Psychology Today: Reading Wars

[scoutingmom]

Well, I can't remember not being able to read.   When I was in Kindergarten, my teacher found out I could read, and (very surprised) asked me when I learned to read - and I was puzzled, because I could always read.

 

I got glasses when I was 3 (lazy eye that turned in (and honestly, my eyesight was SO bad, I don't know how I ever could have possibly read....) and while we were waiting for an appointment I was reading from one of those Kids Bedtime Story books (that some Christian religion had, I believe....) that were often in waiting rooms.  At that point in my life I didn't know you could read silently - so I was reading it out-loud.   The ophthalmologist came out to see, and in the examining room he flipped a book to a random page and I read it to him...   Because of my eye problems, and the fact that I was reading - I got bifocals (they would normally wait on that until the child started school and needed the close vision.)    So I know I was reading by at least an early age 3.  There are pictures of me at about age 2 sitting and reading the Childcraft Nursery Rhyme book (and it was rarely out of my hands...)

 

My understanding is that one day my sister played school with me..... and that was it.  I was reading.  I have no idea what method she used.    My parents actually was trying NOT to have us reading before starting school because the problems my older brother had with his 1st grade teacher because he could.  It was actively discouraged in those days where I lived.   But, they realized it was a lost cause with me, and got out the Dick and Jane books we had and let me have access to them.

 

I suspect that I would have learned to read no matter what.    But, I too have a dyslexic child, and I'm sure that he wouldn't just learn to read without very specific instruction.

 

 

[FO4UR]

My precocious reader was 3 when she started reading, reading Little House in the Big Woods for pleasure at age 5.

 

She watched Leapfrog videos and "audited" her big brother's SWR lessons. She learned through phonics certainly, but it was 100% self-led.  I didn't even know she was picking things up until one day she just sat down and read several books in a row.

[BooksandBoys]

And that's probably the only way early readers get dedicated instruction in phonics. Adults don't usually have the patience.

I'm in the minority here: phonics and early reading. My mother taught me phonics beginning at 4. I picked it up very quickly and was reading Little House books by 4 and a half. I stil remember drilling phonemes.

[ReadingMama1214]

I'm in the minority here: phonics and early reading. My mother taught me phonics beginning at 4. I picked it up very quickly and was reading Little House books by 4 and a half. I stil remember drilling phonemes.

DD was exposed to phonics early through LeapFrog Letter Factory and fridge magnets. But once she started sounding out CVC words, I started phonics instruction. So while she is an early reader, it's been phonics based.

[hepatica]

Seems to me the only thing the article gets right is the fact that precocious reading is not necessarily related to IQ. The intelligence assumption that goes along with early reading is what is so damaging for kids who do not read early. "Oh look at that little one over there reading, he/she is so smart..." We do it and think it without even realizing it.  What that mythology misses and what the rest of the article completely ignores is all the fascinating research about what is actually going on in the brain when we are reading.

 

We tend to think of reading as a sort of path and kids are just walking down the same path but some are faster than others or some are more "developmentally ready" before others. Hence we think those faster or developing faster kids must be somehow smarter. The reality is the human brain has not evolved for reading. So when we read we are actually adapting parts of the brain that evolved for something else and using them to engage in the series of complex tasks that make up reading. There are more and less efficient ways to do this. And, I don't think researchers are as of yet clear as to why some brains go straight for the most efficient methods and why others use take more circuitous route to do the same thing - i.e. read. I once heard a neurologist describe it as if one child were walking in a straight line down the path and another child was twirling and spinning and dancing circles for each step that the first child was taking. The downside for the second child is that they take much longer to do the same thing. The up side is that the second child is making many more neural connections when they are reading. But the important thing is that the brains are actually doing very different things while supposedly engaged in the same task. That's why you have so many highly intelligent dyslexics, and why being dyslexic can have advantages. All different kinds of readers can be highly intelligent. But the precocious ones certainly get the reinforcement earlier.

 

All this to say that I think the article misses the fact that the precocious readers and the Sudbury type late, but apparently natural, readers probably do not have brains that are working in the same way. And, those readers may be different than dyslexic readers who need specific instruction. Who knows? But there is lots of great research currently taking place on this topic, and the very light article (as most Psychology Today articles are) doesn't seem aware of any of it. 

[Mom22ns]

I had a precocious reader that started reading at 2.5 and an early reader who started reading closer to 4. They both did a fair amount of site reading, although as soon as they could read, they read aloud to me and we sounded out any words they didn't know, so they picked up phonics too. They both started school in ps and had very heavy phonics instruction in first grade, that I think was good for them even though they were both reading long chapter books by then. 

