Age to teach reading

[lulalu]

There is so much conflicting information about when the brain is ready to learn to read. I've seen some research indicating starting early can relate problems for dyslexia and other issues.

 

How do you wade through the recomendations? Any good reputable resources to help decide when to begin instruction?

[umsami]

I honestly think there is a wide variety of ages when a child is ready to learn to read.  I know that with DS3 now (who turned 5 in August) teaching reading has been going very well.  I think the key is, he was ready.  With DS1, I tried to push it a year younger, and it was torture for us both.  Of course, Waldorf espouses waiting until 1st grade...and there was some research out of NZ I think that showed that they had caught up with their early reading peers by age 11.

 

 

[pehp]

I think it just depends on the child.  I started with my son around 4, but he was clearly not at all ready, so we waited and tried again a few months later--and repeated that cycle a few times.  I think we officially started reading lessons in earnest when he was 5.5-ish, but it wasn't until he was 7 that the flip switched and the miracle occurred and he could suddenly read. My daughter is already asking to read at the age of 4, so I'm trying to carve out time to work with her.  And I taught myself when I was 3, just from my parents constantly reading to me.  So I think that trying lessons to see how it goes is fine, and re-trying 3-4 months later until they start to latch on, works well. 

[regentrude]

Depends on the child. As soon as the child shows an interest. My DD learned to read very easily at age 5 and read 200 page books independently before her 6th birthday. DS took two years to become a fluent independent reader. In my home country, kids don't start school until age 6 or 7.

 

I have never heard that early reading instruction causes dyslexia. The most likely problem when starting too young would be the child not being interested in instruction and not progressing.

[Storygirl]

It depends upon the child. Some children may be ready earlier, but starting around age five is probably average. Before that there are many pre-reading skills to work on.

 

I'm not sure what studies would have linked early reading to dyslexia. Dyslexia is a neurological disorder that people are born with. You can't make someone dyslexic. So I wouldn't worry about that at all.

[OneStepAtATime]

I think the push in school to start formal reading instruction at earlier and earlier ages, with higher expectations for structured reading output even in some pre-k classes causes some children to struggle with early reading skills and possibly to be mislabeled as dyslexic.  But no, I agree with others, starting reading instruction early does not make a child dyslexic.  As mentioned by Storygirl, dyslexia is a neurological difference in brain processing.  That same difference can also mean a child has some real abilities, too.

 

As others have said, if your child shows interest, start out with pre-reading skills, keep it fun, focus on inspiring a love of learning and if they take to it, great.  If not, table things for a bit and try again later.  In the meantime, read to them, read with them, discuss with them, let them listen to audio books, etc.  Expose them to great stories and rich vocabulary.  Give them exposure to quality literature. That will matter much more in the long run, IMHO, than pushing decoding and fluency skills at an early age (especially if the child is not ready).

[eternallytired]

I think the key is tuning in to your child.  If they are ready for a skill, they will often naturally be interested in learning it.  Provide the opportunities and follow their lead.  So, for example, read ABC books, do ABC puzzles, watch LeapFrog Letter Factory--provide the opportunities, and watch for their interest to be piqued.  When it is, praise and encourage their learning and open new doors.  They recognize some letters in their puzzle?  Point out those letters on store signs and in books.  Introduce them to the sounds of the letters.  Show them that letter sounds combine to make words.  Continue to provide opportunities until their interest wanes; then wait for the next wave.  Somehow learning always comes in cycles or waves, switching from one interest to another.

 

I think the studies that show problems with early reading instruction are more a reflection on general readiness than on age.  Since most children are not ready to read at 3 or 4, most will not progress well at that age.  By age 7, most children are capable of learning to read, and thus more of them will become successful readers.  If you follow your child's lead, they will be fine (barring any innate learning issues) regardless of age.

[abba12]

You'll find a wide variety of opinions, from teach your baby to read through to people intentionally waiting until 8 or even 10, with the idea they child will just 'get it' when they're ready. 

