Could Your Child Read Before Starting School?

[8filltheheart]

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

BTDT with this discussion with you Bill. Definitely not worth the time to go there again. There is nothing magical about reading at age 5 and actual intelligence. The exceptions are those self-taught readers before age 4, not those reading at 5. Those early self-taught readers do typically end up being classified as gifted. 5 simply falls within the bell curve of normal. The normal reading bell curve is 4-6. Children who are not reading in first grade are at a disadvantage, especially in ps. But that is not the same conversation as whether or not knowing how to read at 5 means a student is more intellectually gifted.

 

FWIW, modern research is revealing a lot about brain development not previously understood. Asynchronous development is becoming far more recognized as being evident amg gifted children. In addition to that, the age ranges for rapid intellectual development are being re-defined.

Brain imaging research provides evidence for this developmental difference in the maturation of very bright children. In 2006, researchers from the National Institute of Mental Health and the Montreal Neurological Institute at McGill University published results of a study (link is external) that showed that children with greater than average intellectual ability "demonstrate a particularly plastic cortex" in which the building up phase of the cortex, when connections are formed that allow for high-level thinking, begins and ends later than average (reaching its peak at roughly age eleven or twelve as opposed to seven or eight), and the subsequent thinning or pruning phase of cortical development is rapid.

With my own intellectually gifted son, while it was always evident that he was gifted in math while clearly being behind in reading, he clearly had a massive intellectual explosion in middle school (where most American schools stick kids to ferment in regurgitated material vs. permitting advancement according to ability.) By the time he hit around 13, he was significantly advanced across the board.

 

But all of that is null when a child has to conform to a classroom and ps methodology. Then being able to meet that expected level of conformity becomes paramount over all other issues. I know that my physics loving ds would probably have barely graduated from high school if he had been in ps. Ditto to his older brother.

[wapiti]

I think it's important to realize that development, particularly early on, is not typically linear, even moreso for gifted kids.

 

Looking at this from another angle, let's consider that myth often discussed in gifted circles that "kids even out by third grade."  A proponent of such myth might even say that a child who doesn't must be an outlier.  Perhaps gifted kids (depending on where one's cutoff is for purposes of discussion) are, by definition, all outliers!

 

Thinking out loud, by the same token as early reading, early math skills might be predictive of ability, no?  What to make of the student who had early math skills but was not an early reader?  (I've seen one or two of those outliers.  They might live here.)

 

Eta, piggybacking on what 8 is saying, I was thinking along the same lines.  I vaguely recall a graph depicting intellectual development both for average ability and gifted, and the gifted curve was higher of course but shifted to the right, such that a certain amount of development was taking place at a later point in time than for the average ability, such that at first the average ability curve was the higher one.  It was fascinating.  I will try to find it but dinner is burning....  if anyone knows the graph I'm talking about and can point me in the right direction, I'm all ears.  The x-axis was time, in years, IIRC.

[Arcadia]

 

Looking at this from another angle, let's consider that myth often discussed in gifted circles that "kids even out by third grade."  A proponent of such myth might even say that a child who doesn't must be an outlier.  Perhaps gifted kids (depending on where one's cutoff is for purposes of discussion) are, by definition, all outliers!

 

Thinking out loud, by the same token as early reading, early math skills might be predictive of ability, no?  What to make of the student who had early math skills but was not an early reader?  (I've seen one or two of those outliers.  They might live here.)

 

Outliers has become such a convenient catch all term :lol:  I have plenty of adults in my extended family who are great at math and normal at languages.  Comically I had a bad grade for reading in Kindergarten and in 1st grade but my teachers said that my languages is actually strong so I was still put into an "advanced" group in 2nd grade. I just don't like reading tests and I was in a bilingual system so both languages had bad reading tests scores.

 

ETA:

Normal as in scoring As for all the standardized exams that matter for at least one language (bilingual system, English + native language) but not language gifted,

I have wonderful elementary school teachers, I was a test-defiant kid and they put up with my nonsense.

[SKL]

I think all the things being said about reading are also true about early math skills.  People just don't have a nice simple box to put those in.

 

My advanced kid was less advanced in math than in reading, but she still found math easy and intuitive compared to others her age.  My more average kid didn't find 1st grade (Singapore) math easy at all.  ;) 

 

It would be interesting to see how the answers differed if the OP question was "could your kids do the 4 basic math operations before 1st grade."

[hepatica]

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

 

Seriously?? :confused1:

 

Or perhaps you are making an incorrect assumption that those who don't "take to it easier" are less gifted.

How do you know who is more or less gifted? Have you compared IQ scores or some other measure with other children? School success does not define "giftedness" (especially elementary school achievement).

[Spy Car]

Seriously?? :confused1:

 

Or perhaps you are making an incorrect assumption that those who don't "take to it easier" are less gifted.

How do you know who is more or less gifted? Have you compared IQ scores or some other measure with other children? School success does not define "giftedness" (especially elementary school achievement).

 

I'm sure that there are children with vision problems, or issues with dyslexia, or have impacts from their personal lives that negatively effect things like reading.

 

But it is not difficult to see gifted children and how they learn in Kindergarten. 

 

Do you after-school?

 

Bill

[hepatica]

 

 

But it is not difficult to see gifted children and how they learn in Kindergarten. 

 

 

 

Are you sure about that? Seems a bit of circular logic to me.

 

How do you recognize a gifted child? 