 

Both tested with gifted IQs with the precocious reader being the higher of the two. My precocious reader is still an avid reader, although mostly non-fiction now. My early reader only reads as much as is required.

[bluemongoose]

I had a precocious reader, an early reader, a late reader, and I think my last will be an on time reader.

 

My precocious (DD) reader learned by figuring out phonics on her own. We did not have TV and at the time my ds (baby at the time) screamed non stop, so I really didnt read to her much. She came to me at 2yo and said she knew the letters in her abc book and she knew they had sounds and knew what they were, but she wanted me to tell her how the sounds go together to make the story. So I set up the word cat with magnet letters and gave a very short lesson in blending. She took it from there. By the time she was 3 she was at magic tree house books. She was mostly self taught and did so through sounding out (phonics), and I gave her pointers when she asked. I did later have her go through the Phonics Road to assist in any missed rules and to help with spelling. She still reads all the time! 

 

My early reader was ready and willing to learn, and I instructed him with phonics. (3.5yo reading fluently)

 

My late reader also was instructed (against is will) to read with phonics. (7 yo reading fluently). He believed he could become an astronaut with only math and science skills because astronauts don't need to read anything.  :lol:

 

My almost 4yo knows his letters and sounds and is starting to blend. He is being instructed with phonics.

[hepatica]

Only on TWTM forum is a 7 yo reading fluently a late reader.... It's actually right smack dab in the middle of average.

[OnMyOwn]

I learned to read at 4 years old using the Hooked on Phonics records.  My mom bought them for me and I would get them out and skip around the playroom listening to them and imitating the sounds.  I already knew my letters when I started listening and I was reading fluently before I went to K.

[Sarah0000]

My DS is a precocious reader I guess. He started reading a few sight words around 18 months and simple sentences in readers before two years old, partly in ASL because his speech was a little delayed. He started reading Magic Tree House days before his fourth birthday.

 

He picked it up naturally in our very print rich home, but I also made sure to show him basic phonics. The phonics was mostly done by stealth, mostly by me illustrating sounding out while reading aloud, playing oral games, and also playing around with phonics flip charts and a little bit of phonogram games with LOE cards. My goal with the phonics stuff was to ensure he understood that letters make specific sounds, some make multiple sounds, some make different sounds in combination with other letters, etc. He could read all the words we used before the phonics stuff. I think ASL helped a lot before phonics because some words are fingerspelled and some words use the sign for the beginning letter of the word.

 

He can sound out when I ask him to, but he does not on his own to figure out new words. Maybe he does it in his head because he can decode fairly accurately, I tested him with the nonsense words on the Phonics Page. He spells pretty well without instruction, which he does do by sounding out. I believe he probably wouldn't have advanced so quickly to fluency without the background in ASL or the light phonics stuff we did.

[rocassie]

My oldest was a precocious reader, and beginning it was sight words - STOP - comes to mind, but she did realize on her own that letters are symbols for sounds so she was also sounding out words or asking me what letter combination sound like.  I spent a lot of time sounding out gibberish using the magnet letters.  :)  She was one that if you spelled out a word (as a few of my friends did), she would use her knowledge of letter sounds to figure it out and making the leap to what the word was even if she didn't sound it out phonetically correct.  Something like - hey is it okay to let Em have a b-r-o-w-n-i-e?   As a four month old, she loved to sit on our laps and would let us read through 8-10 books and even wanted to turn the pages.  By a year, she would point to words in a book or letters, almost never the pictures, and what to know what "t ay."

[dirty ethel rackham]

Only on TWTM forum is a 7 yo reading fluently a late reader.... It's actually right smack dab in the middle of average.

Not in our school district.  If a child is not a fluent reader at that age, they are behind.  This is in an area where reading instruction starts at 3 at the fancy daycare/preschools that cost more per year than my kids' college tuition.  Not developmentally appropriate, but it is parental pressure that makes it happen. 

[ReadingMama1214]

Not in our school district.  If a child is not a fluent reader at that age, they are behind.  This is in an area where reading instruction starts at 3 at the fancy daycare/preschools that cost more per year than my kids' college tuition.  Not developmentally appropriate, but it is parental pressure that makes it happen. 

Wow that is a lot of pressure! NYC, DC? We have the opposite here. Most of our friends kids do not attend Pre-K at 3 and usually start full day Pre-K at 4. We also have a lot of friends who's kids start school knowing very little. Not that that's an issue. I'd almost rather that than have developmentally inappropriate expectations. Reminds me of the Kumon and similar tutoring for preschoolers. 

