 in the evening, before bed  (they loved reading me a bedtime story before I read them a bedtime story).

 

DD gets read an extra book for every book she reads to me.  Since this is before bedtime, that is a huge motivator.  

[Korrale]

Who decided the "right" age to teach reading? Why is it 6 or 7. Why not 3?

I see the words "developmentally appropriate" pushed around a lot. I just wonder who it was that decided what was developmentally appropriate for the majority of children.

My sister teaches Prep (4-5 year olds) and doesn't seem to have an issue teaching the majority of her class emergent reading. When my "kids" started Kindergarten (5-6) all four of them were in 3 separate classes where all the children were emergent readers within a few months. And according to their teachers this is pretty standard.

 

As for countries that introduce reading at 6 or 7. What isn't mentioned is that the aren't learning to read English, which as a written language has its own issues. Learning to read or decode orthonogrphy that is purely phonic is much easier than English. What is also seldom mentioned is that these children that aren't taught formal reading until 6 and 7 may have been doing other things informally before learning to read. They may have had a great phonemic awareness and rhyming background from a nursery care program that was play based.

[mathnerd]

Who decided the "right" age to teach reading? Why is it 6 or 7. Why not 3?

I see the words "developmentally appropriate" pushed around a lot. I just wonder who it was that decided what was developmentally appropriate for the majority of children.

 

Valid question. I have lived and worked in 3 different asian countries in my 20s. Most of the middle class people in those countries send their kids to pre-K at 2.5 or 3 years old and they are taught to read, write and speak in 2 or more languages starting at that age. Many of my co-workers there had kids who could read, write and do arithmetic at advanced levels before age 4. And reading at age 3 was an expectation. They only attended half a day of school at that age, so they still did all the playing on the streets, learning art, dance, swimming, spending time with extended families, free playing etc. which are encouraged activities of early childhood. There are millions of middle class kids in some parts of the world that are growing up with the expectation that reading and writing at age 3 is normal (not to mention reading in more than 1 language). So, it is hard to understand why it is developmentally inappropriate to teach reading to a child before age 7 in some parts of the world.

[regentrude]

I'm sympathetic to the problems, but less certain what the answer is. Should students who are ready to read (or who are already reading) be reigned in because some others in the class are not? That doesn't seem like the answer.

 

Having students feel like failures in Kindergarten when they're struggling to read while classmates are not is a bad situation. 

 

Having children start K later if a parent expects their child is not developmentally ready to read seem like a wise option to me given current expectations (here, in the better schools, anyway).

 

 A possible solution would be to group children not by age, but according to ability.

But that's a radical paradigm shift, requires rethinking the entire school structure, and is politically undesired.

[Roadrunner]

Both my kids were reading fluently (beyond Magic Schoolhouse) in K. It wasn't beneficial. If they didn't know letters, at least they would have been engaged in the classroom. Instead they spent several years in school learning nothing. The reading groups were always set to the weakest reader in the group. My youngest spent two consecutive years reading exactly the same readers.

[Garga]

I adore reading. I read all the time. I read out loud to my kids constantly. They saw me sitting and reading books. I never wanted kids until I was 28, but I always thought, "IF I have kids, they will learn to read early and we will spend the afternooons reading together."

 

My first didn't learn to read until halfway through 1st grade, and it wasn't fluent. His "reading" at that time just meant that he could read easy readers with only a sentence or two on the page. Things like Henry and Fudge or Frog and Toad. He was not off reading Harry Potter like other kids I hear about.

 

He's in 7th grade now and it's still choppy when he reads out loud. In fact, I hadn't realized how choppy it was until recently and now I make him read out loud to me a few times a week so we can gain fluency. He's 12! Ugh. I was reading, literally, Tolstoy at 12. No one made me; I just liked it. I have to make him and my other son take time to read. They don't naturally gravitate to it. It makes my heart ache that they don't share my love of reading.

 

My youngest learned exactly when all the other kids are supposed to. He was not ahead. He was not behind.

 

I wonder whether they were switched in the hospital or something, because it is a wonder to me that they don't adore reading the way I do. I did everything right. I spent years and years trying to teach oldest to read. Nothing worked except time. If I could do it again, I wouldn't have bothered trying to teach him until he began 1st grade. Anything before that was a waste of time and energy and frustrated us both.