 

I don't see any problem with teaching a child to do something as early as THEY are ready, so I personally go for early without forcing it. So, for my eldest, she showed an interest in reading at 4, but in doing lessons she just wasn't getting it, so I backed off, did some letter activies and blending activities (because she still insisted she wanted to learn and I didn't want to discourage that) and it began to really catch on and make serious progress about 9 months later. She will probably learn to properly read right on the public school timetable (though, I can see clearly that she would have been 'behind' in reading if she had been in a standard classroom, it certainly doesn't come naturally to her). My second child, however, has been watching her older sister through all this and picking things up, and at not-quite-three is doing better than her sister did at 4! She's nowhere near reading yet, but I think she will be ready earlier, and I've had her doing ready set go for the code since 2.5 because she insisted she wanted to read too (she was also my early talker, and she speaks at about the same level as my eldest, though with a slightly more baby sound. Her sentence structure and vocabulary is equal to her older sister and has been for almost a year)

 

So, unless you subscribe to a particular philosophy like better late than early, just see when your child seems ready. Keep introducing the concepts, keep reading to them, and they'll let you know when they're beginning to get either the interest or the skills to start. 

[LMD]

I tend to begin around 4, with fluency sometime during age 5. I don't hot house or force, but gently persist. No dyslexia at all. If I had a really resistant, or just not picking it up at all, kid then I'd back off and try again later. I haven't had it yet and this is my 3rd time teaching reading at 4/young 5.

[mommysanders]

Just like everyone else said, it depends on the child. My son new letters and sounds at age 3, and even started reading before he turned 4. He's still going strong and loves it! My daughter has no interest yet. I can tell she won't be as early as her brother and that's fine.

What I do is encourage play with letter puzzles, draw the letters in their name and say the sounds and read alphabet books. We have the leapfrog letter factory which my son loved and was very helpful. Once my daughter has more interest in those things, I'll pull them out more often and start talking about letters/sounds more often. But until she's interested I won't bother forcing it. However I don't really see myself waiting past age 5/6 to start teaching reading.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Coco_Clark]

I've taught my kids to read when they asked to learn. One was almost 6. The other was 4.

 

I'd probably force an uninterested child sooner or later but...I don't know when Id draw that line. Most kids are interested.

[Tsuga]

I personally have set six as my upper limit to begin reading against their will. You need to start getting the letters and sounds by six. If, at six and a few months, you are unable to put together even the most basic sounds, or recognize symbols, then you should probably start looking at evaluating the kid. That said, there are PLENTY of people who learned to read at seven or eight and are fine.

 

But my own personal limit was six for starting.

 

Luckily, neither of my kids had to learn to read until six, as they were in immersion (foreign language) kindergartens which did not teach reading. DD1 started reading chapter books about three months into 1st grade, at nearly 7. DD2 is just about there at 6.5.

 

I myself learned at 3, my sister at 6. We both have the same IQ and had the same overall SAT scores. Bizarrely, hers are higher in verbal, but she always had higher math grades.

 

Go figure.

 

In sum: I'd start by six, evaluate by seven at the latest if zero progress, but in all likelihood they'll be fine.

 

And none of this precludes reading aloud!

 

Good luck.

[Tsuga]

There is so much conflicting information about when the brain is ready to learn to read. I've seen some research indicating starting early can relate problems for dyslexia and other issues.

 

How do you wade through the recomendations? Any good reputable resources to help decide when to begin instruction?

 

Oh, and I don't think dyslexia is caused by exposure to learning to read materials.

 

I've never read that.

 

As for me, I went with tradition. Seven. The age of reason, the age of first grade in many countries, and also, there is a tradition in some parts of Asia:

 

If a child can touch his ear with his opposite hand (left ear with right hand) over his head, he's ready to read. With the exception of very atypical growth, this was how I saw them evaluating school readiness in areas without birth certificates. It seemed to work most of the time. Of course some children had learning disabilities and so on. But generally, they are able to do that around six or seven. I tested DD2. It was almost to the month for her.

 

I don't know how they figured this out, but somewhere along the line--in the madrassas, in the temples, somewhere, someone realized that this was a physical milestone. I suppose you could also go by losing the top two teeth, which in both my children has also coincided with learning to read fluently (both started to learn to read when the bottom teeth fell out).

[regentrude]

I don't know how they figured this out, but somewhere along the line--in the madrassas, in the temples, somewhere, someone realized that this was a physical milestone. I suppose you could also go by losing the top two teeth, which in both my children has also coincided with learning to read fluently (both started to learn to read when the bottom teeth fell out).

 

Yeah, I heard that myth, too.

By the time my DD lost her first tooth, she was reading on an 8th grade level. I do not believe there has been an established relationship (other than a very vague age wise correlation) between reading readiness and the loss of teeth... they coincidentally happen around the same average age, but one has nothing to do with the other.

Same with the "hair under armpits=ready for algebra" myth.

[HomeAgain]

I don't start until a child has certain markers.  Are they interested?  Do they enjoy listening to books?  Can they follow 2 and 3-step directions?  Can they pay attention to details?