 

It does break my heart that there are such high expectations for kids these days. We don't mention DDs ability to read because people assume it makes you a Tiger Mom. It is funny how these things differ so widely depending on where you live. We are in the city, but it is more relaxed. 

[In2why]

My sister learned to read from Sesame Street and The Electric Company. I think that is mostly phonics-based. Those shows were great equalizers for a lot of kids.

Yes, this is how I learned to read. My Mom was a single parent and we were too poor for preschool. But I read by Kindergarten. I am old so I remember reading instruction in school with Dick and Jane books. I thought they were really boring and by second grade I know the teacher was confiscating the books I brought to school to read....Salems Lot by Stephen King. My 3rd grade teacher wasn't impressed with some of the bodice rippers I read either. Finally I got permission to check out any books I wanted at the school library and even more importantly, as many as I could carry. My introduction to good books changed my life.

[Mimm]

My youngest sister was reading at age 3. My mother taught her the only way she knew how to teach reading- Abeka phonics book. My sister demanded to learn. She was a very early talker and early reader.

[dirty ethel rackham]

Wow that is a lot of pressure! NYC, DC? We have the opposite here. Most of our friends kids do not attend Pre-K at 3 and usually start full day Pre-K at 4. We also have a lot of friends who's kids start school knowing very little. Not that that's an issue. I'd almost rather that than have developmentally inappropriate expectations. Reminds me of the Kumon and similar tutoring for preschoolers. 

 

It does break my heart that there are such high expectations for kids these days. We don't mention DDs ability to read because people assume it makes you a Tiger Mom. It is funny how these things differ so widely depending on where you live. We are in the city, but it is more relaxed. 

Nope.  Suburban Chicago.  Now this does not mean there aren't a lot of kids who don't meet that benchmark.  But, there are a lot of professionals and executives in our area that have very high expectations.  And the expensive daycare/preschools cater to those types of families.  We're kind of like Lake Woebegone ... where all of the children are above average.  While we have "such great schools", the schools aren't what makes these kids high achievers ... it is the fact that the parents have money and can pay for tutors.  In fact, other than reading in the elementary schools, parents are pretty much expected to pay for tutors if a child is falling behind. 

[Bluegoat]

Not in our school district.  If a child is not a fluent reader at that age, they are behind.  This is in an area where reading instruction starts at 3 at the fancy daycare/preschools that cost more per year than my kids' college tuition.  Not developmentally appropriate, but it is parental pressure that makes it happen. 

 

I think this is how a lot of people think:

 

"Oh, 7 is the average age for fluent reading.  Therefore, anyone not reading fluently by age 7 is behind."  It doesn't seem to occur to them that even though one age will be the average, there is a range of ages that are normal.

 

THis seems to happen a lot in medicine, and some other types of research as well - I feel like there should be some name to describe it.

[8circles]

I feel like there should be some name to describe it.

 

Obnoxious?  {jk}

[ReadingMama1214]

Obnoxious? {jk}

Ignorant would be another one

Edited January 15, 2016 by ReadingMama1214

[Bluegoat]

Obnoxious?  {jk}

 

 

Ignorant would be another one

 

Yeah, both I guess.  It seems to me though that it must be some sort of statistical or logical error?  Like doctors who get worked up when babies are close to the bottom or top of the percentile chart.

[ReadingMama1214]

Yeah, both I guess. It seems to me though that it must be some sort of statistical or logical error? Like doctors who get worked up when babies are close to the bottom or top of the percentile chart.

Oh that's another pet peeve of mine! I have pretty short kids, but our pedi has never voiced concern. But my sister was constantly talking about how her daughter was continually labeled as failure to thrive and the doctors were worried about her height and weight. Her daughter is 6 months younger than mine and taller and heavier! We always laugh over how east coast doctors seem more paranoid than our Colorado ones.

[ReadingMama1214]

Yeah, both I guess. It seems to me though that it must be some sort of statistical or logical error? Like doctors who get worked up when babies are close to the bottom or top of the percentile chart.

Oh that's another pet peeve of mine! I have pretty short kids, but our pedi has never voiced concern. But my sister was constantly talking about how her daughter was continually labeled as failure to thrive and the doctors were worried about her height and weight. Her daughter is 6 months younger than mine and taller and heavier! We always laugh over how east coast doctors seem more paranoid than our Colorado ones.

