Could Your Child Read Before Starting School?

[Spy Car]

"Delay" and "pushing inappropriate means" are not the binary choices we have as parents with any area of instruction, reading and pre-literacy skills included.

 

Bill

[SKL]

Well, I don't know what they are pressuring kids to do at age 3 and 4 that are not age-appropriate.  I haven't seen any of that.  I hear horror stories, but I don't get the feeling those are representative.  If it's true that reading "clicks" whenever it clicks, what would be the point of 2-3 years of rigor leading up to the "click"?

 

The kids I know who are in or approaching KG are not under any pressure from the school about reading.  If they approach 1st grade and still are not reading the simplest little story books (despite working on it for some time), then I think it is appropriate to consider extra help.

[SKL]

And yes, my parents were hands-off too, except that I did all sorts of things they now call "reading readiness activities."  It was called play in those days though.  Coloring in a coloring book, drawing pictures, working puzzles, playing sidewalk games, watching Sesame Street, being read to, learning songs and rhymes.

[OneStepAtATime]

Well, I don't know what they are pressuring kids to do at age 3 and 4 that are not age-appropriate.  I haven't seen any of that.  I hear horror stories, but I don't get the feeling those are representative.  If it's true that reading "clicks" whenever it clicks, what would be the point of 2-3 years of rigor leading up to the "click"?

 

The kids I know who are in or approaching KG are not under any pressure from the school about reading.  If they approach 1st grade and still are not reading the simplest little story books (despite working on it for some time), then I think it is appropriate to consider extra help.

 

 

And yes, my parents were hands-off too, except that I did all sorts of things they now call "reading readiness activities."  It was called play in those days though.  Coloring in a coloring book, drawing pictures, working puzzles, playing sidewalk games, watching Sesame Street, being read to, learning songs and rhymes.

 

Which actually makes a whole lot more sense than what they are pushing here in my area now.  Lots and lots of basic word lists and flash cards kids are supposed to try memorizing.  Lots of clerical work for even 4k kids.  The ISD has cut out most play time, recess is only a couple of days a week, etc.  The stated philosophy is that the kids need more time to prep for standardized testing.  Drill and kill is the order of the day here.  I am not making this up.  That is what is coming home to parents.  In fact, several schools are telling parents if they had not had their child in a formal 4k academic program they will probably not make it in kinder and may have to repeat kinder.  Kindergarten.  That seems insane to me.

 

I am happy that your area is not like this, SKL.  Perhaps there is a bit of a disconnect on this thread because of the difference in circumstances in our specific areas.  

[OneStepAtATime]

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?

To get back to the original post that is now nearly a year old... :)

 

1.  No, my child could not read before their first day of kindergarten (DD reads well now).

2.  I don't believe early reading ability determines whether a child is bright, gifted, capable or anything else along those lines.  I know quite a few late readers that are gifted (including DH and others in his family).

3.  I do believe that lack of early reading skills can affect whether a student succeeds in school or not in our current educational structure.  Not being able to read could be detrimental in today's day and age not because it indicates a child is incapable of succeeding in a school setting in general but because they may be pressured unduly to read when they lack basic pre-reading skills, they may develop inefficient reading habits from being pressured to read before they are ready, they may internalize that they are poor readers and grow fearful of trying, they may be labeled as less intelligent, lazy or incapable, and they may not get the specific support they need to get fluent at reading.  

4.  I do believe that introducing books to young children is a good thing.

5.  I do believe that parents reading in front of their children (any age), playing with letters with their children, rhyming with their children, playing with puzzles and helping them learn letter recognition and other experiences along those lines are a good thing (as long as these skills are not being drilled as though the child is prepping for military school or their entire future depends on learning pre-reading skills by 4 or 5).

6.  I do not believe that children who learn to read early should be prevented from advancing at the pace that is best for them.  

7.  Nor do I believe that pushing children (I am not referring to exposure or continuing to read to children, I am referring to pushing hard academics) who aren't ready into trying to develop reading skills is helpful in the long run in developing a life long love of learning.  I also believe that pushing hard on early reading for all children fails to recognize the fact that brain maturity (something that does not happen at the same pace for every child) plays a significant role in successful reading skills acquisition.

 

Edited March 7, 2016 by OneStepAtATime

[MistyMountain]

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.

That is what I wonder about too. Kids change so much through the years and some kids are early bloomers and some late. Often kids do get tracked pretty early. Kids who struggle in the early years with learning to read can get through that hump and really do well later. I have one who has a hard time but he really understands concepts.

[ReadingMama1214]

I am just Glad our schools are not pushing early reading. My daughter is starting to read in PreK, but this was something she did at home and on her own. Her PreK3 class doesn't even do reading at all. They do letters, practice rhyming, phonetic skills, counting, etc. but it is mostly play based. They play for the majority of the day.

 

None of our friends kids were reading before K with the exception of one boy who started reading the spring before K. None of them were told they were behind. I have heard of kids being held back in K if they weren't reading by the end of the year, but no preschoolers being labeled behind.

 

We do not live in an academic city. Our public schools are actually horrendous for reading. Most schools had terrible 3rd grade PARCC scores. The "best" school in our area had 45% of their 3rd graders reading at or above grade level. Schools do not use phonics. Mainly a combination, but I do not think phonics extend much past letter sounds.

 

Dd will attend a classical charter school. One of our reasons for doing classical is the focus on phonics and great literature.

[8filltheheart]

That is what I wonder about too. Kids change so much through the years and some kids are early bloomers and some late. Often kids do get tracked pretty early. Kids who struggle in the early years with learning to read can get through that hump and really do well later. I have one who has a hard time but he really understands concepts.

There are multiple issues being discussed in this thread.

 

One is the slow to learn to read student and what it means long term. There is not a single answer. Some will unfortunately always struggle. But for others, it is not an indication of being behind long term or always a struggling student. I have 2 kids who struggled with learning to read (both dyslexic) and both are now adults. One is a successful chemE and the other is a 4.0 physics and math major attending on full merit scholarship (he did not read on grade level until late 4th grade. He still reads fairly slow and his spelling stinks, but those are the only indications of his early struggles.