She is precocious in Kindergarten? 

Therefore a precocious kindergartener must be gifted.

[Spy Car]

Are you sure about that? Seems a bit of circular logic to me.

 

How do you recognize a gifted child?

She is precocious in Kindergarten?

Therefore a precocious kindergartener must be gifted.

Just like you recognize an athletic child because they are athletic. Not that complicated.

 

Bill

[MistyMountain]

Kids who are very precocious are usually gifted but there are lots of late bloomers out there. It is actually very common because kids can grow intelectually longer just like kids who hit puberty late grow longer. Intellect is like other areas in development that it looks different for everyone. The really short kid can end up graduating as the tallest and and intellect works the same way. No child's path looks the same. Some kids grow in big spurts and some grow more steadily. Scores can change over time. The IQ test was not originally meant to be this set in stone measurement and it isn't.

 

Learning disabilities are more common in gifted children then in average children. Just because a kid was not a top reader in kindergarten does not mean they are one of the dullards doomed for metrocracy. In places where kids who need help at any period of time get help until they do not need it anymore without a label kids do better overall. We should not be labeling kids into groups by 5 or 6.

 

My ds is a very intelligent child but he will be a late reader. My dd is now a really good reader. She did not learn until 6 and then jumped years in reading level in a less then 3 months. None of my kids were precocious talking toddlers and 2 were late talking but they all developed excellent verbal skills and are advanced in that area.

[OneStepAtATime]

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

What is your definition of gifted?  Perhaps if you could define that, I would better understand what you are saying.  From where I sit it appears that 8 is right and you have the same built in biases that our educational bureaucracy has.  

 

Do you mean testing as gifted with an IQ test?  Or capable of performing across the board way above grade level?  Or showing phenomenal strengths in certain areas?  Or....?

 

 

FWIW, my husband read late.  He struggled in elementary school because of it.  But he is definitely gifted.  In fact, at his boss's retirement party, the man (who is also gifted) introduced DH as the smartest man he had ever met.  Reading late had nothing to do with his intellectual capabilities.

 

My brother read late.  He is also gifted and was in GT his entire school career.

 

My son was a late reader.  He is gifted, too.

 

I read before I ever hit kinder.  I am definitely NOT "gifted".

 

But I think a definition of gifted would help here.  What is your definition of gifted?

[OneStepAtATime]

Just like you recognize an athletic child because they are athletic. Not that complicated.

 

Bill

Actually, I think I will have to disagree here.  It can be quite complicated.  Some kids bloom much later than others even with athletics.  And some kids need to find the right athletic niche to tap into their abilities.  I see asynchronous athletic development all the time in the kids here.  Listen to interviews of professional athletes.  Some didn't really hit their stride or find their niche until later on.  They didn't all come out of the womb demonstrating athletic ability.

 

FWIW, DD swam really, really early and quite well.  She is not an athlete.  DS struggled mightily to swim for years.  Yet now he is the one winning swim competitions.  If you had looked at them both at various stages early on, it would definitely NOT have been my son you would have bet on to be athletic.  

[OneStepAtATime]

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

Yes.  I agree wholeheartedly with this.

[hepatica]

Just like you recognize an athletic child because they are athletic. Not that complicated.

 

Bill

 

Except, of course, Michael Jordan, who was too small and uncoordinated to make the High School basketball team.

 

Except, of course, my own son, who was riding around on a two wheel bike at age 2 1/2 like some bike-riding savant, and now at age seven is really indistinguishable from the other bike-riding kids.

 

If athletic development is your analogy, then you are proving yourself wrong.

 

Giftedness is a much more contested and complicated concept than you seem willing to admit. It is, actually, quite complicated.

 

I suspect you are conflating giftedness with early achievement and prowess in an academic setting. If so, then we will continue to talk past one another. A less condescending tone on your part might make for a more productive discussion.

[OneStepAtATime]

Except, of course, Michael Jordan, who was too small and uncoordinated to make the High School basketball team.

 

Except, of course, my own son, who was riding around on a two wheel bike at age 2 1/2 like some bike-riding savant, and now at age seven is really indistinguishable from the other bike-riding kids.

 

If athletic development is your analogy, then you are proving yourself wrong.

 

Giftedness is a much more contested and complicated concept than you seem willing to admit. It is, actually, quite complicated.

 

I suspect you are conflating giftedness with early achievement and prowess in an academic setting. If so, then we will continue to talk past one another. A less condescending tone on your part might make for a more productive discussion.

:iagree:

[Bluegoat]

This argument sounds to me like -  some gifted kids read at five, so it is "normal," so it will be predictive of doing well in school and life.  Therefore if we make all five year olds read, they will all be closer to being gifted and do well in school and life.

 

But so much of that isn't true.

 

Many normal kids are not ready at five to read, just like many two year olds aren't.

Many gifted kids don't read early - some read notably late.

Expecting reading earlier doesn't seem to create better readers in the end.

Expecting reading earlier does seem to create problems - like inappropriatly assuming those kids are ot gifted or have problems, like those kids or the schools thinking they must be dumb.

 

This line of thinking is why you get parents thinking if they do those silly reading in the womb things and teach their babies and toddlers to read, they will do better in school.  It's created this race to hit developmental marks earlier and earlier in schools, and it is detrimental to children.