[Kerileanne99]

My DS is a precocious reader I guess. He started reading a few sight words around 18 months and simple sentences in readers before two years old, partly in ASL because his speech was a little delayed. He started reading Magic Tree House days before his fourth birthday.

 

He picked it up naturally in our very print rich home, but I also made sure to show him basic phonics. The phonics was mostly done by stealth, mostly by me illustrating sounding out while reading aloud, playing oral games, and also playing around with phonics flip charts and a little bit of phonogram games with LOE cards. My goal with the phonics stuff was to ensure he understood that letters make specific sounds, some make multiple sounds, some make different sounds in combination with other letters, etc. He could read all the words we used before the phonics stuff. I think ASL helped a lot before phonics because some words are fingerspelled and some words use the sign for the beginning letter of the word.

 

He can sound out when I ask him to, but he does not on his own to figure out new words. Maybe he does it in his head because he can decode fairly accurately, I tested him with the nonsense words on the Phonics Page. He spells pretty well without instruction, which he does do by sounding out. I believe he probably wouldn't have advanced so quickly to fluency without the background in ASL or the light phonics stuff we did.

My experience with my precocious reader and ASL was similar. I am not sure we would have recognized just how much she could read if we hadn't been signing with her. She signed complete 'sentences' over a year before she was speaking even rudimentary sentences...not to mention it cut back tremendously on the frustration. Could you imagine being able to read but not properly ask for things? Yikes.

Interestingly enough, she learned to finger spell before age 2, and she still uses it when spelling more challenging words (she wants to do Scripps at some point!).

Also, her fine motor control for things like art and handwriting are exceptional. Both the neuropsych and BT/OT teams remarked on it and suggested that it is most likely due to all that signing:)

[EKS]

I taught my son to read phonetically when he was 2yo.  I did it because it was obvious to me that he would teach himself to read by recognizing whole words if I didn't, and I didn't want that.  It was extremely easy to teach him (just a few minutes each day), and he was able to read fluently on a second grade level by the time he turned 4 (and that was with uncorrected vision issues).

[madteaparty]

Seems to me the only thing the article gets right is the fact that precocious reading is not necessarily related to IQ. The intelligence assumption that goes along with early reading is what is so damaging for kids who do not read early. "Oh look at that little one over there reading, he/she is so smart..." We do it and think it without even realizing it. What that mythology misses and what the rest of the article completely ignores is all the fascinating research about what is actually going on in the brain when we are reading.

 

We tend to think of reading as a sort of path and kids are just walking down the same path but some are faster than others or some are more "developmentally ready" before others. Hence we think those faster or developing faster kids must be somehow smarter. The reality is the human brain has not evolved for reading. So when we read we are actually adapting parts of the brain that evolved for something else and using them to engage in the series of complex tasks that make up reading. There are more and less efficient ways to do this. And, I don't think researchers are as of yet clear as to why some brains go straight for the most efficient methods and why others use take more circuitous route to do the same thing - i.e. read. I once heard a neurologist describe it as if one child were walking in a straight line down the path and another child was twirling and spinning and dancing circles for each step that the first child was taking. The downside for the second child is that they take much longer to do the same thing. The up side is that the second child is making many more neural connections when they are reading. But the important thing is that the brains are actually doing very different things while supposedly engaged in the same task. That's why you have so many highly intelligent dyslexics, and why being dyslexic can have advantages. All different kinds of readers can be highly intelligent. But the precocious ones certainly get the reinforcement earlier.

 

All this to say that I think the article misses the fact that the precocious readers and the Sudbury type late, but apparently natural, readers probably do not have brains that are working in the same way. And, those readers may be different than dyslexic readers who need specific instruction. Who knows? But there is lots of great research currently taking place on this topic, and the very light article (as most Psychology Today articles are) doesn't seem aware of any of it.

I just love this entire post. It had to be said; liking was not enough

[Sarah0000]

I can't quote from my phone, this is in response to ASL.

 

My DS also has great fine motor control. He started writing on his own, and picked up correct formation very quickly when I taught him. I never thought to connect that to ASL, but its possible that helped, not just for fine motor but perhaps for visual spatial skills as well.

[bluemongoose]

Only on TWTM forum is a 7 yo reading fluently a late reader.... It's actually right smack dab in the middle of average.

 

 

I used the term late with my 7yo based on PS standards. If had been in public school and he had not been reading and writing by nearly 8, he would have been held back and considered a "late reader". I do not think there was much wrong with him but lack of maturity and desire to sit and try.