 

The other issue is whether or not not reading before K is an indication of being behind and puts children at a disadvantage. In any environment where that forms a stereotype of being a less intelligent student, the adults are creating a real disadvantage. As to whether early reading creates a significant long-term advantage, we will all just have to agree to disagree. Not one of my children has learned to read before K. My last child is in K right now and she started the yr with the alphabet and is now a solid reader. It didn't take pre-school to get her here. It only took a few weeks. Could she have done it earlier? Maybe. Does it matter? Not a fig in my world. I have had a child read Paradise Lost in 8th grade, absolutely loves epic poetry and reads it for her pleasure reading. (Not sure how not reading until K means she isnt as intelligent as those preschool grads. ;) )

 

Absolutely zero regret with our approach. My kids have all been strong academically. Of course, they haven't been/weren't subjected to stereotyping or tracks. After-schooling parents face different hurdles with their children than homeschooled kids. The posts in this thread demonstrate what some kids have to deal with.

Edited March 8, 2016 by 8FillTheHeart

[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.

 

 

BTW I busted my butt working on reading with both of them from age 3 on.  They both knew the letters and the sounds they make and the basics of phonics by age 5.  They had every kind of opportunity and help to read earlier.  But could not get through Level 1 readers by themselves for a long time.  The older's visual system could not recognize what he saw.  The younger has never not been able to read what he jreally needed or wanted to, but he chose not to do more than the minimum.  There is a huge jump in his reading level whenever he decides to promote himself.  For example, I struggled with him to read beginner books.  When he finally read The Best Nest by himself, he was really proud.  And then the next week, he read Maze Runner - the whole thing.  That promotion came from a temporary obsession with that movie.   I finally decided to just tell him what I require him to read for school and let him ask me for help when he needs it.  

[Bluegoat]

I think this expectation that parents should be working at home teaching their kids reading skills, or pre-reading skills, is pretty unreasonable.  Yes, it is lovely if parents provide a print-rich environment, if they like to read a lot themselves, and if they read good stories to their kids.

 

But you know, there are plenty of good people who are not themselves readers, and while they may be willing to read a bedtime story every night, they are not just going to change their lives to become reading people.  THat is a pretty unreasonable expectation. 

 

And honestly, if the school is not able to provide the technical instruction aspect, if the teacher who spends the most waking hours with the kids cannot determine with some reasonable accuracy the child's strengths and weaknesses, that is not the parents' failure.  It is a profound failure of the school, which is not doing its primary job.  Not some add on teach the kids values or give them self-esteem or whatever - the more technical aspects of education which are NOT something many parents will have expertise in are the primary purpose of publicly funded schools, or privately funded schools for that matter.

 

Not to mention, the average school day is plenty of time for elementary aged kids to be spending on academics.

 

It really boggles my mind - if I am the one having to teach my child to read, to figure out how to teach them math, who has to make sure they are actually learning some history or music - what the heck am I sending them to ps for?

[Bluegoat]

Well, I don't know what they are pressuring kids to do at age 3 and 4 that are not age-appropriate.  I haven't seen any of that.  I hear horror stories, but I don't get the feeling those are representative.  If it's true that reading "clicks" whenever it clicks, what would be the point of 2-3 years of rigor leading up to the "click"?

 

The kids I know who are in or approaching KG are not under any pressure from the school about reading.  If they approach 1st grade and still are not reading the simplest little story books (despite working on it for some time), then I think it is appropriate to consider extra help.

 

I think that is young.  By the end of K some kids might be six, many will not.  It is well within normal development for some kids to not be reading, or interested in reading, at that age.

[SKL]

I think this expectation that parents should be working at home teaching their kids reading skills, or pre-reading skills, is pretty unreasonable.  Yes, it is lovely if parents provide a print-rich environment, if they like to read a lot themselves, and if they read good stories to their kids.

 

But you know, there are plenty of good people who are not themselves readers, and while they may be willing to read a bedtime story every night, they are not just going to change their lives to become reading people.  THat is a pretty unreasonable expectation. 

 

And honestly, if the school is not able to provide the technical instruction aspect, if the teacher who spends the most waking hours with the kids cannot determine with some reasonable accuracy the child's strengths and weaknesses, that is not the parents' failure.  It is a profound failure of the school, which is not doing its primary job.  Not some add on teach the kids values or give them self-esteem or whatever - the more technical aspects of education which are NOT something many parents will have expertise in are the primary purpose of publicly funded schools, or privately funded schools for that matter.

 

Not to mention, the average school day is plenty of time for elementary aged kids to be spending on academics.

 

It really boggles my mind - if I am the one having to teach my child to read, to figure out how to teach them math, who has to make sure they are actually learning some history or music - what the heck am I sending them to ps for?

 

Honestly, I am less concerned about whose failure it is than about meeting the kids' needs in real time.  If the school does a great job, that's awesome.  But ultimately, as a parent, nobody cares as much about my kids as I do; that's just reality.  I can whine about it, or I can accept it and do what I need to do.

 

I disagree that most parents don't have enough time or ability to do the things that will encourage a literate mindset in small children.  Short of being illiterate or working around the clock, a parent could sit down and read with a kid if they cared to.  Or they could get someone else to do it.  When I was a kid, a lady down the street used to give me a quarter to sit and go over the ABCs with her kid.  Today there are so many options out there, including free education and materials for parents who want to work with their kids. 

 

Parents are responsible to make sure young kids' needs are being met.

[SKL]

I think that is young.  By the end of K some kids might be six, many will not.  It is well within normal development for some kids to not be reading, or interested in reading, at that age.

 

If you are saying that going into 1st grade a kid should be allowed to just "be uninterested in reading," I think you may be in the minority.  People do send their kids to school to learn academics.  At some point just being who you are is not the point of school.

 

[ReadingMama1214]

I think this expectation that parents should be working at home teaching their kids reading skills, or pre-reading skills, is pretty unreasonable. Yes, it is lovely if parents provide a print-rich environment, if they like to read a lot themselves, and if they read good stories to their kids.

 

But you know, there are plenty of good people who are not themselves readers, and while they may be willing to read a bedtime story every night, they are not just going to change their lives to become reading people. THat is a pretty unreasonable expectation.