 

ETA: My oldest son, the one who read late, tests as well above average in intellect. He just didn't learn to read early and doesn't love it the way I do.

[Tanikit]

Both my children read before K (actually one is still pre-K). 

 

What does developmentally ready mean? I only learnt to ride a bicycle at 7 years old and started swimming at 6. My youngest daughter was swimming without devices at 3. Neither my 4 nor my 7 year old are riding bikes properly, but a lot of this has to do with the lack of free space in which to practice. No one has told me that I forced my child to swim and pressured her at a young age. I do not know if people will tell me I am neglecting my child by not having her riding a bicycle yet.

 

Children are ready to learn to read when they are ready to gain meaning from text - which means that if your child recognises the MacDonald's sign or knows the name of a shop based on its particular branding, then your child is ready to learn to read. The abstract concept of reading has already been reached - something other than the thing itself is represented by text - in actual fact even earlier than this a child is able to recognise a drawing and associate it with the real thing which is perhaps an earlier pre reading skill.

 

Left to right and top to bottom can be trained in children very young without any specific teaching even before they know their right hand from their left.

 

Honestly though at these very young ages sight word reading will happen before phonics and blending and I know many people then say that the child is not reading - based on the definition of reading however (deriving meaning from text) this is not true - that said though phonics and blending is needed in order to be able to read anything. However that said, children fluent in phonics are not always reading - they may be able to say the words in a difficult book, but not comprehend them due to their age or the fact that they have not experienced something - that is not reading then. 

 

Many phonics readers are difficult to understand because the words being used end up being used in a stilted fashion or words that would not typically be used in speech or less phonetically controlled books are chosen simply as they follow the pattern. While this may be a step in learning to read, it is possible for a child that this may not be reading if they cannot understand the text apart from the pictures. 

 

The question should therefore be: not what is developmentally appropriate, but rather how can we better look after our children - especially the very young ones - not just to read, but to be healthy in all aspects. To feel loved and cared for, to learn to look after themselves in the way that they can, to understand that others have needs too, to be fed in a healthy manner (which appears to be very difficult these days since what is truly healthy and what helps a food producers pocket and what is just plain easy to feed all cloud what is truly healthy), to get enough sleep and rest and time to play, to develop ones physical being and also one's spiritual being. Nothing can be seen in isolation - reading is not just a task that needs to be accomplished at a certain age - it is all part of a person and, in fact, a community's health. If we continue to isolate it from general health then we will forever be playing catch-up for the children who are still not being well looked after... and if we isolate it then people will think here that I am saying that later reading is because a child has not been looked after - but that is rubbish. Maybe for that child who was well looked after and given the right opportunities reading came at the time that was right for that child.

 

 

[MistyMountain]

I actually believe in exposing kids to early literacy and learning and that for sure can including reading and math. The two kids I did really early stuff with did not end up reading early. One just got diagnosed with mild dyslexia. The other is young but my guess is also dealing with that based on signs. I know that lots of people are successful with it because I saw lots of people who talk about being successful but the people who aren't are probably less likely to talk about it. I have no idea how many preschoolers or younger are capable of learning to read if given gentle exposure in short bursts but many kids will not be ready yet. If it is done the right way it certainly is not harmful though. I know I worry when it seems like everyone out there is successful who does it but I suspect that there are kids who just are not ready to read but with more time will be. All kids have different strengths and weaknesses and have their own timetable. There are late bloomers and precocious children. Nurture does play a part and being in a good environment which will look different for different families does help kids grow and develop.

[IsabelC]

I will disagree with you Binip on setting expectations by the top 25%. That group shows what happens when a cooperative child has literate parents who are nurturing.

No. It shows what happens when a cooperative child who is ready to learn reading and has literate parents who are nurturing. If the kid isn't ready, no amount of cooperation and nurturing will make it easy. There are plenty of cooperative kids with highly educated, dedicated, hard-working and nurturing parents who don't read early (or don't do some other particular thing early).

 

 

Setting the goal based on what can be done with children who are from illiterate families and are who nutritionally deprived and emotionally and culturally neglected is not in anyone's best interest.