But really, it's such a slow going process.  Learning sounds is the first step. Almost any child can learn sounds if that is all they associate the letters with.  Putting them together and blending requires a bit of maturity, and only when they can keep sequences in their head do I start formal lessons.

[MeaganS]

We start as soon as our kids can blend cvc words. Before that, we work on letter sounds and phonetic awareness very informally, usually in the form of iPad apps, Letter Factory, and little games played while waiting in lines and in the car. For my kids, this has been right before they turn 4. My 3yo DD is on track for that as well. Both of the older two were on track (or did) read fluently by 6. In my opinion, it makes life easier for everyone once they know how to read both with school work and just with life, so I am all about starting them as soon as they are able. Now if a kid doesn't understand blending, I'm not sure there's a whole lot you can do, assuming you want to use a phonics-based method.

[SKL]

I would start testing the waters around age 4.5 if the child hasn't shown interest earlier.  If the child is not ready for the visual learning, I would work on tactile / large muscle prep activities and try again about once every quarter.  If it didn't click by 6 I would look into possible reasons why.

[PeterPan]

Sigh, Sanseri says something similar, implying we CAUSE dyslexia by the way we teach.  What a CROCK.  They now have CTOPP (test of phonological processing) normed down to age 4.  If your kid is dyslexic, get it identified earlier.  My ds was diagnosed at newly 6 based on his CTOPP scores and a severe discrepancy between IQ and achievement.

 

AAR Pre is adorable, and if your dc can do those things at the recommended age range, that's a good sign.  You don't need to worry about reading so much as phonological processing.  

[foxbridgeacademy]

I think it's particular to the child.  My mom taught me to read at 4, made Kindergarten very boring.  DS, who is dyslexic, managed to learn simple 2-3 letter words around 6 but real reading didn't start until he was at least 8 (silent e/letter blends) to 10-ish.  DD, on the other hand, learned to read at 4-5 even though I put off any actual instruction.  She played Starfall with her brother and looked at his K/1st grade books occasionally.  It was like "poof" she could read.  

 

So, my advice, based on my experiences only, is to give them beginner reader games/activities/books in an easy going/casual way.  When they are ready to learn they'll let you know. 

[mathwonk]

To me if children are interested early there is no problem in letting them go as far and fast as they want.  I myself, and my older child, just learned on our own from looking at the words while being read to.  The only problem arises when, like one of our others, they don't want to read for a long time after you think they should have started, like years and years, and their skills are behind.  I began to try teaching early from the materials i had inherited from my kindergarten teacher parent, but he hated it and it went nowhere, so i gave up for years.  (The child may have thought that if he learned, we would stop reading to him.)  Still I agree the only way they will really read is if they are interested, so eventually, much later than any of your kids described here, I tried to find reading material that was interesting for that child, and in this case I got him a subscription to sports illustrated, the only topic of interest at that time.  now years later that child reads infinitely more than i do, maybe more than the other early reader, and even gives me stuff to read that i never get through (like social anthropology).  he also writes unusually well and creatively, moreso than the rest of us.

[MeaganS]

I saw you had a question about how to wade through the recommendations. Most on this forum agree on a largely phonics-based method for teaching. Within that are many variations. Unless your child has issues like dyslexia, almost all of these will get your child reading. Other than that, programs vary based on extras for the kids and hand-holding for the instructor and various approaches to phonics. All About Reading, OPGTR, 100 EZ Lessons, Spalding, Hooked on Phonics, Phonics Pathways, etc are all reputable programs. To decide which one you want, just think about the kind of instructor you are and the kind of kid you have. Does your kid want a puppet and games? Do they want to just get it over with? Do you need scripted lessons? These are the types of questions you should be asking yourself. I'd recommend starting with something like OPGTR or Phonics Pathways because they are simple, cheap, effective, and easy. If you need or want more you can always work up to that. I found that I like streamlined, so OPGTR works for us.

[KrissiK]

I agree, it depends on the child. My first three children did well, starting in kindergarten, at age 5 with A Beka's phonics program. My #4 struggled and struggled and struggled. I tried 3 phonics programs with her in kindergarten and none worked. I started with her this year with CLE phonics as 6 year old (April birthday) and it's clicking with her. So, I say, there is no magic age. When they are ready, they will read.

[lulalu]

I guess I just see so many people in the homeschool community that say their 3 or 4 year old can read. It just seems like most home schoolers are starting so young instead of following tradition and history in this area. In history we see families reading aloud a lot and also talking about letters and the process of reading but not necessarily teaching to read until closer to 6.