 

And honestly, if the school is not able to provide the technical instruction aspect, if the teacher who spends the most waking hours with the kids cannot determine with some reasonable accuracy the child's strengths and weaknesses, that is not the parents' failure. It is a profound failure of the school, which is not doing its primary job. Not some add on teach the kids values or give them self-esteem or whatever - the more technical aspects of education which are NOT something many parents will have expertise in are the primary purpose of publicly funded schools, or privately funded schools for that matter.

 

Not to mention, the average school day is plenty of time for elementary aged kids to be spending on academics.

 

It really boggles my mind - if I am the one having to teach my child to read, to figure out how to teach them math, who has to make sure they are actually learning some history or music - what the heck am I sending them to ps for?

I don't think it is unreasonable to expect parents to teach pre-reading or reading skills. It is not as if they need a formal curriculum or plan. Rhyming, letter recognition, phonemic awareness can all be learned through play and reading aloud. It's not as if they need to go above and beyond to teach these skills. The average intelligent parent can incorporate these easily into daily life and I don't think it's too much to expect. I know many people who's kids couldn't read or recognize letters before K, but they still read aloud and build pre-reading skills. Even those who don't love or enjoy reading can play rhyming games and say "what letter does cat start with?"

[OneStepAtATime]

Honestly, I am less concerned about whose failure it is than about meeting the kids' needs in real time.  If the school does a great job, that's awesome.  But ultimately, as a parent, nobody cares as much about my kids as I do; that's just reality. 

I agree with this.  Our children are our responsibility.  And in most cases it is the parent that is going to care the most about the child.  

 

I will say, though, that if I am turning my child over to someone else for their education for 7-8 hours a day, and my tax payer money is going to support that institution, I feel I have every right to expect that system to actually educate my child during those hours.  Does that negate my responsibility as a parent to ensure that my child is getting educated?  Does that negate my responsibility to support the school in educating my child?  I don't think so at all.  This is my child.  I still need to be the parent and support my child academically as well as in the other ways.  Absolutely.  In whatever way I am able I still need to ensure my child is learning.  

 

I still feel that given the school system would have my child longer than I do for productive waking hours during the weekday, and their mandate is to educate my child, they absolutely have some significant responsibility, too.  If they cannot function in that capacity with as much funding as goes into our ps system and as many hours as the schools have our kids then the system needs to be revamped.

 

As for whether that means parents don't have any responsibility to expose their younger children to literature and math before kinder, that's another issue.  I think that yes, there ARE parents that were not raised in a culture that values reading with your very young child (and some who had a very poor academic background so, yes, reading may be a huge, stressful, embarrassing issue for them).   That creates kind of a disconnect between the parent's expectations/abilities and the school's.

 

FWIW, I see a cultural difference here, even with very educated people, regarding academics.  This is a pretty hands off community.  If the child learns to read before kinder, great, but they don't tend to read a lot to their kids, as far as I can see.  The assumption is that the early years are for learning through play and they will pick up reading when they get to school age.  The parents aren't lazy and it isn't as if they don't care about their kids.  It is just a different culture.  Reading to the kids past a certain age isn't very popular here, either.  Even DH was confused as to why I was still reading with the kids in late elementary and beyond.   Most parents are capable of reading to and with their kids, and of interacting with them in a way as to promote a literate environment in their home.  I think it is great if they can and will, and can certainly be a huge help in educating their child.  I value that.  But I was raised in a culture that values that.  I don't condemn my MIL for not reading with her kids much when they were little.  That is not her culture.  Her kids all still went on to college and are all gainfully employed and doing well in their careers.

 

I do condemn the local school system for telling parents their 4k and kinder kids are behind if they are still working on pre-reading skills.  That is harmful and based on an arbitrary time line not created based on scientific research but misinformation and a misguided belief that the earlier we push academics the faster all kids will acquire basic skills so the schools can push more advanced material at all of them sooner so that standardized test scores will go up.  Do they need to learn to read?  Yes, that certainly is a critical skill to learn if at all possible.  Don't tell them they are "behind" at 4 and 5.  

[SKL]

Well again, I haven't heard of any little kids IRL being told they were "behind."  I've heard of their parents being told that they haven't gained xyz target skill yet.  IMO that is different.  Who wouldn't want to know that there was an essential skill their kid lacked?  Then you'd have parents saying "how come nobody told me this before?"

 

Another point is that, like it or not, some kids learn better at home.  My slower kid was like that.  For whatever reason, when she was 5-6yo she really didn't pick up much at school, but was very teachable at home.  She kept up with the class by spending an hour or two each night working with me, which neither of us minded btw.  The majority of kids in her class picked up what the teacher taught well enough.  While I did have some criticisms of that teacher, I am not sure a different teacher would have had a much better result with my kid at that age.

Edited March 8, 2016 by SKL

[ReadingMama1214]

Well again, I haven't heard of any little kids IRL being told they were "behind." I've heard of their parents being told that they haven't gained xyz target skill yet. IMO that is different. Who wouldn't want to know that there was an essential skill their kid lacked? Then you'd have parents saying "how come nobody told me this before?"

 

Another point is that, like it or not, some kids learn better at home. My slower kid was like that. For whatever reason, when she was 5-6yo she really didn't pick up much at school, but was very teachable at home. She kept up with the class by spending an hour or two each night working with me, which neither of us minded btw. The majority of kids in her class picked up what the teacher taught well enough. While I did have some criticisms of that teacher, I am not sure a different teacher would have had a much better result with my kid at that age.

I agree. I've never met a person who was told their K4 or kinder student was behind for not reading. Here, no one expects K4 students to read. It's a big deal if your kid reads before K, not celebrated necessarily, just unusual. At least in my circle and area. Dd could write her name at 3 and can write it with appropriate capitalization now at 4. Her friends parents are shocked at this. Many kids go into K4 not knowing letters.

 

I also think my daughter learns better at home. She is not a performer and is a perfectionist. She started to read last fall and as far as I know, her teacher has no idea. In fact, on a PreK assessment she didn't know all of her letters according to her teacher. She was reading a month later. She is comfortable doing things with me at home. I'm not sure how she would do learning to read in school. Did we push early reading? No. She picked up the skills and started sounding out on her own. Did I work with her once she started reading? Yes. But, like your time with your kid, it is a fun relaxed time for both of us. We both enjoy it.

