Is there actual, good research on the impact of early reading?

[4KookieKids]

I've been wondering this for a while, because so much of what I read is either devoid of any real research content (e.g., I taught for (blank) years and saw.... Nevermind that so-and-so also taught for (blank) years and saw the exact opposite...) or isn't adjusted or controlled for things like socioeconomic class, parental education level, etc.

 

I'm just curious because I've seen folks say that early reading helps kids for the rest of their lives, early reading harms kids in the long run, everything evens out by 2nd grade, and a whole slew of other conflicting things. And it's been on my mind, because I'd always mostly heard the first (i.e., the earlier you teach them to read, the better they'll be at everything their whole lives!), and I got all out of sorts trying to teach my oldest boy to read (lots of tears from both of us!), only to find that, when he actually started reading, he was caught up to other "advanced readers" his age (the ones who started reading at 3, for example) in less than 12 months and I really shouldn't have worried so much about the irreparable harm I was causing him by not having him reading by 4. :)

 

I know research ideas change over time. But just thought I'd ask all you fabulous educators! :D

[featherhead]

I wonder if the key is just waiting until they are ready. If they are ready at age 3, that's great! If they are ready at age 8, that's great too! I think trying to teach them before their brains are ready for it is just going to bring frustration and tears.

[OneStepAtATime]

Agree with the above.

 

Hopefully someone will provide scientifically based research into this.  I don't have that.  What I do have is a strong belief based on observation that we are human beings, not robots.  Different kids are going to need different things.  Some kids will thrive with early reading instruction.  Others won't be ready until later and forcing them to try reading before they are ready may cause needless stress and strain, even cause them to shut down and end up hate reading.  Still others won't need instruction at all and will pick it up in their own time.  Others will need not only to wait but will need very targeted phonics based instruction once they are ready.  Most, if we provide them with what that individual child actually needs, will probably all learn to read just fine.

 

When we make blanket statements and think that all kids learn the same way and all people are the same and we create an artificial time frame for learning that treats our kids like they are all the same, sort of like tires being manufactured in a plant, that's when we fail our kids.

[OneStepAtATime]

I also know that when I was little my parents didn't teach me "reading".  What they did was read to me a lot, read themselves a lot, and make reading time a fun, cuddly, warm, friendly thing I associated with being loved.  I didn't get a ton of reading instruction in school, either.  4k we played.  Kinder we did more structured learning but we still played.  I was reading on my own very early but I was ready to read.  I didn't need instruction.  I needed a warm, friendly environment without a ton of pressure to perform.

 

My kids?  They needed targeted, phonics based instruction.  They also needed more time.  I would have done better by them if I had kept to the read alouds, audio books and cuddle time until they were halfway through Kindergarten or even later.

[HomeAgain]

I don't know if there is any good research, because you'd first have to decipher several variables.  Were they taught to read before being ready?  Did they read on their own?  Were they taught sight methods (a la Your Baby Can Read) or taught decoding?  Are we looking at only English-reading children, or how different cultures teach reading?  Are we treating age as a static starting point, or is it fluid?

 

 

[Mrs Twain]

ED Hirsch's book called The Knowledge Deficit presented a huge body of research about core knowledge. This is where the most relevant evidence is about what it is important for young kids and early education according to my reading. Talking to your babies and reading aloud are examples of interventions that have exponential effects.

 

I don't know if anyone has proven the optimal age for reading. I taught my kids to read at an early age which helped them to learn from many more books than I could have read aloud to them. They also were able to write early and could do independent work in K and 1st grades. Those factors may have contributed to increasing their core knowledge and subsequent performance compared to peers, but I don't have evidence to prove it. Those abilities certainly made my homeschooling job easier when they were young.

[Momto4inSoCal]

I read Ed Hirsch's book and what I understood was the importance of early exposure to vocabulary and an educationally rich environment. Not necessarily that they needed to read early. It's been a while since I read it so maybe I'm remembering wrong. I try and expose my kids to vocabulary through reading alouds and talking to them as I would talk to an adult. We also have a lot of educational items (magnifying glasses, bug identification books, squishy body, rock collection) readily available. We also for the most part ban electronics other than coding or prodigy math. 

