Could Your Child Read Before Starting School?

[ReadingMama1214]

Skills in both domains continue to develop, as long as the child does not have a temporary or permanent hearing loss in both ears. If he does, being able to read is helpful, as public school staff ime assume low iq before hearing loss.

 

If a child is ready, he will learn. What is next, binding legs of those who are walking before 12 months or bicycling before ten years?

I agree, I see no harm in teaching them young as long as they show interest. Although my 4 year old is only 4, she led the way. I can't imagine not teaching a child who's showing interest and ability to reads simply because they're young. Some kids do things earlier than others. Yes, maybe a 7/8 year old will learn to read in 6 months what will take my daughter 1+ years, but so what? I'd be hard pressed to believe it's doing her actual damage. Will it offer her a one up? Not necessarily, but at least she will have opened up the world of books to herself.

[ReadingMama1214]

Skills in both domains continue to develop, as long as the child does not have a temporary or permanent hearing loss in both ears. If he does, being able to read is helpful, as public school staff ime assume low iq before hearing loss.

 

If a child is ready, he will learn. What is next, binding legs of those who are walking before 12 months or bicycling before ten years?

I agree, I see no harm in teaching them young as long as they show interest. Although my 4 year old is only 4, she led the way. I can't imagine not teaching a child who's showing interest and ability to reads simply because they're young. Some kids do things earlier than others. Yes, maybe a 7/8 year old will learn to read in 6 months what will take my daughter 1+ years, but so what? I'd be hard pressed to believe it's doing her actual damage. Will it offer her a one up? Not necessarily, but at least she will have opened up the world of books to herself.

[kubiac]

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?

Is this not a position of fear?

 

Before reading instruction can begin, first prove that the child will not learn inefficiently, that early childhood reading will not stultify long-term reading development, that the child will not experience frustration, that time devoted to reading is superior to all other possible activities, and that full mastery of oral speech and listening capacity have been attained before replacing these skills wholesale with print.

 

As for a leg up, I *am a believer in "better early than late" largely because of my belief in the value of practice hours. The sooner a child is engaged in learning a skill (be it reading or shooting free throws or hunting for crawdads in the crick) the more time that child has to experience and enjoy and ultimately become skilled at that activity. To bring Seuss into the discussion, "The more that you read, the more things you will know. The more that you learn, the more places you'll go."

 

To my mind, getting a head start in reading gives kids that much more time to build vocabulary, explore genres, increase speed, learn to pronounce unfamiliar words, enjoy twaddle, and do it all at self-determined pace (without being harassed by increasing levels of ambient adult panic as a child ages toward "the correct age" without achieving fluent and joyous reading nirvana).

Edited February 14, 2016 by kubiac

[Have kids -- will travel]

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.

 

This. By having reading expectations so high, you teach young children that they are failing at the ages of 4 and 5. What an awful way to begin a very long academic career.

 

I wish there were a way for schools to teach reading early for those ready without making five-year-olds feel like failures.

 

That said, for those ready, early reading opens up a wonderful world that is a shame to miss just because someone decided it isn't yet appropriate. Both of mine are early readers, and my 3yo loves being able to understand more about the world simply because he can read signs. 

 

I remember as child (the youngest) understanding that everyone else could read all of those signs around me, and not being able to was exceptionally frustrating. Apparently, this was motivating, because I was also reading fluently by K.

[Spy Car]

Is this not a position of fear?

 

Before reading instruction can begin, first prove that the child will not learn inefficiently, that early childhood reading will not stultify long-term reading development, that the child will not experience frustration, that time devoted to reading is superior to all other possible activities, and that full mastery of oral speech and listening capacity have been attained before replacing these skills wholesale with print.

 

As for a leg up, I *am a believer in "better early than late" largely because of my belief in the value of practice hours. The sooner a child is engaged in learning a skill (be it reading or shooting free throws or hunting for crawdads in the crick) the more time that child has to experience and enjoy and ultimately become skilled at that activity. To bring Seuss into the discussion, "The more that you read, the more things you will know. The more that you learn, the more places you'll go."

 

To my mind, getting a head start in reading gives kids that much more time to build vocabulary, explore genres, increase speed, learn to pronounce unfamiliar words, enjoy twaddle, and do it all at self-determined pace (without being harassed by increasing levels of ambient adult panic as a child ages toward "the correct age" without achieving fluent and joyous reading nirvana).

 

It's like you channeled my inner-most thoughts :D

 

Bill

[ReadingMama1214]

This. By having reading expectations so high, you teach young children that they are failing at the ages of 4 and 5. What an awful way to begin a very long academic career.

 

I wish there were a way for schools to teach reading early for those ready without making five-year-olds feel like failures.

 

That said, for those ready, early reading opens up a wonderful world that is a shame to miss just because someone decided it isn't yet appropriate. Both of mine are early readers, and my 3yo loves being able to understand more about the world simply because he can read signs.

 

I remember as child (the youngest) understanding that everyone else could read all of those signs around me, and not being able to was exceptionally frustrating. Apparently, this was motivating, because I was also reading fluently by K.

I agree. I hate the expectation that public schools have on kids. Even though dd started reading before 4, I still feel extremely passionate about the fact that schools have determined that all kids must be on the same level at a simile age. Even in DDs preschool, they constantly tell me she's ahead, but then pressure other kids to meet the same or similar milestones. The developmentally inappropriate expectations of schools is really disheartening.

[ReadingMama1214]

The US has decades of experience with teaching mixed age and mixed cultural groups. Feeling like a failure started happening when an outcome was expected that could not be attained in the time given. In the past, it didnt matter, because the goal was a year's progress for a year's effort no matter where in the curriculum the child began. A child was not expected to acquire 4 years of missing vocab and other pre-reading skills in 180 days of kindy. And a child who had cracked the code wasnt expected to sit idly waiting.

This is what baffles me about public education. Why is so much being expected of Kindy kids? It hasn't improved test scores. It doesn't seem to improve ability. It seems that someone would realize that expecting all children to read in Kindy (which is not required in many states) is an unrealistic and wrong expectation.

[Spy Car]

This is what baffles me about public education. Why is so much being expected of Kindy kids? It hasn't improved test scores. It doesn't seem to improve ability. It seems that someone would realize that expecting all children to read in Kindy (which is not required in many states) is an unrealistic and wrong expectation.

 

My personal experience with my son was many of the students were at least beginning readers upon entry to Kindergarten, and most of the rest had the presursor reading skills (understood phonic value of the alphabet, etc). All the students were reading well by the end of K using phonic instruction. 

 

Those kids score phenomenally well in the Common Core exit exams last year as 5th graders. And most are in challenging academic programs Middle Schools as 6th Graders this year.

 

So I didn't see expectation that were either wrong or unrealistic for these kids. They are thriving.

 

Bill

Edited February 16, 2016 by Spy Car

[ReadingMama1214]

My personal experience with my son was many of the students were at least beginning readers upon entry to Kindergarten, and most of the rest had the presursor reading skills (understood phonic value of the alphabet, etc). All the students were reading well by the end of K using phonic instruction.

 

Those kids score phenomenally well in the Common Core exit exams last year as 5th graders. And most are in challenging academic programs Middle Schools as 6th Graders this year.

 

So I didn't see expectation that were either wrong or unrealistic for these kids. They are thriving.