[SKL]

Just anecdotally, I was on the phone with a reading specialist last week to sign my kids up for a summer reading class.  I mentioned that my youngest started reading chapter books at age 4, and she seemed pretty amazed.  I remember my kid's preK teacher being amazed that she could read an easy reader.  I've never gotten the impression from anyone that reading is "expected" at age 4, in the USA anyway.  I know it is pushed at age 4 in some countries.

 

Now whether there are individual parents who want their kids to read at age 4, sure.

 

Oh, and Maria Montessori did say 4.5 was the magic age for reading to begin effortlessly.  My kids never attended Montessori, so I don't know if they actually "expect" that or if they just give kids the opportunity to play with words and see what happens.  I wonder what % of kids in Montessori actually do start reading at 4.5.

[MistyMountain]

Some kids especially young ones are tired after 6-8 hours of school. Doing 2 hours of work after school is not something that all young children can do. Sitting down and learning for hours is a lot for little kids. Not all parents are even capable of doing 2 hours worth of work with their little ones nor would it be good to force it for a tired child who wants to play. A school does need systems in place to get help for the kids who need it without stigmatization and allow the kids who already learned what is taught to work at their level. I like what they do in some European countries. The day is much shorter but the kids that need help stay after and work with a specialized teacher in smaller classes. They get the help until they no longer need it and they expect throughout the school career that some kids will go in and out of needing help at any time. Not all parents can teach pre reading skills and not all kids will learn easily just by being read to.

 

At the neighborhood schools here they teach kids to read using ineffective methods. They are not expected to have reading skills until the end of kindergarten but they have the kids repeat back simple books that the teacher or parent read. They use a lot of sight words and just a little phonics but not very explicit. If the kid needs help and they are in a title 1 school they get help but it is just help with the same thing they are doing in class that is not working.

 

I have neighbors who are raised by great grandparents or single parents who work a lot and grandparents are watching over children from multiple families. They are not being read to every day. They do not get help at home with what they are having a hard time with. It is a common scenario. Even kids that do get help often have a hard time. Dyslexia and other reading disorders are pretty common. Most people do not know that dyslexia is often related to phonemic awareness and not seeing things backwards. It is not easy to teach phonemic awareness. In the alternative school where the majority of parents are very involved there are several kids that have a hard time. Some of them end up in tutoring but not all parents can afford expensive tutoring.

Edited March 8, 2016 by MistyMountain

[OneStepAtATime]

 Dyslexia and other reading disorders are pretty common. Most people do not know that dyslexia is often related to phonemic awareness and not seeing things backwards. 

Not really a disorder so much as a difference in the way data is processed (and that difference usually means they have stronger abilities in other areas, not necessarily directly tied to early academic endeavors) but yes, you are right.  None of DDs teachers (all but one were caring, educated, loving individuals) were really aware of the fact that dyslexia is related to phonemic awareness.  Nor was my kids' pediatrician.  She thought it was defective eyesight and sent us to an ophthalmologist, who told me flat out there was no such thing as dyslexia (because he had been told it was a vision issue) and who wasn't aware that there are developmental vision issues that can mimic dyslexia issues that do not show up during normal visual acuity eye exams.  In other words, you are right, there is a LOT of misinformation and false assumptions out there in both the educational and the medical community.

[OneStepAtATime]

Just anecdotally, I was on the phone with a reading specialist last week to sign my kids up for a summer reading class.  I mentioned that my youngest started reading chapter books at age 4, and she seemed pretty amazed.  I remember my kid's preK teacher being amazed that she could read an easy reader.  I've never gotten the impression from anyone that reading is "expected" at age 4, in the USA anyway.  I know it is pushed at age 4 in some countries.

 

Now whether there are individual parents who want their kids to read at age 4, sure.

 

Oh, and Maria Montessori did say 4.5 was the magic age for reading to begin effortlessly.  My kids never attended Montessori, so I don't know if they actually "expect" that or if they just give kids the opportunity to play with words and see what happens.  I wonder what % of kids in Montessori actually do start reading at 4.5.

The U.S. is a rather large place.  Again, as I have mentioned before, it appears that your area does not push.   That is great.   The ps institutions in my area do.  I am not speaking regarding your area, since I do not live there and do not know what they do.  And I didn't say they expected a 4 year old to be reading by the time they started 4k.  I am saying that once the child starts 4k there is a HUGE push to have them reading before they start kinder.  Some kids can and some kids can't.  Telling a 4 year old they are "behind" if they aren't rapidly developing reading skills in 4k is harmful.  Telling a kindergartner that is still developing basic reading skills that they will fail kinder and not be able to get a job as an adult is harmful.  It is definitely an issue here.  

[SKL]

I'm not suggesting that all young kids can or should do 2 hours of school work every evening on top of their full-time school day.  It was fine for my kid.  But my kid is not really a typical case.  She had several different learning issues and was young for her grade.  It took her a lot more time to learn new things than it takes most kids.

 

Most kids would be fine spending 30 minutes total for reading and other types of work in K-1.  I do think parents should spend that much time with their kids when they can.

[ReadingMama1214]

I will add that while I do work with my daughter on reading, she doesn't attend full day preschool. She attends half day and will for K4 as well. She might attend full day K, but I do not plan to after school outside of areas of interest or areas that she might struggle in. After schooling to me means supporting her interests and hobbies. Whether that's math, art, or bugs, I want to feed that interest in any way I can. We take a hands on approach to education and if dd is struggling in an area, I would address it alongside her teachers. We don't plan to do hours of work on top of full day school.

[MistyMountain]

A lot of kids get homework too that takes them a while so even 30 minutes extra on top of that can be too much. Studies show that parents helping with homework does more harm then good. A lot of parents were not taught the ways the school is teaching and do not even know how to provide help. Not many know know much about dyslexia or what type of intervention works for kids with similar issues never mind lesser known things like dyscalculia, dyspraxia, processing issues, CaPD etc etc. I see so many viral posts complaining about schools teaching such concepts as making tens or other conceptual things. Sure it is good to help kids if you can and to spend time helping them read or with things they have a hard time with but you cannot expect it from all parents. Too many kids do fall through cracks because they do not get the right type of help or the instruction they are ready for.