[ReadingMama1214]

I used the term late with my 7yo based on PS standards. If had been in public school and he had not been reading and writing by nearly 8, he would have been held back and considered a "late reader". I do not think there was much wrong with him but lack of maturity and desire to sit and try.

It makes me sad to think of kids in the average range for reading and writing being held back due to falling on the later average end. But, this is the same system that expects Kindergarteners to attend 7 hour days and read and write. 

[shawthorne44]

Oh that's another pet peeve of mine! I have pretty short kids, but our pedi has never voiced concern. But my sister was constantly talking about how her daughter was continually labeled as failure to thrive and the doctors were worried about her height and weight. Her daughter is 6 months younger than mine and taller and heavier! We always laugh over how east coast doctors seem more paranoid than our Colorado ones.

 

Or it could be there is a genuine problem with your kids. 

 

It all depends on the definition of low percentile.  Doctors said <3% was a problem.  It irritated me when people would say to me, "Oh, don't worry.   So-So was very short and he turned out fine."   I'd ask what percentile was very short, they'd say something like 20%.   I'd say, "We'd throw a party if DD ever hit 20%."  She isn't even on the growth chart.   It didn't help that I was resistant to the failure-to-thrive tests and felt like a bad mother.  But, they found a genuine, treatable problem.  DH and I were just talking a few hours ago about some athlete that wasn't diagnosed until he was 11, which is almost too late. 

 

I guess it is like learning problems.  Sometimes someone is a late bloomer, something there is a problem. 

[bluemongoose]

It makes me sad to think of kids in the average range for reading and writing being held back due to falling on the later average end. But, this is the same system that expects Kindergarteners to attend 7 hour days and read and write. 

Yes it is, we dont have very many schools in my area with half day kindergarten anymore. My DS never would have made it in PS with the expectations they have of 5-7yo. They just changed mandatory school age to 6, with all day kindy.  My DS was barely ready at that age to write his name. He has more than "caught up" (just turned 9yo) and is ahead now in some subjects compared to same age peers. Had be been in PS he would most likely have such a damaged self esteem that he may not have caught up at all. I am not just saying this as a "what if". My DS is very sensitive to certain things. His lil brother is 2 years younger and is just behind him in everything, nipping at his heels. DS has had to work at not feeling like he is stupid because it came so much easier to his brother when they were younger. And this was all in a supportive environment. 

[ReadingMama1214]

Yes it is, we dont have very many schools in my area with half day kindergarten anymore. My DS never would have made it in PS with the expectations they have of 5-7yo. They just changed mandatory school age to 6, with all day kindy. My DS was barely ready at that age to write his name. He has more than "caught up" (just turned 9yo) and is ahead now in some subjects compared to same age peers. Had be been in PS he would most likely have such a damaged self esteem that he may not have caught up at all. I am not just saying this as a "what if". My DS is very sensitive to certain things. His lil brother is 2 years younger and is just behind him in everything, nipping at his heels. DS has had to work at not feeling like he is stupid because it came so much easier to his brother when they were younger. And this was all in a supportive environment.

Our public kindy is full day, but you can pull the child out half day and it's paid for by state. If you do full day (as most do) it is a tuition based public kindy.

 

We are hoping to get into a classical charter. Two of them are half day (3hrs). DD is more than ready for kindy and has a full school year before she can enroll. However, she is more sensitive and even though she'll be 6 shortly after kindy starts, I still think a full day is too long for her. She's a homebody and if we could homeschool I would.

[Tanaqui]

I guess it is like learning problems.  Sometimes someone is a late bloomer, something there is a problem.

 

When people talk about doctors who don't understand percentiles, usually they don't mean "The doctor noted my kid wasn't on the growth charts and ordered tests for a variety of disorders that can cause slow growth", they mean "my kid was in the fifth percentile, and every time I went in the doctor would lecture me about how I should formula feed instead of breastfeed just to get that weight up, and once she weaned the doctor kept telling me to feed her more ice cream, and he wasn't joking!"

 

And yes, that last is an actual thing I have actually heard people report multiple times regarding their small child. If the mother and father are small, and the kid has been in the 5th percentile since birth, and they keep growing steadily (but slowly), then it's probably not a problem. Somebody's gotta be in the fifth percentile! Checking for a disorder is fine. Obsessing over it and pushing candy and ice cream on the parents is not. Gosh, no.