 

Bill

I'm assuming it's different based on location. Our public schools so not use explicit phonics. They uses combination of whole language and phonics. Kids typically learn the initial letter sounds and then wrk on sight words. If you want explicit phonics you homeschool or pursue charter/private Ed

 

I'm in a large city. In our area, the "top" area school had 45% of their 3rd graders reading at or above grade level according to the PARQ test. The only school in the area that did exceptionally well (90%) was the gifted and talented school. So our area (and school district) is a low performing area. I can't say how much of this relates to reading lessons. I do know that imaginative spelling is encouraged as is the memorization of large amounts of sight words.

 

Also, I've known kids to be held back in K (which is not a required grade here) because they were not "reading" on grade level at 5/6 years old.

Edited February 16, 2016 by ReadingMama1214

[Have kids -- will travel]

My personal experience with my son was many of the students were at least beginning readers upon entry to Kindergarten, and most of the rest had the presursor reading skills (understood phonic value of the alphabet, etc). All the students were reading well by the end of K using phonic instruction. 

 

Those kids score phenomenally well in the Common Core exit exams last year as 5th graders. And most are in challenging academic programs Middle Schools as 6th Graders this year.

 

So I didn't see expectation that were either wrong or unrealistic for these kids. They are thriving.

 

Bill

 

Our school (UK-based curric) has these same expectations for pre-K aged (4's and 5's). Lots of kids fall short and 5 to 10% repeat the preK year as a result. I could see having these expectations for K'ers as more realistic (our school draws exclusively from very highly educated parents).

 

For an example, the preK class has already covered long vowels and is working on consonant blends. Very advanced for the summer birthdays, who are just four-and-a-half. 

[ReadingMama1214]

Our school (UK-based curric) has these same expectations for pre-K aged (4's and 5's). Lots of kids fall short and 5 to 10% repeat the preK year as a result. I could see having these expectations for K'ers as more realistic (our school draws exclusively from very highly educated parents).

 

For an example, the preK class has already covered long vowels and is working on consonant blends. Very advanced for the summer birthdays, who are just four-and-a-half. 

 

That is intriguing. And I think the parents have a lot to do with it. While many of my friends are college educated and several have masters degrees or higher, they do not push early academics. School is important to them, but many would not travel more than 15 minutes for a school. We are looked at as incredibly odd for wanting to place our daughter in a school that is 20 minutes away. We are committed to a classical model of education and our commitment to an educational model is also viewed as weird. This is in a middle/upper-middle class educated community. 

 

That being said, parents have a lot to do with it. While I did not force our daughter to do school or read, when she stared to sound out simple words, I began to offer phonics lessons. She's progressed and reads fairly well, but not fluently. However, I am pretty sure that she is the only one in her class who can read. Only 3 of the kids in her class (daughter included) can write their names legibly and correctly. She is in the Pre-K 3 class (she turned 4 in December and the cutoff is Oct 1) and one friend in the Pre-K 4 class just started reading as well. His mom made it sound like this was abnormal from his peers so I am assuming that many kids in the PreK4 class do not read as well. 

 

Is your school private? I have found that more of our private schools teach phonics starting in preschool and most of the public schools teach a phonics/whole language approach starting in K. 

[Have kids -- will travel]

Yes, our school is private. The UK seems to do this sort of thing early, and our school is particularly fast moving, especially considering that more than half of the children don't have English as a first language.

 

I'm honestly very in favor of play-based schooling for as long as possible. My boy can read chapter books in preK but would be very unhappy filling out worksheets and coloring. 

 

FWIW, my oldest couldn't write his name well until the end of preK3. Boys!

 

What does a classical model of education entail for preschoolers? I can't imagine anyone would have success with lots of seatwork for three-year-olds.

[Targhee]

1st read at 3 (before starting school)

2nd read at 5 (mid K)

3rd read at 4 (always HS'ed)

4th is learning to read right now at 4

 

1st had issues her 1st year at school, but it wasn't just reading level but undiagnosed gifted was, ADD, and language based LD

 

2nd did just fine. His K year was at a Spanish immersion school so 90% of language arts was working on Spanish and we taught English reading at home.

[Targhee]

FWIW, my oldest couldn't write his name well until the end of preK3. Boys!

My kids were barely writing their names at 5!

[Ravin]

Since my daughter didn't start school until 5th grade, I can safely answer "yes." With DS, if he decides in the next few months to hold still for it he might, I've offered to start teaching him. But I feel no rush--he does recognize most of his letters and knows a fair number of phonemes, he's just not quite up to putting them together yet. He will be five in a couple of weeks.

[KSinNS]

This is always a fun conversation! It's interesting, just because in my family, we have a big variety of reading ages, and it doesn't always turn out how you might think. 

 

I learned to read at 7 in school, my dh and sister both learned to read at 2. We are all highly educated adults. I certainly read more than my husband, and possibly more than my sister. Certainly by age 9 or 10, no one would have realized that I learned to read much later. 

 

With my own kids, S learned to read at 3 (he mostly figured it out for himself). T learned at 7-8 and needed lots of explicit phonics. She learned nothing in her preK and K, which both taught reading (though whole language). It took years of direct, intense, phonics teaching to get her reading. D is very similar to T (he's really breaking through now at 8), and Miss M is learning at 5 much more easily than her sibs (but did not read spontaneously and does seem to benefit from explicit phonics, though she is learning quickly). We are a heavily "print rich" "reading" family. The kids hear tons of read-alouds, watch parents, grandparents and everyone else read, dh and I discuss books, etc. T is now at 9 a voracious reader, and reads as well as or better than S (she just finished Robinson Crusoe, can read Louisa May Alcott, etc). S is also a strong reader, but less enthusiastic. D will get there-he wants to read, but it is still hard. 

 

Now we aren't the most neurotypical family, but it really has not, at least so far, seemed to matter whether one learned to read easily and young, or slower and later, so long as you learned to read well. Also, the catch up time between the early and later readers was relatively short. Part of this was probably related to the very solid oral skills and vocab the later readers had from living in a print-rich environment. The thing is, at least in my experience late reader vs. early reader does not necessarily translate into "bad" reader and "good" reader, but it's easy to assume that may be the case when the kid is 5 or 6. And those labels can be internalized. Beverly Cleary struggled to learn to read (age 8) and she always puts a slow reader in every story, because it's so hard to be that kid, and to believe that will never change. 

 

Of course, none of this is a reason to hold back a motivated and mature 5 year old who is ready to read, but maybe it is a reason not to frustrate a 5 or 6 year old who is not ready, when a year or two, and some solid teaching may turn out an equally excellent reader. (AKA what they do in Finland :-})

[Bluegoat]

Is this not a position of fear?

 

Before reading instruction can begin, first prove that the child will not learn inefficiently, that early childhood reading will not stultify long-term reading development, that the child will not experience frustration, that time devoted to reading is superior to all other possible activities, and that full mastery of oral speech and listening capacity have been attained before replacing these skills wholesale with print.

 

As for a leg up, I *am a believer in "better early than late" largely because of my belief in the value of practice hours. The sooner a child is engaged in learning a skill (be it reading or shooting free throws or hunting for crawdads in the crick) the more time that child has to experience and enjoy and ultimately become skilled at that activity. To bring Seuss into the discussion, "The more that you read, the more things you will know. The more that you learn, the more places you'll go."