[Have kids -- will travel]

Just anecdotally, I was on the phone with a reading specialist last week to sign my kids up for a summer reading class.  I mentioned that my youngest started reading chapter books at age 4, and she seemed pretty amazed.  I remember my kid's preK teacher being amazed that she could read an easy reader.  I've never gotten the impression from anyone that reading is "expected" at age 4, in the USA anyway.  I know it is pushed at age 4 in some countries.

 

K4 in the UK is called reception. This is my son's current year. The children were learning to blend in the first two weeks of school, and all the sounds, including sh/ch/th and long vowels were covered (and expected to be used in blending and writing) before Christmas break.

 

The parents with summer-born boys are most definitely told that their children are behind. A friend's boy who just turned five last month in considered behind because he's not yet writing sentences. 

 

So this is what I mean when I say that schools push too hard, too early. These expectations for K5 seem reasonable, that you end up with a reader from an average child at the end of the year, but for K4, it's just an exercise in frustration for many.

 

Holland, in contrast, doesn't teach reading until first grade. No letters or phonics until then. Great for the kids who need time to develop. But for my chapter-book-reading five year old, two years from first grade, that would be a disaster.

 

I don't think any system is going to suit everyone. Because my boys' current school clearly aims at the upper half of the bell curve, we're happy, but those in the middle of the bell curve will struggle and feel indeed unnecessarily slow.

[creekland]

Old thread given new life, huh?

 

All I can say is none of my three could read prior to K(5) and all were in the top percentiles on their SAT and/or ACT - the lowest one being at 86% and the other two being at 97% and 99+%.

 

I don't think it hurt them.

 

The 99+% lad was in the lowest reading group at school until 2nd grade.  He was in speech therapy since age 4.  We were told we could read to him at home, but NOT to try to have him read to us (even in 2nd grade) because not being able to do it was upsetting him too much even when we were trying our best not to put any pressure on.

 

By the end of elementary school he was reading at a 12th grade level and he's never stopped since.

 

I also know of one math gal who was in remedial when she came to us in 9th grade, but finished Calc and went on to major in math in college.  It's not common, that's true, but it can happen.  It just clicked for her and she discovered once that happened she loved it.  We're on block scheduling, so she doubled up on courses and kept going.

 

One other lad barely graduated, but after a couple of years of working in a mall kiosk and other menial jobs, he went to cc to brush up on skills, then to State U studying Physics.

 

Not all kids are academic superstars, but just because they are slower to start is meaningless.

[Bluegoat]

Honestly, I am less concerned about whose failure it is than about meeting the kids' needs in real time.  If the school does a great job, that's awesome.  But ultimately, as a parent, nobody cares as much about my kids as I do; that's just reality.  I can whine about it, or I can accept it and do what I need to do.

 

I disagree that most parents don't have enough time or ability to do the things that will encourage a literate mindset in small children.  Short of being illiterate or working around the clock, a parent could sit down and read with a kid if they cared to.  Or they could get someone else to do it.  When I was a kid, a lady down the street used to give me a quarter to sit and go over the ABCs with her kid.  Today there are so many options out there, including free education and materials for parents who want to work with their kids. 

 

Parents are responsible to make sure young kids' needs are being met.

 

The responsibility is, ultimately, the parents.  We have public schooling paid by tax dollars.  And usually even parents who do not use it are obligated to make sure the kids meet standards that go beyond their own desires - they can't just decide not to teach reading at all, for example.  The state has an interest in education for many reasons. 

 

One of the reasons is that teachers who are trained can often be more qualified to do things like identify and deal with learning difficulties.  We are not supposed to be just warehousing kids in schools, we are supposed to be supporting their learning appropriately. 

 

It seems pretty reasonable to expect that the schools our taxes are paying for will actually do that.  If they are really just babysitting, we should pay rec leaders to do it, not teachers.  If I am going to have to spend my at home time with my kids doing school, they need to be getting their other needs met there - outdoor time, free time, piano practice, and so on.

 

 

 

If you are saying that going into 1st grade a kid should be allowed to just "be uninterested in reading," I think you may be in the minority.  People do send their kids to school to learn academics.  At some point just being who you are is not the point of school.

 

 

Yes, that is the attitude - if they are in school they should be learning to read.  Whether or not it is developmentally appropriate for them.  That is the problem, not an argument to put kids in inappropriate remedial work.

 

Why would you take the practices of a failing school system as normative?

 

Pre-reading skills are vocab and the ability to converse. One can do that by talking to one's children, or one can read books to them. Many parents make choices that ensure neither happens.,

 

Yes, why send them to school if they have nothing academic to learn? Had I not taken five minutes to clear up the kindy teacher's lies, my kid would have been sent to remedial in a few years. We all know that only rich kids are gifted, so he couldnt possibly be reading ahead of grade level. I sent him to learn, and once the principal straightened the teacher out, teaching happened. My fellow parents that trusted the expert saw their child off to the military, a place that knows how to teach males, after some expensive private remediation.

 

Several of the comments seemed to be suggesting that parent's role go beyond this, for example identifying particular problems, or working to overcome them.  I think this will often be an unrealistic expectation.  And one of the biggest helps to reading is really just having a print-rich environment, and that isn't something that people just change about themselves.  Some people are just not big readers, and I don't think they need to be.  I also think that after a full school day, children should be doing other things than academics.

[Bluegoat]

K4 in the UK is called reception. This is my son's current year. The children were learning to blend in the first two weeks of school, and all the sounds, including sh/ch/th and long vowels were covered (and expected to be used in blending and writing) before Christmas break.

 

The parents with summer-born boys are most definitely told that their children are behind. A friend's boy who just turned five last month in considered behind because he's not yet writing sentences. 

 

So this is what I mean when I say that schools push too hard, too early. These expectations for K5 seem reasonable, that you end up with a reader from an average child at the end of the year, but for K4, it's just an exercise in frustration for many.

 

Holland, in contrast, doesn't teach reading until first grade. No letters or phonics until then. Great for the kids who need time to develop. But for my chapter-book-reading five year old, two years from first grade, that would be a disaster.

 

I don't think any system is going to suit everyone. Because my boys' current school clearly aims at the upper half of the bell curve, we're happy, but those in the middle of the bell curve will struggle and feel indeed unnecessarily slow.

 

I wonder though.  Would a child who is reading at a chapter-book level be enjoying learning phonics and first readers any more than just non-reading activities?