Ideally, every child would be catered for at her/his appropriate level. Nobody (I hope) is advocating for any child's requirements not to be met. But if schools are effectively forced to make choices, it is more ethical to cater to those kids who would not otherwise be helped (i.e. the lowest performers) rather than making things harder for them in order to provide additional support to those kids who already have a good portion of their educational needs met at home. And there is no way that schools can have their learning goals 100% aligned with every child's ideal level, because they don't have sufficient 1:1 teaching. Which is one of the reasons many of us would cite for not using the school system.

 

[IsabelC]

Can I officially say my kids could ride bikes at three, so if your kid could not, there is something wrong with them?

 

 

This made me laugh at myself. My first and second child could both ride a bicycle at age 2. When third child started learning to ride a bike, she was slower. She still couldn't balance at 3. I got very stressed and wondered what could be wrong with her: was she deliberately trying to worry us, or could she have some obscure undiagnosed medical issue that was effecting her ability to stay upright on two wheels? She finally got it when she was almost 4 years old, and we concluded that she must just be a slow developer in that area. Then about six months later we put the kids into school for the first time, only to find that learning to ride a tricycle was expected by the end of K4 year. Apparently the 'normal' milestone is to be riding a bike by age seven, so our 'slow' girl wasn't as slow as we thought!  :lol:

[hepatica]

I will disagree with you Binip on setting expectations by the top 25%. That group shows what happens when a cooperative child has literate parents who are nurturing. Setting the goal based on what can be done with children who are from illiterate families and are who nutritionally deprived and emotionally and culturally neglected is not in anyone's best interest. 

 

As others have pointed out, this is a gross misunderstanding. I have very cooperative children, we are very literate, nurturing parents. I have yet to have a child who could read in K. My earliest reader was 6 1/2 before she could read with any fluency. This is not about good parenting or socioeconomic status, and yes that is exactly what the quoted statement says.

 

We call many children dyslexic because they didn't read at age 5 or 6, but they are actually kids who have brains that are working in an entirely different way. And that difference is a rich, imaginative and vital difference. They can think in ways that the early readers cannot, precisely because they are processing language in a different way. These kids can be taught to read fluently, but it takes much more than 5 minutes a day or a few afternoons on Starfall. If you have not experienced teaching one of these kids to read then please, please do not tell others how easy it is for kids to learn to read before K as long as they have loving, nurturing parents. 

 

So yes, there is an actual harm in forcing these kids to spend hours learning to read just so they can do it before first grade. Given time and appropriate teaching they will read fine, but it may take a few more years. When we put this much emphasis on early reading, and yes reading in K is early reading, we deny these children the chance to develop their own unique skills. Folks whose kids read early like to think their kids are smarter, but it's just not true. Look around at all the late readers who made amazing creative contributions to society. The only thing kids who read early are smarter at is school. So yes, because school privileges reading skills, kids who read early tend to move ahead more quickly academically. But school success requires such a narrow band of skills, it's really silly to think that being academically adept is the definition of intelligence. And, as it turns out, many of these kids are tremendously academically adept at the college and graduate school level - where being able to think differently, to see things from a different perspective is the name of the game. 

 

Oh and yes, my 7yo DS, who will be starting Barton this month because he is still not reading fluently after 3 years of consistent teaching, rode a 2 wheel bike at age 2. So if your kid is reading and not yet fluently pedaling then you better put down all those books and get outside and spend an hour a day until they can catch up.

[SKL]

If a kid doesn't take to reading early, then fine.  Provide some other rich opportunity.

 

Nobody is saying kids must be kept away from bikes until age __ because before that age, bike riding takes too much time away from better activities.  Why do we go there with reading?  If a kid is reading and/or riding a bike at age 1, 3, 5, 7, whatever, then great!

 

I remember when my kids were 4yo and had very different strengths.  I used to worry that the slower reader would feel badly because her younger sister was so far ahead.  So I would point out that while Miss E learned to read first, Miss A learned to ride her bike first.  That seemed to satisfy them.  Forcing Miss E to balance her bike and forcing Miss A to read a storybook would have been equally counterproductive at that age.  I just kept encouraging a little here and there and watching for "signs."

[Bluegoat]

If a kid doesn't take to reading early, then fine.  Provide some other rich opportunity.