 

[ReadingMama1214]

When people talk about doctors who don't understand percentiles, usually they don't mean "The doctor noted my kid wasn't on the growth charts and ordered tests for a variety of disorders that can cause slow growth", they mean "my kid was in the fifth percentile, and every time I went in the doctor would lecture me about how I should formula feed instead of breastfeed just to get that weight up, and once she weaned the doctor kept telling me to feed her more ice cream, and he wasn't joking!"

 

And yes, that last is an actual thing I have actually heard people report multiple times regarding their small child. If the mother and father are small, and the kid has been in the 5th percentile since birth, and they keep growing steadily (but slowly), then it's probably not a problem. Somebody's gotta be in the fifth percentile! Checking for a disorder is fine. Obsessing over it and pushing candy and ice cream on the parents is not. Gosh, no.

Exactly! Our doctor is fantastic. As long as they stay on their personal curve, he's fine. They've only ever shown concern when a large percentile drop has occurred or when no growth occurred.

 

I agree there can be underlying conditions, but those sometimes have accompanying symptoms of issues. To see a small family and worry over small children, is insane.

[scoutingmom]

Exactly! Our doctor is fantastic. As long as they stay on their personal curve, he's fine. They've only ever shown concern when a large percentile drop has occurred or when no growth occurred.

 

I agree there can be underlying conditions, but those sometimes have accompanying symptoms of issues. To see a small family and worry over small children, is insane.

Even dropping curves can be normal.... When the curves were determined, I'm sure that some kids dropped curves, and some gained curves while forming the statistics. All my kids dropped weight curves in their early months.... like seriously dropped curves. But they were healthy, happy, and meeting developmental normal ranges. No one would ask an adult what their height and weight at birth was, put it on a statistical chart, and say, 'Well you should be 5'9" and 142 pounds" based on that.... so at some point the curves are nonesense, and I say from day 1. Yes, they are there to try to help find actual problems, but they mostly just get professionals to make moms feel bad for doing someyhing 'wrong' in their feedings whenever the child is.... 'too big', 'too small', or not following their curve, when most of the time nothing is wrong at all (and generally the professional isn't looking for a problem other than blame the mother.)

 

Sent from my SM-T530NU using Tapatalk

[ReadingMama1214]

Even dropping curves can be normal.... When the curves were determined, I'm sure that some kids dropped curves, and some gained curves while forming the statistics. All my kids dropped weight curves in their early months.... like seriously dropped curves. But they were healthy, happy, and meeting developmental normal ranges. No one would ask an adult what their height and weight at birth was, put it on a statistical chart, and say, 'Well you should be 5'9" and 142 pounds" based on that.... so at some point the curves are nonesense, and I say from day 1. Yes, they are there to try to help find actual problems, but they mostly just get professionals to make moms feel bad for doing someyhing 'wrong' in their feedings whenever the child is.... 'too big', 'too small', or not following their curve, when most of the time nothing is wrong at all (and generally the professional isn't looking for a problem other than blame the mother.)

 

Sent from my SM-T530NU using Tapatalk

I know. fortunately we've been blessed with terrific doctors. Even the lack of growth and dropped percentiles, didn't warrant much concern. Just a casual remark that they'd check it at the next regularly scheduled exam. We also love in an incredibly pro-breastfeeding state. Doctors don't push formula and hospitals don't give samples of it or offer it (they use donor milk when necessary).

[ktgrok]

So, oddly, after reading this thread and not being able to wrap my head around the idea of kids reading so early, my 3 yr old crashed his sister's reading lesson and started sounding out letters and words!

[Bluegoat]

Even dropping curves can be normal.... When the curves were determined, I'm sure that some kids dropped curves, and some gained curves while forming the statistics. All my kids dropped weight curves in their early months.... like seriously dropped curves. But they were healthy, happy, and meeting developmental normal ranges. No one would ask an adult what their height and weight at birth was, put it on a statistical chart, and say, 'Well you should be 5'9" and 142 pounds" based on that.... so at some point the curves are nonesense, and I say from day 1. Yes, they are there to try to help find actual problems, but they mostly just get professionals to make moms feel bad for doing someyhing 'wrong' in their feedings whenever the child is.... 'too big', 'too small', or not following their curve, when most of the time nothing is wrong at all (and generally the professional isn't looking for a problem other than blame the mother.)

 

Sent from my SM-T530NU using Tapatalk

 

Yeah, I've come to the conclusion that the percentile charts are not helpful.  Every one of my kids has dropped on the chart - and all around the same age actually.  And I know many other people who have had the same experience, all without it being somehow pathological.