[Spy Car]

Like many threads in the Afterschooling Sub-forum, this one has turned into an excuse by non-Afterschoolers to bash teachers and schools.

 

The most dedicated and competent teacher in the world does not replace the role or responsibility of parents in fostering a home environment where reading and literary are cultivated.

 

Bill

[Bluegoat]

Like many threads in the Afterschooling Sub-forum, this one has turned into an excuse by non-Afterschoolers to bash teachers and schools.

 

The most dedicated and competent teacher in the world does not replace the role or responsibility of parents in fostering a home environment where reading and literary are cultivated.

 

Bill

 

This makes no sense - saying that schools should actually be ablt to do the technical work of teaching reading seems like it would be something anyone sending kids to school would agree on.

 

Whether homework is a good thing is something that is pretty debated among educational professionals.

[ReadingMama1214]

This makes no sense - saying that schools should actually be ablt to do the technical work of teaching reading seems like it would be something anyone sending kids to school would agree on.

 

Whether homework is a good thing is something that is pretty debated among educational professionals.

I agree. Schools need to be able to adequately teach reading. That is why they are there. There are kids who's families will never provide a rich learning and literary environment. They won't get the learning at home that our kids get. We can't necessarily change that. But, schools should still be able to teach these kids. They shouldn't be falling so far behind. I agree that the home is crucial. This is wth we need programs that bridge between home and school.

 

I didn't feel that this thread was anti public school or teachers. It acknowledged the job of schools and the work they must be doing.

[MistyMountain]

The thread is not anti teachers and some people who feel the school should educate children adequately are after schoolers. The fact is there are kids showing up from all types of backgrounds and who have many different learning challenges. Some schools do let lots of kids fall through the cracks but it is not the teachers fault. They need a good system in place to get the kids who need it support and to let the kids who are ahead to work at their level.

[Bluegoat]

The thread is not anti teachers and some people who feel the school should educate children adequately are after schoolers. The fact is there are kids showing up from all types of backgrounds and who have many different learning challenges. Some schools do let lots of kids fall through the cracks but it is not the teachers fault. They need a good system in place to get the kids who need it support and to let the kids who are ahead to work at their level.

 Anyway, I am not anti-school philosophically.  I think, speaking generally, that there are some basic problems in the model commonly found in North American public schools. (And they seem to be common in the other English speaking countries as well.)

 

While no school or system is perfect, I would likely be much more positive about my particular school system if I lived in, say, Germany.

 

The system in my province is best described as ok, but I would love it if it were better and I think it could be - but there is a significant lack of direction and so far I don't see how to change that.

[SKL]

The question of whether parents should provide for pre-literacy and beginning literacy (based on their own child's ability) is not dependent on how good or bad the local schools are.

 

We don't expect the soccer coach to teach our kids how to walk and run, do we?

[Bluegoat]

The question of whether parents should provide for pre-literacy and beginning literacy (based on their own child's ability) is not dependent on how good or bad the local schools are.

 

We don't expect the soccer coach to teach our kids how to walk and run, do we?

If by pre-literacy we mean talking to them, sure. If there is felt to be a need for some more specialized sets of skills, then not so much. In reality I think those programs are necessary in group learning in a different way.

 

Parents at home who interact with their kids are most likely giving them what they need. And if the kids are already in school six hours a day it is probably better if the parents take them for a walk rather than doing reading work. They need that too.

[Have kids -- will travel]

I wonder though.  Would a child who is reading at a chapter-book level be enjoying learning phonics and first readers any more than just non-reading activities?

 

First readers can be dreadful or fun. Learning phonics can be fun or dreadful. Non-reading activities fall into the same categories. My son would take a fun phonics lesson over a coloring worksheet, for example. He was actually telling his little brother, who will start letter-of-the-week at school next year that his class wasn't nearly as fun because they're done with sounds.

[Have kids -- will travel]

If by pre-literacy we mean talking to them, sure. If there is felt to be a need for some more specialized sets of skills, then not so much. In reality I think those programs are necessary in group learning in a different way.

 

Parents at home who interact with their kids are most likely giving them what they need. And if the kids are already in school six hours a day it is probably better if the parents take them for a walk rather than doing reading work. They need that too.

 

How long is the expectation that parents spend at home? My son does his reading daily, and it's usually 15 minutes. Plenty of time spared for walks, playing, games, and so on.

 

As long as the school offers sufficient playtime for kids, 15 minutes in the afternoon or evening is hardly a major sacrifice. It's better as well for the kids to get two short sessions of reading per day rather than one long one.

[OneStepAtATime]

How long is the expectation that parents spend at home? My son does his reading daily, and it's usually 15 minutes. Plenty of time spared for walks, playing, games, and so on.

 

As long as the school offers sufficient playtime for kids, 15 minutes in the afternoon or evening is hardly a major sacrifice. It's better as well for the kids to get two short sessions of reading per day rather than one long one.

 

Unfortunately at least at local schools play time is being eliminated. Recess is no longer every day but only twice a week. PE isn't every day either. They do a LOT of sitting. Why someone thought that would improve cognitive function I have no idea...

Edited March 29, 2016 by OneStepAtATime

[ReadingMama1214]

Recess is only twice a week?!

 

I've never heard of schools without daily recess. DD's school has recess twice a day. It's too short, IMHO, but at least it's every day.

 

They have PE twice a week.

I think this depends a lot on the district. Our schools also have daily recess and even have play coaches. Dd will have daily recess and a gym curriculum starting in K. Right now she goes for 3 hours a day and 30 minutes of that are outside

[OneStepAtATime]

I think this depends a lot on the district. Our schools also have daily recess and even have play coaches. Dd will have daily recess and a gym curriculum starting in K. Right now she goes for 3 hours a day and 30 minutes of that are outside

Definitely depends on the district. Our area has been slowly but steadily moving to a more "we must have our students prepping for standardized tests at every waking moment" mentality for the past decade.

[pkbab5]

This makes no sense - saying that schools should actually be ablt to do the technical work of teaching reading seems like it would be something anyone sending kids to school would agree on.

 

Whether homework is a good thing is something that is pretty debated among educational professionals.