 

To my mind, getting a head start in reading gives kids that much more time to build vocabulary, explore genres, increase speed, learn to pronounce unfamiliar words, enjoy twaddle, and do it all at self-determined pace (without being harassed by increasing levels of ambient adult panic as a child ages toward "the correct age" without achieving fluent and joyous reading nirvana).

 

No, I would suggest that it is an evidence based position.

 

Your practice hours theory simply seems to be false.  Kids without reading problems all seem to learn to read equally well, whether they learn at 4 or 6.  Just like some children walk at nine moths, and others at 18 months, and yet at 6 you will find both walk quite well.  If you started insisting that all 10 month olds needed to start walking, and we should find ways to make them if they didn't naturally, people would easily see why this was not only foolish but likely to cause problems.

 

There really isn't a need to "prove" anything about readiness, good teachers do it simply by observation.  That is quite different from a curricula that means they have to start teaching at a particular point whether the child is ready or not, and use whatever means necessary to get them to perform for tests.  That is what we have now, and there is plenty of evidence that it does in fact cause problems, because the brain ends up using less efficient strategies that need to be unlearned.

 

Later readers don't miss out on reading well, any more than earlier ones do, so why would that cause panic?  Where you do see panic is in the many five and six year olds who are in reading remediation even though their development is normal, and that tends to follow them, in various ways, throughout their school career.

[Bluegoat]

Skills in both domains continue to develop, as long as the child does not have a temporary or permanent hearing loss in both ears. If he does, being able to read is helpful, as public school staff ime assume low iq before hearing loss.

 

If a child is ready, he will learn. What is next, binding legs of those who are walking before 12 months or bicycling before ten years?

 

Did you bother to read my whole post?  It was about children that are not ready to learn to read.

 

And there is in fact some reason to think that becoming a reader does affect oral and aural learning, though we don't know a whole lot about that yet.  But some of them seem to be skills that are actually foundational for good reading.  Short-cutting them, then,to have earlier readers would seem to be very counter-productive.

 

Certainly the time it takes to teach someone not developmentally ready to read to do so will et in the way of other, more developmentally appropriate, skill practice.

 

But the fact that some of the brain function aspects of this are not that well understood seems all the more reason to default to developmental readiness as opposed to pushing early reading.

[SKL]

I agree that focus on so-called readiness skills can be counterproductive if it is done blindly.  When I went to college, I had a preschool-aged sister.  (She did not go to preschool though, so had not been subjected to scheduled readiness training.)  She began to read easy books at about 4.5yo.  Meanwhile, at college I was taught that a child wasn't ready to read until she would draw pictures using a baseline and a sky line (around age 6-7 they said), along with several other "markers" of readiness.  Well, my sister didn't use a "baseline" when she drew.  If she drew a ground / sky, the sky started where the ground ended - just like it does in real life.  I guess she shouldn't have been allowed near those early readers.  Or maybe the strict adherence to "reading readiness markers" is wrong.

 

Another example of misjudging ability by a teacher.  My kids' 1st grade teacher had decades of experience.  My younger kid entered 1st reading basically anything she wanted - Harry Potter, Equestria Girls, whatever.  For the first months of 1st grade, she was taking AR tests on KG level books AND marking them as "read to."  Really???  I figured the teacher would fix this pretty soon, but after a couple months, I approached her and told her what my kid was reading at home, and that I had not ever "read to" her any of those books she tested on.  She had no idea.  You would think it would be hard to miss that a 1st grader could read everything in the classroom / library, but I guess not.

[Bluegoat]

Yes, I did read your post. I had a child who was deemed by experts as not ready to read. The real problem was that the expert was an idiot who could not understand the nuances of rhyming well enough to test the students' abilities. It took about 5 minutes to teach the kid to read, and that consisted of confirming his inferences and informing him of some of the obscure phonics rules that he had not discovered on his own as well as correcting his kindy teacher's lies. After that, he brought up literay devices and I had to educate myself in the terminology.But you go right ahead and insist on ignoring reality and labeling kids as 'not ready'.good money can be made in remediation once the parents realize junior still cant read by middle school even though he took the slow boat with the expert.

 

Are you arguing then that all kids at 4 or 5 are ready to learn to read?  Since I was talking about children who are not yet ready to read, it seems like you are saying here that that isn't an issue, children at that age are in fact ready to read.

 

I think it's well known that some younger kids do learn to read easily and are developmentally ready.  That isn't really in dispute.

[Bluegoat]

I agree that focus on so-called readiness skills can be counterproductive if it is done blindly.  When I went to college, I had a preschool-aged sister.  (She did not go to preschool though, so had not been subjected to scheduled readiness training.)  She began to read easy books at about 4.5yo.  Meanwhile, at college I was taught that a child wasn't ready to read until she would draw pictures using a baseline and a sky line (around age 6-7 they said), along with several other "markers" of readiness.  Well, my sister didn't use a "baseline" when she drew.  If she drew a ground / sky, the sky started where the ground ended - just like it does in real life.  I guess she shouldn't have been allowed near those early readers.  Or maybe the strict adherence to "reading readiness markers" is wrong.

 

Another example of misjudging ability by a teacher.  My kids' 1st grade teacher had decades of experience.  My younger kid entered 1st reading basically anything she wanted - Harry Potter, Equestria Girls, whatever.  For the first months of 1st grade, she was taking AR tests on KG level books AND marking them as "read to."  Really???  I figured the teacher would fix this pretty soon, but after a couple months, I approached her and told her what my kid was reading at home, and that I had not ever "read to" her any of those books she tested on.  She had no idea.  You would think it would be hard to miss that a 1st grader could read everything in the classroom / library, but I guess not.

 

THat seems a little arbitrary.  I'd have said a better indicator is that the child is interested in print, and seems to pick up instruction without too much of a struggle (or without particular struggles that suggest some other problem.)

 

I'm not surprised though about the other incident you describe.  I don't think classes have been set up for really discerning where kids are for a long time, and I also think they are often chaotic enough that there isn't as much opportunity as there should be for teachers to get to know the kids.  Kids are expected to be within certain peramaters, and that is what they look for.

[SKL]

Are you arguing then that all kids at 4 or 5 are ready to learn to read?  Since I was talking about children who are not yet ready to read, it seems like you are saying here that that isn't an issue, children at that age are in fact ready to read.

 

I think it's well known that some younger kids do learn to read easily and are developmentally ready.  That isn't really in dispute.

 

I think we all acknowledge that there is a broad range of ages when a particular child may be ready to begin reading.

 

There are some who think it is a problem to incorporate reading into the classroom before the majority of kids can read, lest those unready kids feel badly about themselves.  However, I don't know where this really comes from.  In general, a young child receiving more attention at school (call it remediation or whatever) is going to be happy for it.  Why would they feel shame, unless their family or someone else put it into their head that it isn't OK to be in the "less ready" group?

 

My kid is 9yo in 4th grade and she (along with several classmates) gets pull-out tutoring multiple times a week.  She is nothing but happy about this.  (And it's not because she's socially clueless or immature.)  As far as I know, none of the pull-out kids have issues with it.  If a 9yo (and some 10yos etc.) are happy with this situation, why on earth would a 5yo feel badly about it?