 

I have read now three different studies showing a correlation between early learning in reading as opposed to natural learn normally done by young children having effects on the plasticity of the brain. And two said this creates an increased risk for dyslexia and reading problems. The rate of dyslexia and reading problems are on the rise, so I feel like there might be a big correlation since early reading skills are now pushed in public schools and many homes.

 

It just feels like there are those that purport early is best get them going first thing in reading. (Like in opgtr) and then some say later is best (9 or 10) and there isn't real science and studies behind do what these say rather personal experiences.

 

I realize each child and home is different. And I think a home environment to learn to read is much better for the brain than a Pk or preschool. But is it healthy and wise to teach at 4?

[HomeAgain]

I guess I just see so many people in the homeschool community that say their 3 or 4 year old can read. It just seems like most home schoolers are starting so young instead of following tradition and history in this area. In history we see families reading aloud a lot and also talking about letters and the process of reading but not necessarily teaching to read until closer to 6.

 

I have read now three different studies showing a correlation between early learning in reading as opposed to natural learn normally done by young children having effects on the plasticity of the brain. And two said this creates an increased risk for dyslexia and reading problems. The rate of dyslexia and reading problems are on the rise, so I feel like there might be a big correlation since early reading skills are now pushed in public schools and many homes.

 

It just feels like there are those that purport early is best get them going first thing in reading. (Like in opgtr) and then some say later is best (9 or 10) and there isn't real science and studies behind do what these say rather personal experiences.

 

I realize each child and home is different. And I think a home environment to learn to read is much better for the brain than a Pk or preschool. But is it healthy and wise to teach at 4?

 

I don't think that is a question that can be answered.  Nor can the studies take into account the different children, the difference in teaching styles, and the whole language vs. phonics debate (currently in progress on the WTM if you want to take a look. :P )

 

Yes, my kids learned to read between ages 3 and 4.  Montessori has between 3 and 6 as the sensitive period for learning to read.  Some kids do it sooner, some later, but the method is the same - phonics and allowing the child to progress at their own pace without pressure or a schedule.  Introduce, allow the child to play as they will.  As the child becomes more interested, introduce more.  Holding back arbitrarily doesn't benefit the child, nor does pushing them forward.

 

[HS Mom in NC]

Sometime between 4 and 8 years old. 

 

Ignore the cultural norm (inside the homeschooling community and out) that says most children are ready by kindergarten-most aren't. 

 

There is a handy list of things that indicate reading readiness and a convenient chart so you can teach reading with real books in the booklet Homestart in Reading by Ruth Beechick  http://www.amazon.com/Home-Start-Reading-Grades-K-3/dp/0940319004/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1444251552&sr=8-2-fkmr1&keywords=homestart+in+reading+ruth+beechick  whose career was spent undoing the problems created by forcing early reading and not using phonics.  She addresses how "learning disability" labels overused and misused when a child doesn't fit in the official definition of normal or respond to one kind of teaching technique.

[Suzanne in ABQ]

Yup.  It depends.  

My first started at 4 1/2.  My second wasn't the least bit interested until 6 1/2 (actually, he wasn't interested then either, but I started pushing him a bit, and he caught on fairly quickly.)  My youngest got the bug at 3 1/2 and taught herself all the letter sounds by playing with a Leapfrog Bus.  

[Carrie12345]

In our house, 3, 4, 6, 6, and nearly 5.

My kids all have different brains.  :D

[happypamama]

Whenever they are ready and interested.

 

My first basically taught herself to read at four. Couldn't have made her wait if I'd wanted to.

 

I taught my second child to read when he was seven. He just wasn't ready until then. Now, he is a happy and confident reader. Waiting was the right choice for him.

 

My third child wasn't quite ready to blend words when sounding them out a year ago. He's almost seven and has been making a ton of progress in the past few months. He's at the stage where he's starting to sound our random words from around a room, and I expect that in a few weeks, it'll be like an avalanche.

 

My fourth child just turned four, and he seems like he might be ready for me to start teaching him. Or not. Don't know yet.

[EmilyGF]

I like SWB's rec (for a kid you would generally call "neurotypical" - if you have a bunch of red flags, please go to a different board!). She suggests starting reading instruction for two weeks. Is it sticking? Is it generally pleasant? Then keep going. If it feels like filling a super-leaky bucket, then back off for a few months and retry a few months later. Of course, continue reading aloud wonderful, deep, and rich books to your child.