 

Nobody is saying kids must be kept away from bikes until age __ because before that age, bike riding takes too much time away from better activities.  Why do we go there with reading?  If a kid is reading and/or riding a bike at age 1, 3, 5, 7, whatever, then great!

 

I remember when my kids were 4yo and had very different strengths.  I used to worry that the slower reader would feel badly because her younger sister was so far ahead.  So I would point out that while Miss E learned to read first, Miss A learned to ride her bike first.  That seemed to satisfy them.  Forcing Miss E to balance her bike and forcing Miss A to read a storybook would have been equally counterproductive at that age.  I just kept encouraging a little here and there and watching for "signs."

 

The thing is, a classroom setting should introduce teaching when most of the kids will be able to make good use of it.  It's not a matter of separating them from books, it is about when to begin classroom instruction and test .

 

A generation ago, kids were not usually expected to read at 5.  In many of the best school systems, they still are not expected to read at five.  Those systems work well.

 

So what has changed that says that we should start instruction at 5?  Why not 3, or 2?  It does not seem to improve outcomes. 

[SKL]

The thing is, a classroom setting should introduce teaching when most of the kids will be able to make good use of it.  It's not a matter of separating them from books, it is about when to begin classroom instruction and test .

 

A generation ago, kids were not usually expected to read at 5.  In many of the best school systems, they still are not expected to read at five.  Those systems work well.

 

So what has changed that says that we should start instruction at 5?  Why not 3, or 2?  It does not seem to improve outcomes. 

 

Since the OP question was about kids knowing how to read before starting school, I thought we were mostly talking about kids learning to read outside of the classroom setting.

 

[Staceyshoe]

Both of mine could read before they started public school K (which both attended).  It made K more tedious for my first ds, who was quite advanced.  The second (who was not very advanced but was barely reading) did well.  The teacher mentioned that it was their first year using CCSS and that she wasn't supposed to send leveled readers home with the kids.  They were all supposed to get the same reader, but "Sshhh . . . I think every child should have a book at their own level to read."  I volunteered in the classroom and saw that of the 50 kids in AM and PM classes, my son was the ONLY child within 4 reading levels of the standard reader.  Every other child was either way below or way above it.  I'm so thankful that she sent leveled readers home to every child!

[Renai]

Both of mine could read before they started public school K (which both attended).  It made K more tedious for my first ds, who was quite advanced.  The second (who was not very advanced but was barely reading) did well.  The teacher mentioned that it was their first year using CCSS and that she wasn't supposed to send leveled readers home with the kids.  They were all supposed to get the same reader, but "Sshhh . . . I think every child should have a book at their own level to read."  I volunteered in the classroom and saw that of the 50 kids in AM and PM classes, my son was the ONLY child within 4 reading levels of the standard reader.  Every other child was either way below or way above it.  I'm so thankful that she sent leveled readers home to every child!

 

I don't understand that teacher's logic. There is nothing in cc that says every child is supposed to get the same reader. It does say that students should be able to read grade-level and on-level texts, it however does not limit the student to only that level. In fact, on-level can be interpreted as "on student level."

[Bluegoat]

Since the OP question was about kids knowing how to read before starting school, I thought we were mostly talking about kids learning to read outside of the classroom setting.

 

 

I think it kind of slid into what then happens or should be expected when those kids get to school. 

[MinivanMom]

I don't understand that teacher's logic. There is nothing in cc that says every child is supposed to get the same reader. It does say that students should be able to read grade-level and on-level texts, it however does not limit the student to only that level. In fact, on-level can be interpreted as "on student level."

 

It may be the practice of her kindergarten "team", a directive from her principal, or even something being including in her district's pacing guides. Generally, the logic is that students should be practicing only grade-level or on-level skills so that those skills are fresh for testing. So for someone who comes to education with the belief that only practicing grade level skills is best, the directive to read grade-level and on-level texts in cc can be literally interpreted as only reading K level readers while you are in kindergarten.

 

I disagree with that interpretation, but there it is.

[8filltheheart]

I'm curious, could your child read before their first day of elementary school? I"m not talking about preschool, or prekindergarten, I'm talking about K (if its mandatory) or 1st grade?

 

In your experience was the childs ability to before school a help or a hindrance in the long run?