 

And why is it considered worse to give different assistance to the "less ready" kids, but nobody worries that the advanced kids will be damaged by pull-outs for their benefit?

[OneStepAtATime]

 

I think we all acknowledge that there is a broad range of ages when a particular child may be ready to begin reading.

 

There are some who think it is a problem to incorporate reading into the classroom before the majority of kids can read, lest those unready kids feel badly about themselves.  However, I don't know where this really comes from.  In general, a young child receiving more attention at school (call it remediation or whatever) is going to be happy for it.  Why would they feel shame, unless their family or someone else put it into their head that it isn't OK to be in the "less ready" group?

 

My kid is 9yo in 4th grade and she (along with several classmates) gets pull-out tutoring multiple times a week.  She is nothing but happy about this.  (And it's not because she's socially clueless or immature.)  As far as I know, none of the pull-out kids have issues with it.  If a 9yo (and some 10yos etc.) are happy with this situation, why on earth would a 5yo feel badly about it?

 

And why is it considered worse to give different assistance to the "less ready" kids, but nobody worries that the advanced kids will be damaged by pull-outs for their benefit?

I agree that holding everyone else back so that other kids won't feel bad is not a good idea at all, just like I also think pushing all kids to read earlier and earlier because a few can is also not a good thing.  Kids are not tires being manufactured.  They are individuals.  They develop individually.

 

 I think there is a trend in school now to see kids as even more "one size fits all" and there is this inaccurate thinking that if schools just shift instruction down a few grades kids will be doing Calculus and reading War and Peace in 2nd and wow won't the U.S. be ahead then? I am exaggerating, obviously, but that is how it is coming across to me.  When you couple that trend with an increasing push to worry about standardized test scores far more than creating a positive academic environment that inspires a life long love of learning and more and more expectation that ALL kids should perform these skills the same way across the board, regardless of the fact that human beings develop in different areas at different rates, you end up harming the kids.

 

When I was in 1st grade there was differentiated learning.  My teacher, Mrs. Johnson, was awesome.  She had somehow managed to provide instruction at many different levels for many different kids in her class.  No one was made to feel badly about being in a different group than someone else.  If this is the case, then yes having instruction in reading in early grades, for those that are ready, is great.  Holding back kids that are ready for this skill set is silly.

 

Unfortunately, that doesn't appear to be what is currently happening in a lot of schools now.  At least here things are actually quite damaging for any child that is not reading by 5 or is reading way above grade level at 5.  They don't want "outliers" and have no idea how to deal with "outliers" (and apparently the definition of outlier is now not reading by 5 or reading chapter books by 5 or something along those lines).  

 

For example, last year one of my friends had a kinder DD and a 4k DS starting school for the first time (she had been homeschooling the DD for 4k).  The DS was happy to be at school but started coming home very worried that he wasn't meant for school.  Why?  His teacher told him that if he wasn't reading by Christmas he would fail 4k.  He began having panic attacks and meltdowns and started to HATE reading.  Her DD was reading, but not fluently.  She started coming home crying.  She was being told by the teacher that if she didn't learn to read well by the end of kindergarten she wasn't ever going to do well in school and she would not have a good job.  These are very bright kids.  They just needed more time to learn to read.  Her DD this year is being asked to test for the gifted program.  Last year they were ready to write her off as a lost cause.  All because her reading wasn't yet fluent.  

 

On the flip side of that coin, my nephew, who is gifted and learned to read early (those do not always go hand in hand but did in his case), was told in 2nd grade that he would not be allowed to read any books to test on for Accelerated Reader that were 2 grade levels above his grade.  He was told there wouldn't be any books left to read if he read too far ahead.  In 4k he was discouraged from reading in class (books he brought from home) because the material he was reading was "too advanced" for his age. In reality, the teachers had not been trained to deal with and support the wide range of abilities that children have and the fact that different kids develop those abilities at different paces.

 

Although I realize those stories are anecdotal, I have a lot of friends and family that are teachers and I hear similar from them.   There is a HUGE push in many schools to force kids to learn to read and function in math at earlier and earlier ages, across the board, with no willingness/training/resources to provide differentiated learning/instruction in the classroom.  And it is harmful.  Kids who are ready for reading need to be given the chance to read and work at more advanced levels.  Those who are already reading when they hit Kinder should be given the chance to continue to advance.  Those that are not ready to read should be given instruction and support in pre-reading skills if they are ready for those.  Pushing a child that is not ready is harmful.  Not encouraging and helping a child that IS ready is harmful.

 

The educational community needs to stop treating the public school system like a manufacturing plant, where the underlying assumption is that the raw material going in is all the same, the process to achieve the end product is the same, and at the end of that process the ps should produce identical products when the process is done.

 

Edited March 6, 2016 by OneStepAtATime

[OneStepAtATime]

I'm in thick of this now as I have a very bright, non-reading Kindergartner. DD is on the cusp of reading but isn't interested in getting over the hill right now. We've not pushed her because she's a young 6. I ask if she wants to read to me and she usually says no and I let it go.

 

I see many of the kids in her class are struggling with the expectations. The older kids are doing better, generally. There are some behavioral issues cropping up with some of the boys. Parents are starting to stress out. There's a birthday party about every other week and the moms usually end up talking about reading while we wait on our kids.

 

DD's school uses Spalding and they have phonogram tests every week and the kids who earned a 100% on a phonogram test are allowed to play with special centers while the other children have to take their phonogram tests. The 100% kids were rewarded with a special lunch. Thank goodness DD had earned a 100% but I felt so sad for the kids who were excluded.

 

We've moving DD to Catholic school next year and we're hoping it's not as rigid as PS.

 

I've told DD that 1st graders read to their parents every night to set expectations. I know that we can't go through 1st grade without reading without consequences so she has to get on board. She's a perfectionist and I think all of the stress about the phonogram tests and needing to get a 100% made her lose a little bit of confidence making her scared of reading.

 

After a year with DD in public school, I'm so sad and angry for our kids. I think we're actually harming them.

:grouphug:  :grouphug:  :grouphug:   

 

It is so sad to punish kids for not passing tests in basic skills.  Encouraging and rewarding good work is one thing.  Punishing those who struggle or need a little extra time or a bit different way to learn is harmful.

 

As for her having to read to you every night in 1st, maybe do popcorn reading (you read then she reads then you read), and make it a fun bonding time, so it isn't just expectations for school but something fun and special for the two of you?  

[Bluegoat]

I think we all acknowledge that there is a broad range of ages when a particular child may be ready to begin reading.

 

There are some who think it is a problem to incorporate reading into the classroom before the majority of kids can read, lest those unready kids feel badly about themselves.  However, I don't know where this really comes from.  In general, a young child receiving more attention at school (call it remediation or whatever) is going to be happy for it.  Why would they feel shame, unless their family or someone else put it into their head that it isn't OK to be in the "less ready" group?

 

My kid is 9yo in 4th grade and she (along with several classmates) gets pull-out tutoring multiple times a week.  She is nothing but happy about this.  (And it's not because she's socially clueless or immature.)  As far as I know, none of the pull-out kids have issues with it.  If a 9yo (and some 10yos etc.) are happy with this situation, why on earth would a 5yo feel badly about it?