[OneStepAtATime]

This argument sounds to me like -  some gifted kids read at five, so it is "normal," so it will be predictive of doing well in school and life.  Therefore if we make all five year olds read, they will all be closer to being gifted and do well in school and life.

 

But so much of that isn't true.

 

Many normal kids are not ready at five to read, just like many two year olds aren't.

Many gifted kids don't read early - some read notably late.

Expecting reading earlier doesn't seem to create better readers in the end.

Expecting reading earlier does seem to create problems - like inappropriatly assuming those kids are ot gifted or have problems, like those kids or the schools thinking they must be dumb.

 

This line of thinking is why you get parents thinking if they do those silly reading in the womb things and teach their babies and toddlers to read, they will do better in school.  It's created this race to hit developmental marks earlier and earlier in schools, and it is detrimental to children.

Yep.

 

In fact, I agree 100%.  

[lilajoy]

It depends on the definition of read. When my son entered kindergarten, he knew the alphabet fully, could blend, and could read simple c-v-c words. So in that sense, yes. However, he was definitely not "a reader" at that point and was not reading books independently at all. So in that sense, no.

 

 

[Renai]

Just like you recognize an athletic child because they are athletic. Not that complicated.

 

Bill

 

As you were talking about outliers, you should read the book by the same name by Malcolm Gladwell. It was required reading in one of my M.Ed. classes.

 

"Gifted" athletes became that way because they were pruned from an early age, given higher quality training, more playing time, etc. They were pruned from the others due to... mainly age. Those athletes that had a birthday close to the cut-off for participation were younger and less developed than the older students. Which ones were picked as better athletes? The older students, as they were more developed compared to their slightly younger peers. I've seen the same thing in the classroom: I could pick out which students were summer birthdays. It had nothing to do with intelligence, but age. Students can be 11 months apart in age, which can mean a big difference in abilities at the young ages.

 

The same went for many others that may be considered outliers (Mozart, Bill Gates, and many others are mentioned): at the right place, at the right time, given the right encouragement, etc. It had nothing to do with intelligence. A lot of factors went into many opportunities, and very little had to do with intelligence or actual athletic ability.

 

It really is an excellent, interesting book, and easy to read.

[Renai]

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

 

It is a self-fulfilling prophecy in the classroom. That's why teachers are encouraged to help and encourage ALL students, not just the "easy" or "good" ones.

 

I loved having parents in my classroom. As much as I respect most things you have to say, I am having trouble with this particular attitude toward students. I would either not be able to have you working with my students because of this awful bias, or would have you in the classroom to help educate you on the reality.

 

It's a hard call. Maybe you have such a bias because you live in a privileged area?? It is a very narrow view of children, or people in general.

[Spy Car]

It is a self-fulfilling prophecy in the classroom. That's why teachers are encouraged to help and encourage ALL students, not just the "easy" or "good" ones.

 

I loved having parents in my classroom. As much as I respect most things you have to say, I am having trouble with this particular attitude toward students. I would either not be able to have you working with my students because of this awful bias, or would have you in the classroom to help educate you on the reality.

 

It's a hard call. Maybe you have such a bias because you live in a privileged area?? It is a very narrow view of children, or people in general.

 

IMO this thread has degenerated into some sort of fight that I'm not interested in. If you believe (somehow) that I don't think teachers have a duty, desire, or obligation to teach ALL students, especially those that need help most, then you don't know me very well.

 

Bill

[Renai]

IMO this thread has degenerated into some sort of fight that I'm not interested in. If you believe (somehow) that I don't think teachers have a duty, desire, or obligation to teach ALL students, especially those that need help most, then you don't know me very well.

 

Bill

 

I don't think many of us "know" each other very well, but I know enough to follow you on just about any math thread you are a part of on this forum. :)

 

Of course I don't wish to fight. I was trying to stay far away from this conversation. I was responding to the comment that later readers are somehow less intelligent than earlier readers. At least, that is how I understood those comments. A person working with that belief of students is not going to put in the work to help those students. I've worked with a teacher like that; they exist. Few and far between, thankfully. Having parents in the classroom means dealing with all types of biases as well, and the bias that I pointed out will come out in the classroom - whether from teacher or volunteer.

[Spy Car]

I don't think many of us "know" each other very well, but I know enough to follow you on just about any math thread you are a part of on this forum. :)

 

Of course I don't wish to fight. I was trying to stay far away from this conversation. I was responding to the comment that later readers are somehow less intelligent than earlier readers. At least, that is how I understood those comments. A person working with that belief of students is not going to put in the work to help those students. I've worked with a teacher like that; they exist. Few and far between, thankfully. Having parents in the classroom means dealing with all types of biases as well, and the bias that I pointed out will come out in the classroom - whether from teacher or volunteer.

I think children can learn earlier or later for a whole variety of reasons. I am quite undecided whether the movement to push reading earlier is the best move for society (generally speaking). My generation did not learn to read until First Grade, much less read prior to Kindergarten.

 

My son was ready to read early and picked it up pretty easily. I do believe it was strongly to his advantage to enter Kindergarten with basic reading skills. His elementary school is a "privileged" one, for sure. Was "the norm" different in this school than most schools in the LA school system? For sure.

 

When asked by a prospective Kindergarten parent if it is an advantage to be ahead (or at least on par) with the entering reading-skill expectations? I'd answer: "for sure."

 

It is not easy (in any way) for children who feel "behind." I sympathize with those children. In my experience parents volunteer in the classrooom to help children and the teachers (in part by giving teachers more time to spend with those that need help most). Not to undermine kids who are "behind" relative to the class.