 

Since other judgements, like looking at the parents, or other health indicators, seem to be the main indication that there is an issue, it seems like the charts aren't really very functional.

[ReadingMama1214]

So, oddly, after reading this thread and not being able to wrap my head around the idea of kids reading so early, my 3 yr old crashed his sister's reading lesson and started sounding out letters and words!

Haha that is great. I really feel that sometimes it happens almost overnight. That's how I felt at least. DD went from being shaky on some letter sounds to knowing them all and sounding out words. It happened suddenly. That's exciting for your son!

[Tanaqui]

Since other judgements, like looking at the parents, or other health indicators, seem to be the main indication that there is an issue, it seems like the charts aren't really very functional.

 

 

That's because of how the growth charts are developed. They take a whole bunch of kids, sort them by age, and measure the height and weight of each child. Then they plot them on a chart, like you see.

 

Which does tell you a lot about the average weights and heights of children at various points, but not very much at all about the average growth of children over time. It's a lot cheaper than the other method, though - which would be to take a whole bunch of children at birth, and follow them through to age 18.

Edited January 16, 2016 by Tanaqui

[ReadingMama1214]

Yeah, I've come to the conclusion that the percentile charts are not helpful. Every one of my kids has dropped on the chart - and all around the same age actually. And I know many other people who have had the same experience, all without it being somehow pathological.

 

Since other judgements, like looking at the parents, or other health indicators, seem to be the main indication that there is an issue, it seems like the charts aren't really very functional.

I think the charts have their place, but shouldn't be the primary determining factor. I do think they can be useful and even though some have negative experiences with them, overall they seem like a decent took. That being said, I think much of the negativity has to do with the doctors interpretation of the charts and not the charts themselves. My doctor literally said to me "someone has to be the 2%". We've just had an overall positive experience.

[bluemongoose]

We left a pedi that couldnt look at the child and parents and only looked at the charts. My DD takes after DH and is very slender. My DS takes after FIL and is sturdy (no chubs, just solid). I was told to fatten DD, including make her drink whole milk even though she was dairy intolerant and it made her throw up. Like throwing up would help someone gain weight  :glare: . And I was told to stop nursing DS at night and to give him bottles of water (at 4mo) if he acted hungry because he was too heavy. This was exclusively bf child, no formula, no solids or cereals...just bfing. We started looking for a new pedi after that. The new one takes into account the genetics as well as the charts. They even take into account the fact that we are late bloomers and stopped commenting on "falling on the chart" because it is skewed by all the kids hitting puberty and getting much taller before she is. 

[Bluegoat]

That's because of how the growth charts are developed. They take a whole bunch of kids, sort them by age, and measure the height and weight of each child. Then they plot them on a chart, like you see.

 

Which does tell you a lot about the average weights and heights of children at various points, but not very much at all about the average growth of children over time. It's a lot cheaper than the other method, though - which would be to take a whole bunch of children at birth, and follow them through to age 18.

 

So - would that not mean that the idea that a child should generally stay on the same curve is completely an assumption?  My understanding was that "fact" was the main thing that made the charts useful - it wasn't whether you were in the 2nd or 50th or 100th percentile (someone has to be.)  It was the ability to see if you'd fallen off your curve.

[wintermom]

As far a "Reading Wars" goes, I think the debate will just keep going and I'm more than happy NOT to be part of it. I managed to teach my 4 dc to read through a combination of phonics and sight words, and they all took a couple of years (from about age 3.5 - 5.5). No self-taught readers in our house. It wasn't easy, and it took lots of time, patience, hair-pulling, tongue-biting from me. It was really exciting and rewarding for both me and my dc, for sure, but one of the toughest things I've ever done.  

 

I can't imagine doing it year after year as a primary elementary teacher, with a new group of children every year and less-than-ideal learning environments. If there is some new neurological research that can help support parents and teachers in this pursuit, I sure hope it becomes more widely known and has some practical applications to help the process. 

[calihil]

Good gravy, is there anyone out there that DIDNT learn to read at age 3 or 4? Sheesh.  :lol:

 

I dont even remember when I started reading, it had to have been 1st grade because I dont remember learning anything about letters in Kindergarten (back in the early 90s). I dont think Im going to have any "early readers", either. I dont have the patience.

[scoutingmom]

So - would that not mean that the idea that a child should generally stay on the same curve is completely an assumption? My understanding was that "fact" was the main thing that made the charts useful - it wasn't whether you were in the 2nd or 50th or 100th percentile (someone has to be.) It was the ability to see if you'd fallen off your curve.