 

And why is it considered worse to give different assistance to the "less ready" kids, but nobody worries that the advanced kids will be damaged by pull-outs for their benefit?

 

I don't think it's widely aknowledged in ps that there is a broad range where kids are ready to start reading.  The teachers may know it, but the school standards don't give them much leeway to work with that. 

 

Remedial work can be fine, if its handled well, though the evidence in the US suggests that kids that get put into remedial reading are affected by it throughout their school career.  And kids who are told they aren't up to scratch, up to expectations, do tend to assume that it is true.

 

But in the case of kids who are within normal developmental parameters, why would they need extra tutoring or "remedial" work?  What is to remediate?  We don't try and remediate a one year old who isn't walking yet, we just wait until they get there.

[SKL]

We don't try and remediate a one year old who isn't walking yet, we just wait until they get there.

 

I don't know that this is true generally.  We don't punish a 1yo for not walking, but most people do encourage the 1yo to try, and they hold their hands and walk them around, get them active doing things to strengthen those muscles, etc.  Maybe some cultures don't do that, but those in the US generally do.

 

Encouraging kids to develop reading skills can be similar.

 

I don't see it as a punishment to have kids spend a little more time on phonics in school (for example).  And it makes sense to let the kids who know phonics etc. go do something else.  It's called differentiation.  Not punishment.

[OneStepAtATime]

I don't know that this is true generally.  We don't punish a 1yo for not walking, but most people do encourage the 1yo to try, and they hold their hands and walk them around, get them active doing things to strengthen those muscles, etc.  Maybe some cultures don't do that, but those in the US generally do.

 

Encouraging kids to develop reading skills can be similar.

 

I don't see it as a punishment to have kids spend a little more time on phonics in school (for example).  And it makes sense to let the kids who know phonics etc. go do something else.  It's called differentiation.  Not punishment.

True differentiation, with support for the kids at the level they are able to successfully function, is not punishment.  I agree.  And definitely those kids that have already acquired skill sets that others are still learning should be allowed to move on to other things.  Yes.  Absolutely.

 

I think the issue is when parents and educators come to expect every single child to be ready for reading at a very young age, then consider them behind or a failure or panic over their future if they are not ready.  Used to, formal schooling started at 1st grade.  Then it was pushed to kinder (even if officially many states do not make formal education a requirement until 1st, most places expect kids to start in kindergarten).  Now parents in my area are being told if they expect their child to succeed in school they need to be in a full day 4k program and already be working on reading skills prior to 4k.  Hey, for kids that are ready and interested, that's great.  For kids that are not ready and interested, it can push them to hate reading, feel like failures and end up struggling and demoralized...for no good reason at all.  And many kids may be harmed in this process.

[Joker]

I don't know that this is true generally.  We don't punish a 1yo for not walking, but most people do encourage the 1yo to try, and they hold their hands and walk them around, get them active doing things to strengthen those muscles, etc.  Maybe some cultures don't do that, but those in the US generally do.

 

Encouraging kids to develop reading skills can be similar.

 

I don't see it as a punishment to have kids spend a little more time on phonics in school (for example).  And it makes sense to let the kids who know phonics etc. go do something else.  It's called differentiation.  Not punishment.

 

Where I live it's most definitely a punishment. The biggest reason I quit substituting was because of the number of children, mostly boys, who were made to sit at a picnic table during recess and read. They had to do so because they weren't doing their reading at home (totally their parents fault when they are all of six years old) and because they weren't reading well yet (again, not their fault). It disgusted me and I couldn't enforce it as a substitute because I felt it was wrong. Many children are being punished because they can't read. It's not differentiation.

[OneStepAtATime]

Even though my Ker isn't reading yet, no one has suggested remediation. Thankfully, because I would probably flip my lid.

 

I didn't read until 2nd grade. I'd attended K at a Montessori school and then moved into 1st at public school. Our 1st grade teacher had a serious illness and missed most of the year. The school never told the parents that we had back to back substitutes. My mom figured out what was going on at the end of the year when one of her friends mentioned subbing in my class. Modern parents wouldn't put up with that but 1970's parents were the opposite of modern helicopter parents. We moved to another state and I began 2nd grade and the 2nd grade teacher told my parents that I wasn't reading. I was pulled out of class every day to work with a reading specialist along with 2 little boys. I was teased. Luckily I picked up reading very quickly. I always credit the Little House series with turning me into a reader. I began reading the series in 2nd grade and struggled through it because I wanted to find out how it ended. By the 3rd or 4th book, I was reading above grade level and I stopped being pulled out of class. I had the very surreal experience of being teased in the 6th grade for being a "nerd" by one of the same kids who teased me for being "stupid" in the 2nd grade.

 

It's years later but I still remember what it was like to be pulled out of class in front of all of the other kids. I was legitimately behind and obviously the remediation helped me. But I would be furious if my DD was subjected to that.

:grouphug:  :grouphug:  :grouphug: 

 

One of my nephews is dyslexic.  Undiagnosed until 5th grade because the school refused to test him.  His parents finally threw a fit and pulled strings.  He was in a pull out program in middle school.  He was made to feel like a failure, completely inferior, and got teased mercilessly.  He hated every minute of it.  He lost friends.  He fell behind in other subjects.  He got into fights.  Sadly, also, the program did not help him.  The teacher was not trained in OG methods.  She sat him in front of a computer program while she did her nails.  He made little progress.  His parents finally forced the school to remove him from the pull out program but the school told them that if they did that he would lose all accommodations.  He had a really long, hard road through school and barely graduated.   He is now an adult.  He is also demoralized, defensive, has a hard time keeping a job, and has chosen not to even try to go to college.  He is extremely bright.  As a 4 and 5 year old his teachers were always talking about how gifted he was.  By the age of 6 he was being told he had a bad attitude because he struggled to read (teachers were assuming a kid that bright must surely be able to read if they just put in a bit of effort).  The system failed him across the board.  

[Have kids -- will travel]

 

My kid is 9yo in 4th grade and she (along with several classmates) gets pull-out tutoring multiple times a week.  She is nothing but happy about this.  (And it's not because she's socially clueless or immature.)  As far as I know, none of the pull-out kids have issues with it.  If a 9yo (and some 10yos etc.) are happy with this situation, why on earth would a 5yo feel badly about it?

 

And why is it considered worse to give different assistance to the "less ready" kids, but nobody worries that the advanced kids will be damaged by pull-outs for their benefit?

 

Kids know which group they are in. They know at age 5 when they are in the slow group or the fast group. One teacher I know had a boy in the slow group finish early, so he gave him something extra from a higher level. The boy's reply: "I can't do this! I'm in the silly group." 

 

Remediation itself isn't harmful, but teaching a five or six year old early on that they are "slow" or "behind" is damaging. 

 

My older son has benefited from a system that does play-based academics early, but I see friends of his struggling and parents stressed. It works amazingly well for us, so I can't complain, but honestly, I can't see how it's good for the average student.

[OneStepAtATime]

Where I live it's most definitely a punishment. The biggest reason I quit substituting was because of the number of children, mostly boys, who were made to sit at a picnic table during recess and read. They had to do so because they weren't doing their reading at home (totally their parents fault when they are all of six years old) and because they weren't reading well yet (again, not their fault). It disgusted me and I couldn't enforce it as a substitute because I felt it was wrong. Many children are being punished because they can't read. It's not differentiation.