 

There is a conundrum between advancing students who are clearly ready, and moving the bar so far forward that significant numbers of kids simply can't keep up with the pace. Those pressures have increased. I do not have all the answers.

 

Bill

[Renai]

 

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

 

I can only speak to my experience having worked in the school system, and knowing the trends, be that what they may, today. (This is the first school year I have not been in the system in some capacity...well, since January.) If I were planning to place my current 4yo in kindergarten, I would do what I can to encourage learning to read prior to entering. I would not push if I noticed she were not ready for certain aspects (blending, or whatever), but place as solid a foundation in pre-literacy skills as possible - letters, sounds, phonemic awareness (rhyming, what's the first sound in...., what is the last sound you hear in...etc.).

 

Why? Because there is already so much pressure to learn various aspects of reading all at the same time, at a set pace - phonemic awareness, sounds/letters, sight words, etc. - it would only be advantageous to have the background knowledge. Children are learning "sight words" before they have their letter-sound correlations mastered. I noticed many children "reading" by one-to-one correspondence, it had nothing to do with the letters on the page. The teacher would read a sentence; the child would point to each word and parrot it back. That's not reading. At least a child with some letter-sound sense could guess a word based on beginning sound (not that I promote that, either.

 

If I were planning to send her to K, I would rather have her ahead and provide enrichment at home, than be "behind" and stressed and feeling stupid. Because that is what happens. This is one of the main reasons I want to do kindergarten and first grade at home - I hate the reading instruction where I live; it is very poor. Children are at a distinct disadvantage here, and do remain behind if they are behind in kindergarten (as noted with a 35% passing score in standardized reading tests).

[8circles]

Oldest was already reading before K, we pulled him at Xmas due to boredom ->disrupting the class (among other things) & he was reading at a 5th grade level.  I don't know that we'd be homeschooling if he hadn't been an early reader.  It hindered him at school but helped him at home.

 

None of my other kids were ever in brick&mortar schools, except preK for a mom-break.

 

DS2 learned in a more "average" manner, slowly over K & 1st grade (at home).

 

DS3 is struggling with some LD's but is reading at one grade-level below & improving.

 

DS4 is K4 & has started to read on his own and asks to learn more.

 

They were all raised in the same reading-encouraging, print-rich environments.  They're just different kids.

[Spy Car]

I can only speak to my experience having worked in the school system, and knowing the trends, be that what they may, today. (This is the first school year I have not been in the system in some capacity...well, since January.) If I were planning to place my current 4yo in kindergarten, I would do what I can to encourage learning to read prior to entering. I would not push if I noticed she were not ready for certain aspects (blending, or whatever), but place as solid a foundation in pre-literacy skills as possible - letters, sounds, phonemic awareness (rhyming, what's the first sound in...., what is the last sound you hear in...etc.).

 

Why? Because there is already so much pressure to learn various aspects of reading all at the same time, at a set pace - phonemic awareness, sounds/letters, sight words, etc. - it would only be advantageous to have the background knowledge. Children are learning "sight words" before they have their letter-sound correlations mastered. I noticed many children "reading" by one-to-one correspondence, it had nothing to do with the letters on the page. The teacher would read a sentence; the child would point to each word and parrot it back. That's not reading. At least a child with some letter-sound sense could guess a word based on beginning sound (not that I promote that, either.

 

If I were planning to send her to K, I would rather have her ahead and provide enrichment at home, than be "behind" and stressed and feeling stupid. Because that is what happens. This is one of the main reasons I want to do kindergarten and first grade at home - I hate the reading instruction where I live; it is very poor. Children are at a distinct disadvantage here, and do remain behind if they are behind in kindergarten (as noted with a 35% passing score in standardized reading tests).

You are saying (perhaps more eloquently) pretty much the same things I was trying to say. Including the idea that children who start "behind" tend to stay "behind." "Behind" is not a good place to be. We sent our child to school, but "home educated" as well.

 

I was frankly suprised how many children were reading when they started in K. I also realize it can seem like "an arms race" when parents look to make sure their kids are advantaged (or at least not disadvantaged). I also realize *I* am part of the problem.

 

But I wouldn't do anything differently if I were putting a child in school. There are advantages to home schooling, being able to "afford" the time without "pressure" is one of them.

 

Bill

[8circles]

 Including the idea that children who start "behind" tend to stay "behind." 

 

 

I can't for the life of me figure out how this is true.  

 

I know several children who struggled with reading, ended up reading "late" & have grow into very successful adults, a couple are even at Ivies.  

 

DS3 is "behind" in reading.  I don't believe that he is doomed to stay "behind".

[SKL]

I was responding to the comment that later readers are somehow less intelligent than earlier readers. At least, that is how I understood those comments. A person working with that belief of students is not going to put in the work to help those students. ....

 

I do believe that is true on average (that there is some correlation between intelligence and learning to read).

 

That said, as the mom of a "less intelligent" child, there is nothing wrong with being less intelligent.  Someone has to be!  ;)

 

In my kids' case, my "less intelligent" child gets a lot more personal assistance at school than my "more intelligent" child.  Actually my more intelligent child is pretty much ignored.  (Which is fine with her.)

[Spy Car]

I can't for the life of me figure out how this is true.  