 

Not one of our 8 children has been able to read prior to K.  I cannot speak in terms of ps or afterschooling, but age of reading has neither impacted nor predicted my kids' long term achievements at all. 

 

My youngest reader, solid reader at the end of K, (now 21) was my most avg ability student in the long run. 

 

My latest reader (severely dyslexic and didn't read on grade level until late 4th/early 5th)  is now 19 and finishing up his freshman yr of college.  He graduated from high school with college credit for 300 level math and physics courses and is a high achieving student making top grades at his university in 400 level classes.

 

My most "middle of the road" learner (as in typical for what you would expect.....no early reading, no LDs) was reading well at the end of first.  She is definitely gifted in language.

 

Our #8 child will start K in the fall.  By all accts, she appears to be the brightest of all our kids.  Her vocabulary is phenomenal.  She has taught herself most of her letters and numbers, but I won't formally start teaching her to read until the fall.   

[Nart]

Not one of our 8 children has been able to read prior to K.  I cannot speak in terms of ps or afterschooling, but age of reading has neither impacted nor predicted my kids' long term achievements at all. 

 

My youngest reader, solid reader at the end of K, (now 21) was my most avg ability student in the long run. 

 

My latest reader (severely dyslexic and didn't read on grade level until late 4th/early 5th)  is now 19 and finishing up his freshman yr of college.  He graduated from high school with college credit for 300 level math and physics courses and is a high achieving student making top grades at his university in 400 level classes.

 

My most "middle of the road" learner (as in typical for what you would expect.....no early reading, no LDs) was reading well at the end of first.  She is definitely gifted in language.

 

Our #8 child will start K in the fall.  By all accts, she appears to be the brightest of all our kids.  Her vocabulary is phenomenal.  She has taught herself most of her letters and numbers, but I won't formally start teaching her to read until the fall.   

 

I think it matters that your kids were/are homeschooled. One of the many benefits of being homeschooled is that you are not being compared to other kids all day.  While I absolutely agree with you that age of beginning reading shouldn't predict future scholastic achievement, many teachers respond differently to early readers. My oldest was a fluent reader before entering K (he could read Magic Treehouse Books). Once his kindergarten teacher figured out he could read fluently (it took her until early Nov. because he is a quiet kid), she praised him all the time. She told him repeatedly how smart he was, what a good student he was, she told other kids what a good job he did, etc.  His first grade teacher did the same. He became known as the smart kid by students and even by other parents who volunteer in the classroom.  He cares what people think and enjoys being known as one of the top students. 

[Spy Car]

I think it matters that your kids were/are homeschooled. One of the many benefits of being homeschooled is that you are not being compared to other kids all day.  While I absolutely agree with you that age of beginning reading shouldn't predict future scholastic achievement, many teachers respond differently to early readers. My oldest was a fluent reader before entering K (he could read Magic Treehouse Books). Once his kindergarten teacher figured out he could read fluently (it took her until early Nov. because he is a quiet kid), she praised him all the time. She told him repeatedly how smart he was, what a good student he was, she told other kids what a good job he did, etc.  His first grade teacher did the same. He became known as the smart kid by students and even by other parents who volunteer in the classroom.  He cares what people think and enjoys being known as one of the top students. 

 

Yep. And it work the other way too. A child who can't read as well as peers can feel like they are not smart and can get that feedback from adult (intended or not).

 

Bill

[8filltheheart]

I think it matters that your kids were/are homeschooled. One of the many benefits of being homeschooled is that you are not being compared to other kids all day.  While I absolutely agree with you that age of beginning reading shouldn't predict future scholastic achievement, many teachers respond differently to early readers. My oldest was a fluent reader before entering K (he could read Magic Treehouse Books). Once his kindergarten teacher figured out he could read fluently (it took her until early Nov. because he is a quiet kid), she praised him all the time. She told him repeatedly how smart he was, what a good student he was, she told other kids what a good job he did, etc.  His first grade teacher did the same. He became known as the smart kid by students and even by other parents who volunteer in the classroom.  He cares what people think and enjoys being known as one of the top students. 

 

 

Yep. And it work the other way too. A child who can't read as well as peers can feel like they are not smart and can get that feedback from adult (intended or not).