 

I actually think it makes no sense for an educated parent to expect school to do all the technical work of teaching reading.  It was fairly evident to me as a parent that the ideal way to teach basic skills such as reading and basic arithmetic is one-on-one, with a parent or other consistent caregiver, at the exact pace that the child needs, and in the exact learning style that works best with the child.  In my opinion, that is what is best for the child.  The school teaches those things in a group setting in Kindergarten as a last ditch effort to provide the absolute minimum acceptable level of instruction to a child just in case the parent didn't already do it for some reason beyond their control.

 

I don't know why parents volunteer their children to only get the minimum when they can easily pursue other alternatives.  Barring something like dyslexia, it is so so so easy to teach a child to read one-on-one with a parent in 10 to 15 minutes a day spread out over several years starting at age 3 or 4.  Much harder to squeeze it all into one Kindergarten year in a class of 20 with an over worked and under paid teacher.  Why would you do that to your own child unless you absolutely have to?

Edited April 4, 2016 by pkbab5

[Bluegoat]

I actually think it makes no sense for an educated parent to expect school to do all the technical work of teaching reading.  It was fairly evident to me as a parent that the ideal way to teach basic skills such as reading and basic arithmetic is one-on-one, with a parent or other consistent caregiver, at the exact pace that the child needs, and in the exact learning style that works best with the child.  In my opinion, that is what is best for the child.  The school teaches those things in a group setting in Kindergarten as a last ditch effort to provide the absolute minimum acceptable level of instruction to a child just in case the parent didn't already do it for some reason beyond their control.

 

I don't know why parents volunteer their children to only get the minimum when they can easily pursue other alternatives.  Barring something like dyslexia, it is so so so easy to teach a child to read one-on-one with a parent in 10 to 15 minutes a day spread out over several years starting at age 3 or 4.  Much harder to squeeze it all into one Kindergarten year in a class of 20 with an over worked and under paid teacher.  Why would you do that to your own child unless you absolutely have to?

 

Well, a lot of people who think this way homeschool.  Really, once you have got that far, it seems like sending a child to school is just babysitting, where the sitter makes the kid sit in a desk all day. If that is the case, I'd rather they spend their school time doing things like being outside. 

 

But, many schools actually seem to teach reading in a successful, and non-pressured way. 

[SKL]

I did feel the need to teach my eldest to read, and I continue to work with her every day, but I don't send her to school just for babysitting.  I feel she benefits from working with school teachers and with me.  I wouldn't leave either party with all of the responsibility.  If my kid were doing just great academically without help from me, then I would use our family time for other things.

[Spy Car]

Well, a lot of people who think this way homeschool. Really, once you have got that far, it seems like sending a child to school is just babysitting, where the sitter makes the kid sit in a desk all day. If that is the case, I'd rather they spend their school time doing things like being outside.

 

But, many schools actually seem to teach reading in a successful, and non-pressured way.

These are incredibly rude comments to make on a sub-forum for afterschoolers. Many of us see the value in both educational opportunities provided in schools and education in the home.

 

I feel my son is better off for having both. Comments about "babysitting" are Inaccurate and unappreciated.

 

Bill

[Bluegoat]

These are incredibly rude comments to make on a sub-forum for afterschoolers. Many of us see the value in both educational opportunities provided in schools and education in the home.

 

I feel my son is better off for having both. Comments about "babysitting" are Inaccurate and unappreciated.

 

Bill

 

I very often feel you don't read people's posts.

 

Yes, many people think there is value in school settings, well done.  I think that.  I also think reading, and numeracy, can be effectivly taught for most kids in such a setting.  I have been pretty clear in this thread that I think schools can effectivly do this, and they should be held to that standard.

 

People who think, as a matter of academic principle, that reading or numeracy are almost always best taught one on one, are very often the ones who become homeschoolers as a matter of educational principle.  Because it does not make sense to have lower elementary students spending their at home time learning to read, while also spending large blocks of time learning nothing in the classroom.  That is what it comes down to - if you think most classroom teaching of reading is ineffective, you are having hours spent daily sitting for ineffective teaching.  This is increasing in schools as testing becomes more and more of a priority, so that recess, and content subjects, are being squeezed out.

 

If someone really thought that one on one teaching handled by parents was preferable, I would expect them to be pretty unhappy with schools too - presumably they would want most of their time to be spent on subjects or projects which are best taught in a group setting.

 

I think it is pretty bizarre that on the one hand you are accusing people of being anti-school, and also accusing them of being wrong to think that schools can actually teach children effectively, and that it is somehow anti-school to expect them to do so.

[Spy Car]

I very often feel you don't read people's posts.

 

Yes, many people think there is value in school settings, well done.  I think that.  I also think reading, and numeracy, can be effectivly taught for most kids in such a setting.  I have been pretty clear in this thread that I think schools can effectivly do this, and they should be held to that standard.

 

People who think, as a matter of academic principle, that reading or numeracy are almost always best taught one on one, are very often the ones who become homeschoolers as a matter of educational principle.  Because it does not make sense to have lower elementary students spending their at home time learning to read, while also spending large blocks of time learning nothing in the classroom.  That is what it comes down to - if you think most classroom teaching of reading is ineffective, you are having hours spent daily sitting for ineffective teaching.  This is increasing in schools as testing becomes more and more of a priority, so that recess, and content subjects, are being squeezed out.

 

If someone really thought that one on one teaching handled by parents was preferable, I would expect them to be pretty unhappy with schools too - presumably they would want most of their time to be spent on subjects or projects which are best taught in a group setting.

 

I think it is pretty bizarre that on the one hand you are accusing people of being anti-school, and also accusing them of being wrong to think that schools can actually teach children effectively, and that it is somehow anti-school to expect them to do so.

 

Your posts are there for anyone to read, and now you're engaging in revisionism. 

 

I don't think time spent in the classroom learning is ineffective—quite to the contrary in my experience—and that positive school learning environment is complemented by time spent learning in the home. That's a "best of both worlds" approach. That is why most of us here afterschool. Your comments denigrating our educational choices are trollish and rude.

 

Bill

[Bluegoat]

Your posts are there for anyone to read, and now you're engaging in revisionism. 

 

I don't think time spent in the classroom learning is ineffective—quite to the contrary in my experience—and that positive school learning environment is complemented by time spent learning in the home. That's a "best of both worlds" approach. That is why most of us here afterschool. Your comments denigrating our educational choices are trollish and rude.