 

I know several children who struggled with reading, ended up reading "late" & have grow into very successful adults, a couple are even at Ivies.  

 

DS3 is "behind" in reading.  I don't believe that he is doomed to stay "behind".

 

I'm sure it is possible. Unfortunately there can be a cycle where a child feels "behind," has negative feelings about learning, school, and their own abilities, these negative feelings depress academic success, and the cycle repeats.

 

Are there people who for whatever reason (something "clicks," a mentor steps in to help, or just through force of will) go from "late" to advanced readers? Seems like it happens. But it is not the high percentage path, especially in a school context.

 

When the "Michael Jordans" of the world happen it becomes famous for the exceptionalism of the occurrence, not as a new master plan. It is inspiring to hear success stories. Never giving up is a good lesson to promote. It is just tough on children in the real world to feel behind. 

 

Bill

[8filltheheart]

I do believe that is true on average (that there is some correlation between intelligence and learning to read).

 

That said, as the mom of a "less intelligent" child, there is nothing wrong with being less intelligent. Someone has to be! ;)

 

In my kids' case, my "less intelligent" child gets a lot more personal assistance at school than my "more intelligent" child. Actually my more intelligent child is pretty much ignored. (Which is fine with her.)

Not for kids learning to read in the bell curve of normal. Learning to read can be as much related to brain maturation as sitting, walking, talking. If a child isn't walking at 11 months but is at 13 months, is the 11 month walking child superior physically? Of course not. Both ages are bell curve normal. All major developments have ranges for normal. Reading does as well. It does not make one less intelligent than the other. Child development is not so rigid and perfectly correlated.

 

When you start talking about developments outside the avg range--talking in complex sentences at a younger than normal age (avg is 50 word vocabulary at 2), reading fluently under 4--those are different markers.

 

Fwiw, if a child is made to feel behind for what is totally normal development and therefore performs more poorly due to self-esteem issues, that is definitely a scenario of the system creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. 4-6 is normal. A child reading at 6 is not less intelligent simply by fact that they read at 6 and not 5, any more than a child reading at 5 is an indicator of advanced intelligence.

[tm919]

I've read this thread with interest. My daughters are 5 and 3 1/2, and both learned to read fluently at 3. My older daughter is going to start public K half-day next year, and I know there is a mix of children who read well and children who barely know the alphabet.

 

I agree that much of the benefit to reading before K is avoiding a negative self-fulfilling prophecy in school settings. I think there's also a spurious effect related to parental involvement. So many of my daughters' classmates at their current school (a Montessori preK-K) attend a reading program during the summer, starting at age 4, if they aren't reading before then. High parental involvement means BOTH that they get reading instruction early -- so that when they are developmentally ready they learn relatively quickly  -- and that they get extra help and support throughout their education. It ends up looking like early reading leads to success at school.

[8circles]

I'm sure it is possible. Unfortunately there can be a cycle where a child feels "behind," has negative feelings about learning, school, and their own abilities, these negative feelings depress academic success, and the cycle repeats.

Yes, that does happen.  These kinds of comments/attitudes feed into it.

Are there people who for whatever reason (something "clicks," a mentor steps in to help, or just through force of will) go from "late" to advanced readers? Seems like it happens. But it is not the high percentage path, especially in a school context.

 

When the "Michael Jordans" of the world happen it becomes famous for the exceptionalism of the occurrence, not as a new master plan. It is inspiring to hear success stories. Never giving up is a good lesson to promote. It is just tough on children in the real world to feel behind. 

 

Bill

 

Except these students aren't "Michael Jordans".  They're just kids - some are "average" hard-workers, some are highly-intelligent kids whose brains work differently.  They're just kids who don't follow the traditional or advanced path of learning to read.

 

I really wish people would stop perpetuating this attitude of slow-to-readers being perpetually behind.  Self-fulfilling prophecy, indeed.

[SKL]

Fwiw, if a child is made to feel behind for what is totally normal development and therefore performs more poorly due to self-esteem issues, that is definitely a scenario of the system creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

It can work the other way too, though.  A child who is perceived as being on the slow side, and who is therefore given good-quality intervention, can develop skills and habits that can make him a success even if his IQ is unimpressive.

 

My daughter is an example of a kid who is doing well in school, mainly because of the amount of sheer hard work she has done (with help) to doggedly develop basic academic, study, and organizational skills, as well as stamina.  She's known since age 4 that her learning speed is slow, but she had lots of support and never gave up.

[Mabelen]

My older dd could already read very well before she went to Pre-school, self-taught in two languages.  That was the main reason we put her in private school. In that setting, I don't think it was a detriment nor an advantage. I suspect she was the most advanced reader in her class by far for a long while, but she was always given books at her level. By the time she started public school in 8th grade it was definitely an advantage.

 

My younger dd knew all her letter sounds and could blend a little when she started Kindergarten in a high achieving public school. She was exactly at grade level at the beginning of the year, but by mid year her reading had exploded and was in the highest reading group. She started reading by herself in her second language with some home support the summer after kindergarten. She is in 5th grade now and her lexile is among the highest in her class.

[LisaKinVA]

3 could, 2 could not, one with speech delays (significant delays), is just at the beginning to really sound out short words.

[Bluegoat]

I think one of the things that happens with this is that while "average" and "bright" kids may be early or late readers, or just average, kids that have significant problems, be they disabilities or social problems or whatever, are often going to get all bunched into the late reader group.  I think this tends to lead people to the conclusion that late readers are more likely to have problems, and they think that if they can get kids reading earlier, they can avoid those problems. 