 

Bill

 

I don't doubt it which is why I qualified my post by stating that I couldn't respond in terms of ps or after-schooling.  However, that said, it proves that if it is the case in ps that early reading does influence academic success it is due to the self-fulfilling prophecies of the bureaucracy.  There is absolutely nothing that demonstrates that 5 yr old readers are going to out perform all other students.

[Spy Car]

I don't doubt it which is why I qualified my post by stating that I couldn't respond in terms of ps or after-schooling.  However, that said, it proves that if it is the case in ps that early reading does influence academic success it is due to the self-fulfilling prophecies of the bureaucracy.  There is absolutely nothing that demonstrates that 5 yr old readers are going to out perform all other students.

 

Not a self-fulfilling prophecy of a bureaucracy, but a real-world demonstration that intellectually gifted child are usually able to take on tasks like reading earlier than less-intellectually gifted children.

 

Bill

[8filltheheart]

Not a self-fulfilling prophecy of a bureaucracy, but a real-world demonstration that intellectually gifted child are usually able to take on tasks like reading earlier than less-intellectually gifted children.

 

Bill

 

Thanks for proving my point.

 

:001_rolleyes: Not all early readers are intellectually gifted.  All late readers are not "less-intellectually gifted."  Purely bias. 

[Mrs. Tharp]

I don't know about that.  Gifted children are often early readers, but not always. That's why districts usually test and place kids in a gifted program when they are a few years older.

 

[LaughingCat]

Beat me too it 8FillTheHeart!  Apparently the self-fulfilling prophecy comes from both teachers and the volunteer parents!

[Spy Car]

Thanks for proving my point.

 

:001_rolleyes: Not all early readers are intellectually gifted.  All late readers are not "less-intellectually gifted."  Purely bias. 

 

The operative word is "usually" not "all," and in a classroom context it is generally the case.

 

It does not mean that a child who isn't reading at 5 (rather than, say 6) due to parental or school policy choices to teach/facilitate reading later isn't "smart," but when reading at 5 is the "norm" bright children generally take to it easier than less gifteed counterparts.

 

With anything there are "outliers."

 

Bill

[SKL]

...it proves that if it is the case in ps that early reading does influence academic success it is due to the self-fulfilling prophecies of the bureaucracy.

 

I don't agree that your experience proves any such thing for US school children as a whole.

 

Being able to read in K/1st is beneficial, just like being able to read at any later age is beneficial.  It's a useful skill to have.  A reader has options a non-reader does not have.  Options are good.

 

A kid who learns to read easily will learn other things easily too.

 

IMO the reason we don't see a clear correlation between early reading and later performance is because early reading is not the same thing for all kids.  For my youngest, reading along with everything else came very easily.  For my eldest, reading started much more slowly.  At 5.5 they could both read 1st grade materials, but they were far from being in the same category of ability.  It was obvious to me that youngest would always find school work easier than the eldest.  The eldest would be the one "proving" that early readers don't stay ahead of the curve for the long haul.  In other words the fact of her having a little head start would skew the results, along with all the other kids like her.

 

Now having a head start is not a bad thing.  If a slower learner like my eldest started 1st without being able to read, she would have been quickly frustrated and felt down on herself, as the other kids picked up reading and left her in the dust.  Instead she has always remained just a tad ahead of average.  She and I are both very happy with that level of achievement.

[ElizabethB]

Interestingly, before the 1930 when the stopped tracking literacy data through the census, the literacy rate was highest in the states with the most one room schools.

 

That is a 3rd way, there should be some modern version of it, it should be easier, not harder, with modern technology, to work with a group of children with each child working at their appropriate level.

 

My daughter would have finished reading instruction in K and would have watched a quick review in the next few years, but would have been slightly behind in math but eventually caught up to grade level. My son would have done beginning phonics for 2 years, 1st grade phonics for 2 years, then eventually caught up to grade level. I was able to so this with homeschooling, but they were easily able to accomodate this in schools with the one room school model. If you are running several grades of things at once, it is easy to fold students into wherever they need to be. Just don't teach long division the same day you teach a tough topic in the other grades...

 

Most schools do not know how to remediate well, so those students that fall behind never learn the basics and build on them, the just keep getting moved along and then have new topics they don't learn well because the basics were not remediated.