 

I found that each of my children was ready on the second or third try which was around 5.5 or so. Each was reading chapter books (not "easy reader" chapter books but real ones) within a year.

 

It isn't worthwhile to spend 200 hours teaching what can be taught in 20 or 40. I think it can be wasteful to use precious time the child could be playing and exploring and hearing good literature to drill over and over and over what could be got (by most neurotypical kids) quickly when the child is ready. 

 

Emily

[lea_lpz]

Sometime between 4 and 8 years old.

 

Ignore the cultural norm (inside the homeschooling community and out) that says most children are ready by kindergarten-most aren't.

 

There is a handy list of things that indicate reading readiness and a convenient chart so you can teach reading with real books in the booklet Homestart in Reading by Ruth Beechick http://www.amazon.com/Home-Start-Reading-Grades-K-3/dp/0940319004/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1444251552&sr=8-2-fkmr1&keywords=homestart+in+reading+ruth+beechick whose career was spent undoing the problems created by forcing early reading and not using phonics. She addresses how "learning disability" labels overused and misused when a child doesn't fit in the official definition of normal or respond to one kind of teaching technique.

I would also vote for the age range of 4-8 as being normal and to look it at as a bell curve with 5.5-6.5 being at the top.

 

Personal experience- I started my kids at 5 with a gentle exposure to letter sounds / names. Probably what most would call pre-k. My dd progressed to reading cvc words by the middle of k. My ds is 6 and just starting to. My dd gained fluency at 7 to where it really clicked. This influenced my decision to back off with ds.

 

I could have probably waited another year for both kids but I wanted to keep them on target so if they had to go to public school they'd not be way behind.

 

It can be disheartening to hear all these 3 & 4 year olds reading. I heard that a lot in my homeschool community too. It sometimes made me question my gentle start to k-2. Y dd's 8 now and is now reading and comprehending and writing above grade level!

[Storygirl]

OP, you might want to read the book Overcoming Dyslexia. It not only explains the ways that dyslexic brains work but also contains suggestions for early reading activities, the kinds of materials that work well for teaching reading, and warning signs to watch for. You would probably find it interesting and informative.

[calihil]

I guess I just see so many people in the homeschool community that say their 3 or 4 year old can read. It just seems like most home schoolers are starting so young instead of following tradition and history in this area. In history we see families reading aloud a lot and also talking about letters and the process of reading but not necessarily teaching to read until closer to 6.

 

I have read now three different studies showing a correlation between early learning in reading as opposed to natural learn normally done by young children having effects on the plasticity of the brain. And two said this creates an increased risk for dyslexia and reading problems. The rate of dyslexia and reading problems are on the rise, so I feel like there might be a big correlation since early reading skills are now pushed in public schools and many homes.

 

It just feels like there are those that purport early is best get them going first thing in reading. (Like in opgtr) and then some say later is best (9 or 10) and there isn't real science and studies behind do what these say rather personal experiences.

 

I realize each child and home is different. And I think a home environment to learn to read is much better for the brain than a Pk or preschool. But is it healthy and wise to teach at 4?

 

 

I have noticed this, too, which I've found ironic since the PS has gotten so much flack lately about pushing kids too hard to read starting in Kindergarten or even Preschool. 

[Tsuga]

Yeah, I heard that myth, too.

By the time my DD lost her first tooth, she was reading on an 8th grade level. I do not believe there has been an established relationship (other than a very vague age wise correlation) between reading readiness and the loss of teeth... they coincidentally happen around the same average age, but one has nothing to do with the other.

Same with the "hair under armpits=ready for algebra" myth.

 

I think this is kind of misinterpreting what people are using these indicators for. They are not meant to be evidence of a physical milestone that causes reading readiness, but rather, as proxy indicators which relate to a child's overall development, which is also related to symbolic and abstract thinking.

 

It's meant to be a shortcut for determining whom to put in the schoolhouse, not an explanatory theory.

 

It's useful for looking an observable marker for an unobservable trait.

 

Obviously, some children are reading at two and some at eight or nine, with no disabilities and without any exceptional (IQ 160+) aptitudes otherwise. However, since most children, the VAST majority, will be typical by definition, this kind of rule of thumb is useful.

 

I'd never advocate keeping a child from reading, but milestones are not meant to hold people back. They are just markers.