 

I think this is important because there can so easily be a tendency to create a kind of educational arms race for kids.  Kids used to read in 1 or so, but to avoid problems of late reading and get ahead all are now to start in K.  Parents want them to do well in K, so they work to teach them to read before - some parents may be more sensitive than others about this.  So - it begins to seem "normal" to have four year olds doing academic work - and this is something I have seen in schools which have added pre-K programs. 

 

The idea of getting the child ready for academics just gets pushed back and becomes more important, and it starts from ignoring at when kids are normally ready in the first place.  And that approach seems a breeding ground for potentially adding all kinds of inappropriate expectations, and pushing aside more developmentally appropriate and necessary activities. 

 

So to me - while I can see why parents want to try and give a child in a messed up system an advantage, the potential for it making the system even worse is huge.

[SKL]

Bluegoat, I used to say similar about redshirting.  When enough people hold back younger kids so they will find school easier, that makes it easier for the schools to push down higher-level work.  And then there is more pressure to redshirt, since now the work really is hard for the average young 5yo.  So more people redshirt and then ....  I would rather people forced the schools to accommodate all children at a developmentally appropriate level.  But I am beating a dead horse.

 

I don't think most parents believe they have a voice when it comes to deciding these things.  And maybe they are right.

[SKL]

I have a niece who is 5.5 and her mom is convinced she is gifted.  Sounds like her gifts are concentrated in the STEM area.  She is not reading and, as far as I can see, doesn't have the least interest in doing so.  (And her mom works with her on it.)  It will be interesting to see how her reading progresses.  Has it just not clicked yet, or is she perhaps 2e?  Dyslexia and giftedness both run in our family.

 

Her mom had been wanting to put her in KG early at age 4.75, but she changed her mind.  If she were in KG right now, she'd probably be considered "behind."  And yes, that would be a sad thing.

 

Her mom has her working on 1st grade math, and it will be interesting to see how that plays out in KG next year too.

[SciMom]

Both of my kids (twins), read before preschool. One at age 2.5 and the other a month later. I did not teach them how to read, but read to them a lot since they were babies and pointed at words while reading. In third grade all the kids in their cohort can read, however type of books read (reading levels/complexity), love of reading and oral reading fluency varies greatly. 

 

I did not tell their preschool teacher that they could read so they spent their days in preschool mostly working on art and hands on crafts and projects which they enjoyed. By the end of preschool however, they could read all the written words in their classroom including peoples names. 

 

In grade school they same thing happened, their reading levels and complexity of text read jumped without explicit instruction at their reading levels (they read a lot at home and brought their own books from home to read during the school day). Since they were reading well ahead of their class,they had the opportunity to participate in reading enrichment classes with other early and strong readers.  

 

I think being able to read before preschool and grade school was a great help to them. It helped them to notice words in their environment and to develop a joy of reading because they read real books from the start (including the classics), not the basal texts in school which can be somewhat dry and contrived. The only downside I have seen in other kids who read early is boredom

which could cause them to act out in school. My kids don't act out in school when bored, however they have complained about school being boring.

[Bluegoat]

Bluegoat, I used to say similar about redshirting.  When enough people hold back younger kids so they will find school easier, that makes it easier for the schools to push down higher-level work.  And then there is more pressure to redshirt, since now the work really is hard for the average young 5yo.  So more people redshirt and then ....  I would rather people forced the schools to accommodate all children at a developmentally appropriate level.  But I am beating a dead horse.

 

I don't think most parents believe they have a voice when it comes to deciding these things.  And maybe they are right.

 

I think there is some truth to this. 

 

I do think is is a not a bad thing for parents to be able to make a decision about starting, because even if expectations are appropriate, sometimes a particular child is a little unusual.  In a world with really good schools, there would be room for that in the school, but even then some kids seem to need a little more time in the home.  I was like that - I was ready to learn what was being taught in P, but I found the school day too long and stressful.

 

And I don't blame anyone who keeps a child home when the expectations are inappropriate.  But it does mean the school can get away with stupid expectations, and often the kids who really suffer are the ones who can't stay home because their parents can't afford it.

 

They changed the school starting date here a few years ago, after they decided not to add a pre-K program, so younger kids were starting.  Redshirting increased significantly after that - a lot of kids just were not ready for all day school.  A lot of teachers will tell parents not to hesitate to do it because they see the problems the kids are having.  I think though it is so odd - why doesn't the message get through to the administrators that their expectation is a problem?  I think the answer is that the expectation has nothing to do with education - it was a backdoor way to give childcare relief.

[shawthorne44]

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 husband actually had what is probably the ideal reading instruction.   Play and school simultaneously.  His much older sister wanted to play school.  Even as a baby he made a better student than a doll.  So, she'd prop him up so that he could sit without falling over, and give him a toy to keep his hands busy.  There was zero pressure because his sister could not care less whether he learned anything.  He was motivated because it was play and his older sister was paying positive attention to him.  He was reading on his own at 3.  They did math and writing too.  He did lots of playing in the dirt too.  

[Miss Marple]

No - none of mine

[mom31257]

I haven't had time to read through the other posts.

 

My oldest went to school K-2nd. Both my kids were reading at 4, the oldest much more fluently. All I taught dd was the letters, sounds of each, and she could read. Ds had to do a lot more sounding out of the words.