No, because groth rates might be different too. So one child might gain curves as they grow early, and another might fall curves if they grow later, for example, but looking at the stats for thousands of kids, it averages out to the curves even though huge variations could be normal. My kids all dropped curves like crazy, as my dh and I are not tall, and at age 20 I was very slender. My kids were born around the 50%ile give or take, but genetically they could not possibly follow that curve forever. They dropped early, and far. My oldest dropped to about the 2%ile. He has gained some... is probably at about 35%ile or so... I stopped looking at charts years ago.

 

The charts are all statistical. Not even great statistics. And I believe the infant ones are based on formula fed bavies, so bf'd babies don't match up well for those reasons too.

 

Sent from my SM-T530NU using Tapatalk

[ktgrok]

Good gravy, is there anyone out there that DIDNT learn to read at age 3 or 4? Sheesh.  :lol:

 

I dont even remember when I started reading, it had to have been 1st grade because I dont remember learning anything about letters in Kindergarten (back in the early 90s). I dont think Im going to have any "early readers", either. I dont have the patience.

 

My oldest was six or seven...probably seven. Middle child started some basic CVC sounding out at a late 4, but is almost 6 and not much past that. We are on words like "lost" and "meld" right now. Youngest is the only one that shows signs of being an early reader. 

[ReadingMama1214]

No, because groth rates might be different too. So one child might gain curves as they grow early, and another might fall curves if they grow later, for example, but looking at the stats for thousands of kids, it averages out to the curves even though huge variations could be normal. My kids all dropped curves like crazy, as my dh and I are not tall, and at age 20 I was very slender. My kids were born around the 50%ile give or take, but genetically they could not possibly follow that curve forever. They dropped early, and far. My oldest dropped to about the 2%ile. He has gained some... is probably at about 35%ile or so... I stopped looking at charts years ago.

 

The charts are all statistical. Not even great statistics. And I believe the infant ones are based on formula fed bavies, so bf'd babies don't match up well for those reasons too.

 

Sent from my SM-T530NU using Tapatalk

I think it's wise not to stress with the chart. Mine were in the 50th for a while and then dropped.

 

I do know that our pedi had a separate formula fed and breastfed chart. He once accidentally used the formula fed one for DS and had to go grab the breastfed one.

[Mom22ns]

Not in our school district.  If a child is not a fluent reader at that age, they are behind.  This is in an area where reading instruction starts at 3 at the fancy daycare/preschools that cost more per year than my kids' college tuition.  Not developmentally appropriate, but it is parental pressure that makes it happen. 

 

Here they will not be promoted out of Kindergarten if they aren't reading. I wouldn't say the required level is fluency, but it is independent reading. Most kids are reading beginning chapter books by the age of 7. If they aren't they are in remedial reading classes.

[ReadingMama1214]

Here they will not be promoted out of Kindergarten if they aren't reading. I wouldn't say the required level is fluency, but it is independent reading. Most kids are reading beginning chapter books by the age of 7. If they aren't they are in remedial reading classes.

So what does a reading kindergartener look like in your district? I know many schools in our area are sight word heavy and the kids have lists of words that are required. What makes me laugh is that (at least in our district) they expect barely anything to start K. Know some letters, recognize name, count to 20, and similar expectations for kids starting K. But then they expect so much of them in one short school year!

[hepatica]

Good gravy, is there anyone out there that DIDNT learn to read at age 3 or 4? Sheesh.  :lol:

 

I dont even remember when I started reading, it had to have been 1st grade because I dont remember learning anything about letters in Kindergarten (back in the early 90s). I dont think Im going to have any "early readers", either. I dont have the patience.

 

I expect you are expressing the sentiments of the vast majority of readers. This became obvious a while back when someone did a poll about the ages kids started reading. If you looked at the poll results, the curve mirrored the expected averages exactly, with most kids starting at 6-7 years old and outliers on either end. But, the posts in the thread were very heavily weighted toward the early readers. My conclusion... early readers and those whose kids are early readers like to talk about it. 

 

While we give lip service to the idea that early readers are not more intelligent, that mythology is still very powerful. Imagine a scenario where we convinced people that early readers tended to be more pedantic, unoriginal thinkers, and late readers were actually more intelligent, creative and accomplished in life. I expect we would see the opposite effect. In fact, neither is probably true, and the reality is that we can't tell much at all about intelligence from the age that someone begins reading. Nevertheless, we always see posts in these threads weighted towards early readers. It doesn't reflect reality at all.