Sadly, I hear stories like this a lot from family members that are teachers as well as parents of kids in our local school system.  

[OneStepAtATime]

By the way, I want to make it clear that I am not saying public schools are horrible places.  Quite the contrary, there are a lot of good ones out there and many kids thrive in that environment.  I had some awesome teachers in school and some classes that I still cherish memories of.  One of my nephews is doing beautifully in ps.  It seems to me, though, that the students who tend to do the best are frequently the kids that fit pretty close to the middle of the bell curve.  When you shift the bell curve of reading to be expecting truly reading at 4-5 to be the norm, and any kids not meeting that expectation are considered behind, that hurts a lot of kids, IMHO.

Edited March 7, 2016 by OneStepAtATime

[laundrycrisis]

No. Both were late readers at 8 and 9. One needed 2 yrs of vision therapy. The other didn't want to work on it until he was motivated by chats in playing Minecraft online. The VT child has caught up in school and reads a novel a week. The second was always able to get through what he needed to read for school without any adjustments, but he has been very slow to begin reading for pleasure.

[SKL]

Kids know which group they are in. They know at age 5 when they are in the slow group or the fast group. One teacher I know had a boy in the slow group finish early, so he gave him something extra from a higher level. The boy's reply: "I can't do this! I'm in the silly group." 

 

Remediation itself isn't harmful, but teaching a five or six year old early on that they are "slow" or "behind" is damaging. 

 

My older son has benefited from a system that does play-based academics early, but I see friends of his struggling and parents stressed. It works amazingly well for us, so I can't complain, but honestly, I can't see how it's good for the average student.

 

So what if they know there are kids who are ahead of them in the class?  Kids need to learn that we all have different strengths, we can't all be the best at everything.

 

Do you think that they wouldn't notice the difference without the pull-outs?

 

And if they wouldn't notice the difference (which I doubt), why is that better?  Are they also not allowed to run at different speeds, be able to do more/less pull-ups on the playground, have more/fewer siblings or toys to talk about?

 

I really think it's more the parents who can't deal with knowing their kid isn't in the top half of the group.  It doesn't matter what the standards are, some kids are going to be near the bottom and some parents are going to worry about it.  I got cured of this by having two kids with very different abilities.  They have to learn to accept their differences, and the earlier the better IMO.  Of course teachers should not punish or shame, but it mostly rests on the parents to accept their kids for who they are, and stop comparing.

[8filltheheart]

No skin in this game bc ps is not an issue for us, but I am curious. How often are kids who are in the bottom of the performing students in elementary school allowed to move up to the highest course options in high school? Kids are fluid learners. What is happening at 5-10 does not necessarily reflect 16, 17, 18.

Edited March 7, 2016 by 8FillTheHeart

[AggieMama]

Unfortunately 8FilltheHeart, what happens by age 8 usually effects the rest of the child's academic career in public school. As a special education, I have often seen children "tracked" on the low road if they are low in one area. I have very rarely seen kids, once in 9 years, move from a remedial level to an honors level program because of academic gains. Once kids are tracked remedial they stay there. It seems like they fo further and further behind each year. I think educating children at home gives them the opportunity to learn at a pace that is appropriate for them and they can make leaps and bounds when thy are ready.

[SKL]

Unfortunately 8FilltheHeart, what happens by age 8 usually effects the rest of the child's academic career in public school. As a special education, I have often seen children "tracked" on the low road if they are low in one area. I have very rarely seen kids, once in 9 years, move from a remedial level to an honors level program because of academic gains. Once kids are tracked remedial they stay there. It seems like they fo further and further behind each year. I think educating children at home gives them the opportunity to learn at a pace that is appropriate for them and they can make leaps and bounds when thy are ready.

 

Some of this could be because kids don't get the extra help they need early enough - either at home or at school.  Fear of the social aspects of intervention may be part of this problem.

 

Some of it is because some kids are simply slower.  And so regardless of remedial help, they are not going to tackle classes that are designed for kids who learn faster.  And that's OK.  It's still better for them to get help than not.

 

And I have seen remedial programs that are really poorly designed to meet individual needs.  My kid was in one for about a year.  IMO it was a waste of time.  Thankfully, the arrangement she is in now is much better.

[OneStepAtATime]

 

So what if they know there are kids who are ahead of them in the class?  Kids need to learn that we all have different strengths, we can't all be the best at everything.

 

Do you think that they wouldn't notice the difference without the pull-outs?

 

And if they wouldn't notice the difference (which I doubt), why is that better?  Are they also not allowed to run at different speeds, be able to do more/less pull-ups on the playground, have more/fewer siblings or toys to talk about?

 

I really think it's more the parents who can't deal with knowing their kid isn't in the top half of the group.  It doesn't matter what the standards are, some kids are going to be near the bottom and some parents are going to worry about it.  I got cured of this by having two kids with very different abilities.  They have to learn to accept their differences, and the earlier the better IMO.  Of course teachers should not punish or shame, but it mostly rests on the parents to accept their kids for who they are, and stop comparing.

I actually have to disagree here.  Parents are putting pressure on their kids mainly because of the change in views of the public school system.  There is a TON of pressure from the schools for the parents to push their kids hard.  They are being told their kindergartner is behind.  Even 4k kids are being told they are behind.  That pressure from the schools is what is causing parents to be more concerned and push harder, IMHO, not the other way around.

 

Also, if the class structure and implementation of the teacher were done more efficiently for true differentiated learning there would be no need for pull outs in the first place for most students.  If the educational community were better structured to recognize that some children will need more targeted instruction BEFORE they fall behind and that a 5 year old who is not reading is not behind and there were better supports in place for both children who gain skill sets early and kids who need more time then there would be far less of a negative atmosphere.  And yes, at least here, pull outs are treated as if the child is defective.  Not by the parents.  By the teachers.  Which then convinces the parents that their kid is defective.  Teachers are in a bad position, though, since that pressure is from the administration coming down to them.  Their jobs are on the line for higher standardized test scores.

 

Right now, at least locally, if a child is not reading at 5 they are being told BY THE TEACHER that they are behind and must work harder to catch up, regardless of whether their brain is developmentally ready to be reading.  It is not starting with the parents.  The pressure is coming from the school.  The parents, especially new parents, are taking their cue from the school.  If the school tells them their just turned 5 year old is behind, then they get stressed and start pressuring their kid.  Any chance for a love of reading to develop on their own can get squashed because now reading is this pressure chore that causes tension and stress and tears.  

 

As for learning to accept differences, sounds great on paper.  In reality, differences in the academic setting are frequently seen as failures, not just as differences.  And it can cause a child to get "tracked" throughout his academic career.  Schools frequently fail to realize that just because a child struggles to gain skills early on, that does not mean they cannot thrive in that same subject later on.  And they also fail to realize that if a child is struggling in one area that doesn't mean they aren't gifted in another area.  And that even if they struggle in an area, they are not stupid, or not trying.  They just may not be great in that area.  And that's o.k.  