[tm919]

Both of my daughters were those 3 year olds reading fluently, and I did / do feel weird about it... like perhaps I messed them up by encouraging it?My older daughter learned without my help (an older friend taught her the sounds) so I doubt I could have stopped her. I taught my younger daughter when I found her sounding out words on her own... she probably would have learned on her own as well but I taught her to stop some troublesome habits from forming (e.g., some words with th, ph, ght she was just memorizing by asking her sister, she didn't actually identify all the digraphs and blends).

[RootAnn]

The kids I personally know who were reading fluently at 4 where ones that picked it up on their own without their parents pushing (or teaching) them specifically.

 

 But is it healthy and wise to teach at 4?

 

I'm sometimes jealous of the homeschooling parents who don't have to actually work on teaching their kids to read (or spell!).

 

I'm skeptical of anyone saying (without a study to back them up) that trying to teach a kid to read causes dyslexia. My own mother said once that only a whole-word-taught child would ever mix up "saw" and "was." I laughed & pointed to my kids to prove her wrong. I do think there is something that has to 'click' in the brain before kids (with no LDs or vision issues) can read fluently.

 

I teach the child starting at K age and they read when they are ready. 

[BlsdMama]

There is so much conflicting information about when the brain is ready to learn to read. I've seen some research indicating starting early can relate problems for dyslexia and other issues.

 

How do you wade through the recomendations? Any good reputable resources to help decide when to begin instruction?

 

Do you suspect you have a dyslexic?  Did either you or your husband struggle with reading in early grades?

Starting early doesn't cause problems for dyslexics.  The dyslexia brain is caused by the same thing as red hair - genetics. :D  Now, it is true that if you wait a bit, they're more ready, IMO to receive implicit and direct teaching and sometimes they DO need a bit more time and specific teaching to discern between sounds like 'r' and 'l' and 'm' and 'n' and vowels.  

 

My dyslexics learned later.  Oldest DS was 10, though we worked on it before this.  DD (13) learned around age 8 but she is very mildly dyslexic.  DS (10) is severe to profound and it's a work in progress and we'll keep plugging away.

 

It didn't so much change WHEN we began phonics, but it definitely changed the expectations and the pace at which they absorbed the teaching.  It also changed the pace at which reading became automatic.

 

But early reading does not cause dyslexia - I'm not sure if that's what you were reading, neither does it cause confusion.  We taught one of our girls (non-dyslexic) to read when she was two phonetically.  She had awesome phonetic discernment and could make all the  sounds. She read her first little words just before she turned 3.

[MrsWeasley]

It depends on the kid. It depends on what you mean by "teaching reading." I truly believe that reading instruction starts at infancy: reading daily; moving your finger along the text as you read; with those little cute alphabet books using the most common letter sound rather than the letter name; playing rhyming games; playing alliteration games; playing rhythm games; making music; reading poetry and rhyming books; etc.. all these teach essential skills. My first-born taught herself to read at 4 (for her it was like a light bulb: once she could blend sounds within a couple of months she could read Little House on the Prairie), so I never formally taught her to read. With my second, I started formal reading instruction when he could blend sounds together, a little bit before his fifth birthday. He progresses a bit more slowly, but he continues to make progress. Eight months later, I wouldn't say that he can read, since he can only read simple things like, "The old man reads a long book with his cat, and then he will go to bed." However, he continues to make progress. 

[KBadd]

I started phonics "lessons" with my oldest when he was 4. But he already knew letter sounds through discussions with me. His 2 year-old brother wanted to participate also! So my oldest was reading at 4 and my younger boy at 3. They both progressed forward with no problems and are now great readers. I would try gentle phonics lessons at 4 and see how it goes.

[SilverMoon]

.

Edited September 6, 2023 by SilverMoon

[Mergath]

I guess I just see so many people in the homeschool community that say their 3 or 4 year old can read. It just seems like most home schoolers are starting so young instead of following tradition and history in this area. In history we see families reading aloud a lot and also talking about letters and the process of reading but not necessarily teaching to read until closer to 6.

 

I have read now three different studies showing a correlation between early learning in reading as opposed to natural learn normally done by young children having effects on the plasticity of the brain. And two said this creates an increased risk for dyslexia and reading problems. The rate of dyslexia and reading problems are on the rise, so I feel like there might be a big correlation since early reading skills are now pushed in public schools and many homes.

 

It just feels like there are those that purport early is best get them going first thing in reading. (Like in opgtr) and then some say later is best (9 or 10) and there isn't real science and studies behind do what these say rather personal experiences.

 

I realize each child and home is different. And I think a home environment to learn to read is much better for the brain than a Pk or preschool. But is it healthy and wise to teach at 4?