 

My older sister would come home from school and "play school" with me when I was 3-4. Entering Kindergarten at 5, I could read, add and subtract, and tell time.

 

I made early school a natural part of our day and as necessary as playing, cleaning up, and brushing teeth.

[madteaparty]

Nope. My 4 year old can't either. I did not learn until after I was 6. Obsession with early reading here is one of many things I don't understand (correlation? ;))

Fwiw, DS tests gifted in verbal areas and reads fluently in two languages now. I also managed to bravely overcome this unfortunate start in life :)

[kubiac]

DS5 is halfway through his kinder year at a Montessori school. He has been reading since pre-K and he can now read virtually anything you put before him. Sometimes he'll stumbles on unfamiliar word like "citadel" or "TOOTHACHE" and he mispronounces some things, but I would describe him as nearly fluent. He's currently lying in bed re-reading Jenny and the Cat Club by Esther Averill. We no longer do any reading instruction at home, I just strew books in his path and try not to do a obviously gloating jig when it works. (I recently found the one Magic School Bus book we were missing and put it on his car seat before I went to pick him up from school. He read it silently all the way to our errands and back. I later asked him what it was about and he said, "Electricity! When you turn it on the electrons can move and when you turn it off the electrons are still.")

 

To answer OP's question, I think reading been nothing but beneficial for him. He loves reading signs and flyers and TV captions and information plaques at nature centers and generally using written language to learn about his world. He enjoys being able to read books about subjects that interest him, namely animals and superheroes.

 

All the kids at his Montessori school go at their own pace, so there haven't been any negative ramifications that I've seen. He's even read aloud to the class a couple of times, which I think they all enjoyed. That said, I would been anxious if I had had to send him to public school this year, because he would have been so out-of-sync with the classwork. 

 

For the record, I generally followed Jen. B's recommendations on her Teaching My Baby to Read site. I think my son might just be a natural* when it comes to reading, but Leap Frog Letter Factory, Preschool Prep Sight Words videos and BOB books were definitely part of our process. I also used Phonics Pathways, some old Media Materials phonics flipcards and classic Beginner Books like Go, Dog, Go!

 

*DS3 also seems to just "get" reading. He'll point at a street sign for Green Meadow Road and say, "Mom, that says 'green.'" This weekend he asked me what a sign said at the pool. I pointed to the first word. "No." I covered up the "ing" in the second word. "Um...run...No Running!" He taught himself all the color words from looking at a color book. I pointed out the blinking blue word KIDS over the door of the children's library room and 15 minutes later he pointed out "Kids! That says kids!" on the cover of National Geographic Kids magazine. He hasn't had a lick of phonics training besides Leap Frog videos, but he still seems to get the general idea of a code.

 

Last but not least, I would like to just get on my soapbox for one tiny second and say that as a rule, I think reading is my personal liberation theology. Reading gives you the power to teach yourself and build your inner world. How could that ever be a bad thing, even in a tiny little three-year-old? When I read history I notice that repressive regimes discourage literacy and that rising people break chains when they learn to read. Frederick Douglass and Malcolm X both wrote about how become literate transformed them. And silly though it may be, I notice that on Downton Abbey this season, as the great era of "being in service" comes to an end in the United Kingdom of the show, the departing servant class (Daisy and now Andy) prepares for a world after servitude by learning to read. I can't speak for anyone else and I have no grand scheme for all children or all educators, but I would no sooner withhold or delay reading instruction from a neurotypical child than I would withhold park time or grandparent time. I consider it utterly foundational. </soapbox>

[Janeway]

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?

One did. But then the public school made a big deal that it was not ok that he could read. The rest didn't so far. The one that did, I am referring to chapter books before kinder. 

[Bluegoat]

DS5 is halfway through his kinder year at a Montessori school. He has been reading since pre-K and he can now read virtually anything you put before him. Sometimes he'll stumbles on unfamiliar word like "citadel" or "TOOTHACHE" and he mispronounces some things, but I would describe him as nearly fluent. He's currently lying in bed re-reading Jenny and the Cat Club by Esther Averill. We no longer do any reading instruction at home, I just strew books in his path and try not to do a obviously gloating jig when it works. (I recently found the one Magic School Bus book we were missing and put it on his car seat before I went to pick him up from school. He read it silently all the way to our errands and back. I later asked him what it was about and he said, "Electricity! When you turn it on the electrons can move and when you turn it off the electrons are still.")

 

To answer OP's question, I think reading been nothing but beneficial for him. He loves reading signs and flyers and TV captions and information plaques at nature centers and generally using written language to learn about his world. He enjoys being able to read books about subjects that interest him, namely animals and superheroes.

 

All the kids at his Montessori school go at their own pace, so there haven't been any negative ramifications that I've seen. He's even read aloud to the class a couple of times, which I think they all enjoyed. That said, I would been anxious if I had had to send him to public school this year, because he would have been so out-of-sync with the classwork. 

 

For the record, I generally followed Jen. B's recommendations on her Teaching My Baby to Read site. I think my son might just be a natural* when it comes to reading, but Leap Frog Letter Factory, Preschool Prep Sight Words videos and BOB books were definitely part of our process. I also used Phonics Pathways, some old Media Materials phonics flipcards and classic Beginner Books like Go, Dog, Go!