 

For instance, a child might be great at higher level, conceptual math if given the chance.  However, because they struggle to rote memorize math facts, they are considered a poor math student and kept in remedial math or fail to get good enough grades to be given the chance to do the type of math their brain was designed to do.  They might be a terrific engineer or architect but are made to feel that math is not their strength so they shouldn't even try for a STEM career.  They are discouraged from higher level math courses and by the time they get to High School may have defined themselves as a poor math student. (FWIW, my DH was this way.  Brilliant at higher level math.  He still struggles with multiplication tables.  He is a successful engineer because someone outside the school system believed in him.)

 

At least in our area the gifted program now only allows students in if they show "gifted" across the board.  The school system will not allow a student who is strong in math, for example, but weak in reading skills, to be allowed to be in the accelerated math program.  Therefore, if a child is still trying to learn to read and is "behind" his peers in reading, but is gifted in math, he may not ever be given the chance to learn at the level he is capable of in the subject he is strongest.  

 

[OneStepAtATime]

Some of this could be because kids don't get the extra help they need early enough - either at home or at school.  Fear of the social aspects of intervention may be part of this problem.

 

Some of it is because some kids are simply slower.  And so regardless of remedial help, they are not going to tackle classes that are designed for kids who learn faster.  And that's OK.  It's still better for them to get help than not.

 

And I have seen remedial programs that are really poorly designed to meet individual needs.  My kid was in one for about a year.  IMO it was a waste of time.  Thankfully, the arrangement she is in now is much better.

I agree with you here.  There have been lawsuits in my area because the schools are not following state guidelines for helping kids that are needing remedial help.  And the policy here is not to step in and help until a student is AT LEAST TWO GRADE LEVELS BEHIND.  Which is just setting them up to fail.

 

DD struggled to learn to read and spell all through elementary school.  She is bright but received reading instruction that her brain couldn't process (whole language).  I also think that part of her brain developed more slowly (which happens with all of us, but the ones who develop skills other than basic reading and math and clerical skills first are the ones that are frequently penalized).  She was accelerated in other areas but those were not recognized in a standard academic setting in elementary.  She was just thought of as "slow", especially in the reading department.  

 

Evaluations finally showed that she is extremely bright, but has definitely needed a different approach to reading and math.  Once I got her home and gave her strongly phonics based instruction she went from barely decoding Clifford books in 5th to reading Divergent a year and a half later.  She wasted years trying to learn in school but the school was not equipped to know how to help her and felt that since she was surviving in school they didn't really need to help.  I had to reteach every single subject at home.  It demoralized her terribly to be thought of as slow.  That came from the school, not from me.  And "slow" was such a harmful and inaccurate view.  She has areas of strength I can't even touch.  

[vonfirmath]

I think we all acknowledge that there is a broad range of ages when a particular child may be ready to begin reading.

 

There are some who think it is a problem to incorporate reading into the classroom before the majority of kids can read, lest those unready kids feel badly about themselves.  However, I don't know where this really comes from.  In general, a young child receiving more attention at school (call it remediation or whatever) is going to be happy for it.  Why would they feel shame, unless their family or someone else put it into their head that it isn't OK to be in the "less ready" group?

 

My kid is 9yo in 4th grade and she (along with several classmates) gets pull-out tutoring multiple times a week.  She is nothing but happy about this.  (And it's not because she's socially clueless or immature.)  As far as I know, none of the pull-out kids have issues with it.  If a 9yo (and some 10yos etc.) are happy with this situation, why on earth would a 5yo feel badly about it?

 

And why is it considered worse to give different assistance to the "less ready" kids, but nobody worries that the advanced kids will be damaged by pull-outs for their benefit?

 

I have noticed this. They have pull outs for SO many different reasons at my son's school, it is difficult for the teachers. BUT! for the students? It seems everyone gets pulled out for one reason or another so it is not a big deal, or to any great extent even noticed.

[vonfirmath]

Where I live it's most definitely a punishment. The biggest reason I quit substituting was because of the number of children, mostly boys, who were made to sit at a picnic table during recess and read. They had to do so because they weren't doing their reading at home (totally their parents fault when they are all of six years old) and because they weren't reading well yet (again, not their fault). It disgusted me and I couldn't enforce it as a substitute because I felt it was wrong. Many children are being punished because they can't read. It's not differentiation.

 

FLip side of the coin. If you know the reading practice the kid needs is not happening at home. Wouldn't it be more punishment to continue to allow them to slide backward and not provide time during the day for the kid to do the reading? If a kid does not practice reading, it definitely affects their progress.   I know parents at our school that go in before school starts to read with some of these kids not getting practice at home. But even that time is taking the child away from talking with friends/having breakfast at school. When you have to fit into the school day work that should have been done at home, it is going to affect what else they have time to do at school.

 

Edited March 7, 2016 by vonfirmath

[Arcadia]

How often are kids who are in the bottom of the performing students in elementary school allowed to move up to the highest course options in high school?.

It is social promotion from K-8 so whatever the child's scores from k-8 doesn't affect placement for high school courses.

 

Here the first gatekeeper (placement) tests is in the spring of 8th grade. If a child doesn't make it to the highest course options and the parents want it, the parents would usually pay for private summer school and request for placement adjustments before the academic year starts in fall.

 

As for children with LDs, my district is well funded by property tax and the district does fulfil its obligations as long as parents advocate. Turn around for testing is about two weeks or less. Early Intervention is well run according to my neighbors whose kids with autism benefits from the program.

[SKL]

And this is one reason I don't mind some homework for young kids.  This is a way for the parents to realize their kids' strengths and weaknesses and consider whether their child could benefit from a different approach.  Teachers may not have time to figure this out with each individual child.

[Spy Car]

Mothers and fathers should be involved in developing their children's pre-literacy and reading skills. That is not "pressure," it is good parenting.

 

Bill

[OneStepAtATime]

Mothers and fathers should be involved in developing their children's pre-literacy and reading skills. That is not "pressure," it is good parenting.

 

Bill

Yes, I agree, up to a point.  There is a difference between working with a child and helping them see the joy of reading while supporting their ability to gain and solidify basic reading skills and the teacher and the parent telling a 5 year old they are "behind" because they aren't yet reading and forcing them to practice in ways that may not actually address the underlying issues (such as needing more time for brain development, need for more phonics based instruction, etc).  That IS pressure and not healthy pressure.  Or developmentally appropriate expectation for every single child.  Not all children are ready for pre-reading skills at 3 and 4 or even 5.  Working with them in a positive, encouraging atmosphere is one thing.  Forcing them to try and gain skills they are not yet ready to learn can be very harmful.

 

I also get really irritated with the assumption by many teachers/other parents that if a child isn't reading well it is because the parent isn't working hard enough with the child to get them reading.  

Edited March 7, 2016 by OneStepAtATime

[OneStepAtATime]

Mothers and fathers should be involved in developing their children's pre-literacy and reading skills. That is not "pressure," it is good parenting.

 

Bill

And I think this really depends on the approach.   FWIW, my parents read to me and I loved it.  It was a great bonding time and books were fun.  I associated those early days with being with Mom and Dad and cuddling and fun stories, but there was no pressure to be reading early.  I learned to read early anyway because I was ready for that skill and I did not need phonics based instruction to learn and reading was something cool and mysterious that big people got to do.  I wanted to, too.  I loved reading but reading was not a skill set I was told I had to learn to "make it" in school and that without it I would "fail" and not "get a good job".  Reading was a cuddly time with Mom and a fun story time with Dad and really comforting/exciting time to myself with picture books and then books with words and then chapter books.  I would have hated the whole process if it had been a pressure cooker.