 

Bill

 

Then read them. Please.  I have consistantly said schools can do well at teaching kids to read.  I think it is disturbing that many are not doing it well, and something we should all be concerned about.  If I thought they could not do well, I would not advocate changing their methods, I would advocate another way of teaching kids to read that doesn't involve the school.

 

If you don't agree with the other poster, above, that schools can only be a marginal second choice for teaching reading, address it with her.  My response that many parents who believe that choose to homeschool rather than have kids spend hours doing useless work is a reasonable response, and as it happens also to be true - people who believe significant portions of the school work are by nature useless tend not to send their kids unless they have to for other reasons.

 

If you think the school's work is useful, then that doesn't really apply to you.

[shawthorne44]

The question of whether parents should provide for pre-literacy and beginning literacy (based on their own child's ability) is not dependent on how good or bad the local schools are.

 

We don't expect the soccer coach to teach our kids how to walk and run, do we?

 

I don't think that is a good analogy.   It is rather easy to live a full life without soccer, even without participating in any sport.  Clutzes can just not play soccer.  And, as a matter of fact, I needed and received extra instruction in walking.   As a pre-teen my mother sent me to the weekend Charm school at the local department store so that "I could learn how to walk."   I couldn't make this up. Eventually, it was determined that one leg was an 1" longer than the other, but the charm school did actually help.   If I'd been interested in running, I'd have probably needed extra instruction in that too.   I remember the high school gym coaches laughing at and making vocal fun of my running.  

 

But, walking, running, speaking are things our brains are programmed to learn.  Reading is a modern invention, at least within the grand scale. 

 

Personally, if schools can't teach kids to read, what good are they?  

[SKL]

I don't think that is a good analogy.   It is rather easy to live a full life without soccer, even without participating in any sport.  Clutzes can just not play soccer.  And, as a matter of fact, I needed and received extra instruction in walking.   As a pre-teen my mother sent me to the weekend Charm school at the local department store so that "I could learn how to walk."   I couldn't make this up. Eventually, it was determined that one leg was an 1" longer than the other, but the charm school did actually help.   If I'd been interested in running, I'd have probably needed extra instruction in that too.   I remember the high school gym coaches laughing at and making vocal fun of my running.  

 

But, walking, running, speaking are things our brains are programmed to learn.  Reading is a modern invention, at least within the grand scale. 

 

Personally, if schools can't teach kids to read, what good are they?  

 

OK then it's like kids learning to talk.  Most people would agree that starts at home and parents should get involved vs. blame the school if speech development is not on track.

 

Kids still learn vocabulary and lots of speech-related skills at school, but you wouldn't send a nonverbal kid to school and just assume the school should know how to address his needs and have him speaking like his peers in no time - otherwise "what good are they"....

 

Most kids who have difficulty learning to read have issues that require something more than they can get in large-group instruction with age peers.  The struggles of this minority do not mean the group instruction is good for nothing - it leads to reading for most kids.  But also, most kids do arrive at school with readiness skills.

 

As the parent of a kid who had problems, I decided to be proactive to help her keep up vs. sit back and watch her struggle and fail in school.  I do know parents who prefer the latter approach.  Let the kids fail, repeat, and still struggle, and maybe someday get the help they need from the school.  That is a legal option, but not one I can really support.

Edited April 6, 2016 by SKL

[Bluegoat]

OK then it's like kids learning to talk.  Most people would agree that starts at home and parents should get involved vs. blame the school if speech development is not on track.

 

Kids still learn vocabulary and lots of speech-related skills at school, but you wouldn't send a nonverbal kid to school and just assume the school should know how to address his needs and have him speaking like his peers in no time - otherwise "what good are they"....

 

Most kids who have difficulty learning to read have issues that require something more than they can get in large-group instruction with age peers.  The struggles of this minority do not mean the group instruction is good for nothing - it leads to reading for most kids.  But also, most kids do arrive at school with readiness skills.

 

As the parent of a kid who had problems, I decided to be proactive to help her keep up vs. sit back and watch her struggle and fail in school.  I do know parents who prefer the latter approach.  Let the kids fail, repeat, and still struggle, and maybe someday get the help they need from the school.  That is a legal option, but not one I can really support.

 

It's still a very awkward analogy I think.  Talking too is something biological, kids do it so long as they are developing normally and actually have people to talk to.  I wouldn't normally consider it a school skill at all, and more than using the right knife and fork at dinner.

 

And if a child is really having an issue, we expect parents to help, but most of the time we also send them to more expert services - if there is a problem, then the parents very likely will need to be told how best to help.

 

However - I also think its a bit misplaced to be talking in this context about a child with a reading problem.  I don't get the impression that anyone who has commented would think that if there was in fact a reading problem, a child should not get help outside of normal school time, or inside it, or both, and that parents should not be involved.  My expectation would be that some kind of extra practice or help would be involved, and how that was arranged might vary.

 

But in the course of normal kids learning to read, I would expect that the five or six ours, five days a week, that my 5-7 year old spends in an academic setting should be enough.  I tend to read out loud to my kids before bed, and I think that is a great practice (though other families maybe do other equally healthy things.)  But we are a reading kind of household, and we like to do that. (And, TBH, I would be loathe to substitute my child reading to me from n early reader!)

 

To me what it comes down to is probably the appropriate amount of time for kids that age to be doing seat-work.  If I am going to have to do seat-work at home, because the school is inadequate, or because it is the best way to teach the skill, I think that needs to be considered in terms of how much of that work the child is doing.  I consider two hours of sitting for a six or seven year old about right, maybe even a lot for some.  Schools typically keep kids for much longer than that, and while it isn't all seat-work, and some is due to inefficiency, they can spend a lot of time sitting.  If I spend a half our of seat work at home, then I want that half hour during school hours to be spent doing something besides seat work.

 

And I absolutely don't want them spending more time than is appropriate because they are asking a child to do something he isn't developmentally ready for, which varies quite a lot between kids at that age.  That is not a good reason to ask for extra work at home, its a good reason to wait.

 

Unfortunately, this doesn't see to be the trend in public North Americans - it seems to be toward more seat-work, and homework, at younger ages.  Without any evidence based support.