 

*DS3 also seems to just "get" reading. He'll point at a street sign for Green Meadow Road and say, "Mom, that says 'green.'" This weekend he asked me what a sign said at the pool. I pointed to the first word. "No." I covered up the "ing" in the second word. "Um...run...No Running!" He taught himself all the color words from looking at a color book. I pointed out the blinking blue word KIDS over the door of the children's library room and 15 minutes later he pointed out "Kids! That says kids!" on the cover of National Geographic Kids magazine. He hasn't had a lick of phonics training besides Leap Frog videos, but he still seems to get the general idea of a code.

 

Last but not least, I would like to just get on my soapbox for one tiny second and say that as a rule, I think reading is my personal liberation theology. Reading gives you the power to teach yourself and build your inner world. How could that ever be a bad thing, even in a tiny little three-year-old? When I read history I notice that repressive regimes discourage literacy and that rising people break chains when they learn to read. Frederick Douglass and Malcolm X both wrote about how become literate transformed them. And silly though it may be, I notice that on Downton Abbey this season, as the great era of "being in service" comes to an end in the United Kingdom of the show, the departing servant class (Daisy and now Andy) prepares for a world after servitude by learning to read. I can't speak for anyone else and I have no grand scheme for all children or all educators, but I would no sooner withhold or delay reading instruction from a neurotypical child than I would withhold park time or grandparent time. I consider it utterly foundational. </soapbox>

 

I think there is a pretty big difference between preventing adults reading as a form of thought control, and looking at what is developmentally appropriate, mentally and physically, for children.

[kubiac]

I think there is a pretty big difference between preventing adults reading as a form of thought control, and looking at what is developmentally appropriate, mentally and physically, for children.

But can we agree that "children" are as different as "adults" and that we should approach each child on his or her own developmental curve?

 

I object to the idea that there is a universal and organic age at which it is time to teach a child reading. Followers of the Finnish ideal would have you believe that 7 years old is correct. Americans start at 5. I personally believe in starting reading instruction at age 3 and seeing where it goes.

 

Speaking only for myself, if I withheld literacy from age 4 to 7 I feel that I would be arbitrarily and unfairly disenfranchising my kids.

Edited February 12, 2016 by kubiac

[SKL]

I'm thinking how awkward it would have been if I tried to delay my kid's reading when she was a preschooler.  It's hard enough getting her to stop looking over my shoulder when I'm at the computer.

 

Of course, knowing how stubborn my kid is, she would probably have read all the more if I tried to slow her down.  :P

 

My other kid would not have minded waiting, but I think in her case it was better to get started at 5 vs. let that part of her brain stagnate until age 7.  I could be wrong, but we'll never know, will we?

[ReadingMama1214]

But can we agree that "children" are as different as "adults" and that we should approach each child on his or her own developmental curve?

 

I object to the idea that there is a universal and organic age at which it is time to teach a child reading. Followers of the Finnish ideal would have you believe that 7 years old is correct. Americans start at 5. I personally believe in starting reading instruction at age 3 and seeing where it goes.

 

Speaking only for myself, if I withheld literacy from age 4 to 7 I feel that I would be arbitrarily and unfairly disenfranchising my kids.

I agree. Children are drastically different. Even in Finland, they will start teaching children who show interest. Even before 7. I read recently that although Finish children start school at 6/7 most are reading by the end of K even though it is not as focused of instruction. So if a child shows interest, they teach them.

 

My dd started reading simple CVC words on her own before she was 4. Maybe 3y8m? She suddenly knew all of the sounds and then quickly figured out how to put them together. She's not remarkable, her reading seems to be progressing at a normal rate, but I can't imagine holding her off. We will continue to work on reading.

 

Dd has 1.5 years until Kindergarten. The school I plan to have her intend teaches Riggs. She'll be reading fairly wel by then I assume.

 

We won't actively teach our 2 year old to read yet. We discuss the alphabet and sounds in play and Reading. We might do a PreReading program at 3, but who knows how he will progress. I don't have set expectations for him or for her.

[Bluegoat]

But can we agree that "children" are as different as "adults" and that we should approach each child on his or her own developmental curve?

 

I object to the idea that there is a universal and organic age at which it is time to teach a child reading. Followers of the Finnish ideal would have you believe that 7 years old is correct. Americans start at 5. I personally believe in starting reading instruction at age 3 and seeing where it goes.

 

Speaking only for myself, if I withheld literacy from age 4 to 7 I feel that I would be arbitrarily and unfairly disenfranchising my kids.

 

I don't think anyone really says there is such a universal age, that is something of a straw man.  What there is however is an inappropriate expectation in the schools of English speaking countries that all children will be reading at 5, or they will be behind.

 

The other serious difficulty I have with what you are saying here is that it is not at all unheard of to have people attempt to teach children who are not developmentally ready to read.  That is not always neutral - while something may, with much effort, be accomplished, it can have significant downsides.  The brain is not necessarily accomplishing the task in the same way an older child would be which will create problems later, and it also is very likely to frustrate the child.  Yet people persist because they think it will give them a leg up later or they want to feel they have a gifted child.

 

The other question I think is how much a small child really "gets ahead" by early reading, and what the cost of that will be.  Will the child taught at three really start reading substantial books much earlier?  If at five he can read Harry Potter (which probably won't be the case), will he be better off in life?  What would he be doing with his time otherwise?  What does it mean to leave the oral phase of learning earlier, will skills that would have been gained as an a oral learner be missed?