[SKL]

I also get really irritated with the assumption by many teachers/other parents that if a child isn't reading well it is because the parent isn't working hard enough with the child to get them reading.  

 

I don't think anyone implied that, but parental involvement does make a big difference whether we like it or not.

 

This is another reason why public schools have gotten a little confused about what's best for young kids.  There was this movement to equalize everything for the benefit of kids who don't get any help at home, kids whose parents are illiterate or neglectful or too busy working to put the time in with their kids.  Problem is, you can't really level the playing field, and I'm not sure it's right to try to do so.

 

So now we are OK with the idea that kids benefit from certain parental skills and parenting styles, and this is of value to a lifelong education.  Well, the school is OK with it, but some people / communities are pushing back.  "Why should I do the school's job?"  "Why should my kid spend any time on literacy / math in the evening?"

 

Now I will be the first to agree that some of the crap they ask parents to do with kids (those horrible leveled readers!) is worse than nothing.  There should be a broad range of options that can be tailored to any child.  Hands-on projects for some kids, worksheets for others.  Make it optional or mandatory, I don't care.  But let's be honest here.  Engage your kids intellectually, or don't expect miracles from the school.

[AggieMama]

SKL, I whole heartedly agree that those leveled readers are horrible. I think it's just another way for schools to group kids.

 

I also agree that parents should be stimulating their chdren intellectually. As a parent I try to do this everyday. Many parents, probably none on this board, think it's the sole responsibility of the schools to educate their children. If that had been my parents' thought process I would have been in a world of trouble.

[OneStepAtATime]

I don't think anyone implied that, but parental involvement does make a big difference whether we like it or not.

 

This is another reason why public schools have gotten a little confused about what's best for young kids.  There was this movement to equalize everything for the benefit of kids who don't get any help at home, kids whose parents are illiterate or neglectful or too busy working to put the time in with their kids.  Problem is, you can't really level the playing field, and I'm not sure it's right to try to do so.

 

So now we are OK with the idea that kids benefit from certain parental skills and parenting styles, and this is of value to a lifelong education.  Well, the school is OK with it, but some people / communities are pushing back.  "Why should I do the school's job?"  "Why should my kid spend any time on literacy / math in the evening?"

 

Now I will be the first to agree that some of the crap they ask parents to do with kids (those horrible leveled readers!) is worse than nothing.  There should be a broad range of options that can be tailored to any child.  Hands-on projects for some kids, worksheets for others.  Make it optional or mandatory, I don't care.  But let's be honest here.  Engage your kids intellectually, or don't expect miracles from the school.

Actually, if you read back through the thread there was some implication that the reason some kids start kinder without basic reading skills is lack of involvement from the parents.  That is sometimes true and sometimes not.  Regardless, I was talking about locally, not on this thread, and also to point out that some kids are not ready to read at 4 and 5, no matter how much work a parent has done with them.  Assuming that a child isn't reading by 5 because the parent didn't work with them is just as poor a stance as assuming every bit of learning comes only from the school and if the child is not reading at the end of kinder it is entirely the teacher's fault.

 

Teachers being trained to recognize differences in learning abilities/challenges/strengths/weakness, being able to be flexible in their instruction approaches, and have more positive, open communication with parents seems a better way to go.   And yes, it can and does happen, but at least here that is not the norm.   In fact, teachers are not allowed to suggest to parents that a child may need testing for dyslexia or ADHD or a developmental vision problem or 2e issues.  Instead, the parent has to ask them directly.  Parents are frequently not trained educators.  They do not see their child during their most productive hours.  The teacher does. 

 

Educating a child should be a team effort, yes, but the teacher is the primary instructor in our current educational system.  They have the child all day long.  There HAS to be time for kids to also play, and have family time, and explore personal interests, have down time.  The WHOLE child needs to be educated, not just the side that ties directly to standardized testing.  That means that kids also need time away from school related academics.  If the 8 hours a day of academics is not enough for a 5-9 year old to learn with some homework and support from home, then piling on 2-4 more hours at home ever night, especially for elementary age kids, is not going to fix the problem.  It means the classroom instruction needs to be revamped.

 

 My mother is a reading specialist and has a Master's Degree in this field.  She was not taught how to recognize differences in learning styles or dyslexia or how to do differentiated instruction in a classroom or anything outside of a narrow box of options.  She was not able to help my daughter until she walked away from her very limited in scope higher degreed understanding and started looking at scientifically based understanding of how the brain works, how different human beings learn to read differently, how to be more flexible in approach, etc..  Teachers are on the front line and see the children for many hours each day.  I don't think it is wrong to expect them to have the training to be able to create a more positive and flexible learning environment where strengths and weaknesses are both addressed.  Otherwise, why are we turning our children over to someone else for instruction 8 hours a day?  I don't blame teachers, though, I blame the system.  I was studying to be a teacher once, too.  The training and preparation were completely inadequate and poorly designed.  It was more about classroom management as a glorified babysitter that could just move the kids through the material and pass tests than how to inspire a love of learning and support the kids in a positive way.  It was a manufacturing mentality.

 

For the record, my parents are college graduates and cared very much about academics for me and my brother but they were very hands off.  They trusted the school to know what it was doing.  They supported me in my homework but were not directly involved unless I asked for help.  I was not forced to read books.  I chose to.  We read some books as a family, but not because it was required by the school or my parents were told if they didn't read with me they were doing a  disservice.  Good or bad, my parents honestly had very little direct involvement in my academics on a day to day basis.  I learned just fine.  Do some kids need more involvement?  Yes, I think they do.  It truly depends on how they are involved, though, IMHO.  

 

Now I see parents being told that their 3 or 4 year old will be behind if they don't work hard with them daily on reading and math.  For some kids, they are ready at that age and they enjoy it and they learn.  For others, it is too soon and this creates a very negative dynamic with their parents and learning because they are NOT ready, they are NOT learning (at least not in a developmentally appropriate manner) and they end up hating the learning process instead of gaining a life long love of learning or at least a positive relationship with learning and with their parents.  Does that mean they are incapable of learning, given more time, if they don't thrive at that age with more formal instruction?  No.

 

Again, this is where true differentiated instruction is crucial.  Not a manufacturing plant mentality.  Different children will progress and be ready for instruction at different paces.  That requires a different approach to education and more effective training for our teachers and a revamp of our public school philosophy and implementation.

Edited March 7, 2016 by OneStepAtATime

[OneStepAtATime]

FWIW, I have been in classrooms and seen teachers that absolutely were amazing.  They did not have a manufacturing mentality.  For example, DD was in a one month summer academic program after 5th grade and the math teacher, within 2 days, knew more about DD and her strengths, weaknesses and abilities than the math teacher DD had for 3 years at her normal school.  The teacher only had her 45 minutes a day but she had been trained to informally assess her students very quickly and find approaches that would work for the individual child.  There was a lot of differentiated instruction in the classroom and she had been trained in MANY different approaches to math.  She was able to find the best way to approach math for each child, and to get them started on a successful path very quickly.  Was the class small?  Yes.  Maybe 12 students.  Was a small class highly effective?  Yes.  But so was the training and experience the teacher had received.  With her brief weekly help through emails I was able to help DD far more effectively at home, too.