 

That's probably because the homeschool community is full of parents who are highly tuned in to their child's academic readiness and not afraid of teaching "difficult" things like reading, and kids who are often asynchronous learners in some way, which is why a lot of parents look into homeschooling in the first place. For many homeschooled kids, "early learning in reading" WAS natural learning. My dd asked me to teach her to read at three. We did some blending here and there when she wanted to and did a bit of Phonics Pathways, though there were long periods where she didn't want to and so we didn't do anything. She was reading CVC words at four (which, looking at my own history, probably would have happened whether we had done some blending together or not). From there, she taught herself to read and spell fluently almost overnight. Apparently I should have blindfolded her or removed all the books from the house to keep her from reading too early? 

 

Tradition and history are the reasons why I, as a completely self-taught fluent reader at four, was miserable for years in school, bored out of my freaking gourd having to sit there while the other kids spent years learning reading fluency with leveled readers. The problem with learning to read in school isn't that it teaches learning to read too early; the problem is that it teaches all kids at the same age whether they're ready or not. I hated school and had already checked out by fourth grade due to mind-numbing boredom. If they had pushed back reading any later, I probably would have been the youngest dropout in history. 

 

ETA: And I suppose I should add that dd is now seven, reads for hours a day, and is not dyslexic. ;)

[lulalu]

Sorry not asking for snarkiness, or trying to offend.

 

I guess I just hadn't articulated myself well enough. Personal experiences are not what I am looking for. There are too many variables involved. As well as through all my years in school (my higher education) what I have learned is that comprehension is a difficult task at these young years without the base of experience to build upon.

 

I have no reason to suspect dyslexia.

 

This is an area that I may be too knowledgeable on. In other areas of parenting I have needed to push aside studies and research and go with my gut. Sometimes too much knowledge is paralyzing.

 

So I am wondering what others have done with the studies. Have you concluded that the studies environments are too different to the environment of the gentle home to be of comparative value?

 

And when I mention tradition and history, I am referring to many hundreds of years ago, not 30 years ago. In which educational philosophies showed that children had more regular connections to the natural world, much variety of novels read in families, and challenges involving physical work.

 

In all my years of international living I have seen several different trends; the cultures that push formal learning back tend to be mentally healthier, while those that push earlier academics tend to have more depression, anxiety, and mental health issues. However, these early pushing cultures tend to be done in institutions and not homes. Is that a large influence is what I am processing through.

 

My three year old shows much interest. I am just at a point of evaluating studies and research and wanting to know how others have balanced the conflicting studies.

 

There are studies that also show LD, dyslexia and others run in genes. So I am not saying that I have concluded early structured reading causes it, just that there are studies to concluded that. It is just conflicting.

 

I would need to pull out many of my father's journals to cite the research. I don't read the online synthesis of others.

[regentrude]

And when I mention tradition and history, I am referring to many hundreds of years ago, not 30 years ago. In which educational philosophies showed that children had more regular connections to the natural world, much variety of novels read in families, and challenges involving physical work.

 

 

???

Several hundreds of years ago, the majority of people were illiterate, and most families did not possess any novels.

Those families who "read a variety of novels" were very privileged and constituted a small portion of the overall population (and those were typically not the families that engaged in physical work.)

 

 

 

So I am wondering what others have done with the studies. Have you concluded that the studies environments are too different to the environment of the gentle home to be of comparative value?

 

Studies like this only give information about statistical averages. They cannot give me information what is the appropriate approach for the individual child I am teaching. So, I utterly disregard any "studies" and trust that I know my children better than any researcher because I live with them and observe them every day.

I would pay attention to an actual scientific study that could explain the neurological mechanisms and discuss causalities. Sociological research that lists correlations that do not translate into causalities is of no value for my personal decisions.

[lulalu]

Ok. Well maybe this isn't where a question like this is best discussed. So you all may please ignore the thread.

 

I am not meaning to cause a ruckus.

 

Yes, look into the lives of many of those who first came early to the Americas. When literacy rates were the highest the world ever and has since seen. Our founding fathers are great models of this type of family and home education.

[regentrude]

Ok. Well maybe this isn't where a question like this is best discussed. So you all may please ignore the thread.

 

I am not meaning to cause a ruckus.

 

 

you're not causing any ruckus :-) It's a fine question to discuss here.

 

 

 

Yes, look into the lives of many of those who first came early to the Americas. When literacy rates were the highest the world ever and has since seen. .

 

"Has since seen"? I find that hard to believe, considering that many countries have extremely high literacy rates.

http://www.history.org/foundation/journal/winter11/literacy.cfm

": while male literacy in New England rose from 60 percent in the late seventeenth century to 90 percent by the early days of the Republic, he estimated female literacy in the same period as rising from 31 percent to 48 percent—roughly half the rate of males."

There are, in the world today, countries where women have a close to 100% literacy rate. So the red does not make sense.

 

Our founding fathers are great models of this type of family and home education

 

The founding fathers were certainly highly educated people, but I do not believe their educational level was characteristic for the vast majority of the population.

 

It was not clear from your post what "several hundreds of years" referred to. In the 1650s, only 30% of the males in England were literate.

[hepatica]

I guess I just see so many people in the homeschool community that say their 3 or 4 year old can read. 

 

I think the folks with early readers just tend to talk/post more about it. Those of us who have later readers (i.e. normal) just keep our mouths shut. There are many, many homeschoolers who are homeschooling in large part because they disagree with the current academic push in K. I think homeschoolers are much more diverse in this regard than you might think.

 

And, the folks with early readers, whose children read seemingly magically, are always giving advice to people struggling with teaching reading. Go figure??

 

Can't generalize much about the "best" way to teach reading because we simply don't have brains that have been doing it for all that long. The vast majority of the worlds population has had exposure to written text for a very short period of time (historically speaking). From an evolutionary perspective, this is a very new thing. Our brains don't all do it the same way. 

 

 Pre-reading skills are vital. Phonics works well for most kids by age 6 or 7. Kids who struggle need more specific teaching. 

[Mergath]

Ok. Well maybe this isn't where a question like this is best discussed. So you all may please ignore the thread.

 

I am not meaning to cause a ruckus.

 

Yes, look into the lives of many of those who first came early to the Americas. When literacy rates were the highest the world ever and has since seen. Our founding fathers are great models of this type of family and home education.

Only if you exclude everyone who wasn't a wealthy white male. You're trying to base your education ideas on an idealized golden age that never actually existed, and I'm guessing that's why you're having trouble.

 

Let me guess- you're a TJED fan? Or maybe Robinson curriculum?

[MerryAtHope]

An occasional ruckus can be fun :-). But no, this is far from a ruckus, ask away!

 

Like many others, I think readiness signs are far more important than age. Really, these kids that learn early WANT to learn early (you can't FORCE early learning on a kid! Nor do I think you can hold a kid back who really wants to learn--you just make that kid learn from some other source if you don't teach it, LOL!) I like this checklist as a way of seeing if a child is ready to learn to read.

 

 

[lulalu]

Mergath- not basing on an idealized golden age. Basing on education philosophy and sucess. The percentage of overall literacy is mute. I look at the educated to base my thoughts from. I know many do religiously hold the area of our founding fathers on a pedestal, that annoys me, not trying to do that. Most of my thoughts come from my study in school and my dissertation on the history of education.

 

I guess I struggle with the ideas behind education, and then how the act of actually looking at my child and knowing the route and method to educate in.

 

Funny enough from what I have read of T Jed and Robinson I don't agree with most. Now, I haven't read much on those philosophies. So from what I gather the child is mostly to learn independently and a lot is taught as providential history?

[MeaganS]

I'm one of the ones that mentioned teaching my children to read starting at late 3, early 4 years old, based on what I perceived as their readiness. When I say "teach" them, I mean I spent 10-15 minutes a day 3 or 4 days a week doing it. I wasn't worried about hurting their brains because 45 minutes a week of essentially solving phonics puzzles wasn't going to hurt anybody, imo. If they were having a high-frustration day, I'd put it away. Watching 2 episodes of Sofia the First that week probably hurt them more than reading lessons.

 

It sounds like your child is ready and you are afraid to just go ahead and start teaching her because you think it might harm her (forgive me if I'm misreading the situation). I don't think you need to worry about that so long as you pay attention to her cues. If she is crying every time you suggest it, put it off. If she is not making progress, put it off. Otherwise, I don't think you need to worry too much about pushing her too hard or causing permanent damage.

[summerhauss]

I must say I had my eldest go to Waldorf at a young age (PreK-4th) before I started homeschooling and they didn't force the kids to read until 3rd grade. At first I was confused and almost disappointed (wanting to make sure my child wasn't "missing out") but it was truly incredible to see how excited and READY all the children were when they hit 3rd grade. I can honestly say it was surprising and a tremendous success. My advice - Definitely wait until your children are ready. They will not be behind but energized and excited to dive in for years to come!