I don't think the research out there is contradictory. There's evidence that early exposure to vocabulary is helpful but that doesn't mean you need to push them to read. There's evidence that some children who pick up reading early are gifted. Those children will outperform their peers due to them being gifted and having above average IQ's. There is also research confirming pushing children to sit for too long at a young age increases instances of ADHD. I prefer play based learning. If they want to sit and learn I will allow them to but I don't ask them I let them ask me. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/201505/early-academic-training-produces-long-term-harm

Edited May 13, 2016 by Momto4inSoCal

[EKS]

The problem with studying the effects of early reading is that in order to understand what early reading is contributing to the mix, you have to control for things like overall intelligence.  In general, kids with higher intelligence/IQs read at earlier ages.  All sorts of positive outcomes are associated with higher IQs (this is a documented fact).  It's the same as saying that kids who take algebra earlier go on to have better educational outcomes--the problem is that it is, in general, the brighter kids who are going to take algebra early, and those same bright kids are more likely to have better educational outcomes and when algebra is taken has little or nothing to do with it.

[4KookieKids]

The problem with studying the effects of early reading is that in order to understand what early reading is contributing to the mix, you have to control for things like overall intelligence.  In general, kids with higher intelligence/IQs read at earlier ages.  All sorts of positive outcomes are associated with higher IQs (this is a documented fact).  It's the same as saying that kids who take algebra earlier go on to have better educational outcomes--the problem is that it is, in general, the brighter kids who are going to take algebra early, and those same bright kids are more likely to have better educational outcomes and when algebra is taken has little or nothing to do with it.

 

I think this is exactly the crux of my question! I'm wondering if anything (and I honestly mean *anything*!) has ever tried to control for all these other factors. Maybe it's the analyst in me, but I'd really LOVE some huge study that broke into smaller sections that each break the data down in terms of a different variable: parental education level, single parent / 2 parent/ etc., socioeconomic status, intelligence, methodology, etc. I know that no such wonderful study exists, and it just made me wonder what (if anything!) there really is that at least tries to address some of these factors/variables.

 

It'd take a book to write about such a study, if one did exist, and it has no real bearing on my  homeschooling. I'm just interested in the topic. :)

[OneStepAtATime]

The problem with studying the effects of early reading is that in order to understand what early reading is contributing to the mix, you have to control for things like overall intelligence.  In general, kids with higher intelligence/IQs read at earlier ages.  All sorts of positive outcomes are associated with higher IQs (this is a documented fact).  It's the same as saying that kids who take algebra earlier go on to have better educational outcomes--the problem is that it is, in general, the brighter kids who are going to take algebra early, and those same bright kids are more likely to have better educational outcomes and when algebra is taken has little or nothing to do with it.

I agree.  

 

It also doesn't take into consideration that some highly intelligent or gifted individuals are dyslexic, which means that for them to succeed in reading/writing they may need more specialized instruction/later instruction/more time, but the individual is actually highly intelligent, potentially gifted or even profoundly gifted.  Their intelligence may not be recognized, though, and nurtured, because they struggle to learn to read through conventional means.

[Mrs Twain]

The two best books I have read that summarize the evidence that can be applied to K-12 education are:

Willingham (Why don't students like school?...)

Hirsch (the knowledge deficit)

 

If you want good research that is applicable to real life including homeschool, start with those. You won't be disappointed.

[freesia]

It's been years since I've been exposed to any research. To help with your searches I do remember one in Germany where one class of kindergartens were taught reading and the other had hands on play. By then end of first grade the hands on class read better than the taught to read Ks. I read about this in the 90s.

 

For my family--anecdotally--my second was slow to learn to read--didn't really read until late second grade. Within 6 months she had caught up to friends who read at 4. Shocked their parents out the door. I saw this happen when I taught first and second grade for a decade. Honestly, I don't think it matters a bit whether you learn at 4 or 8. In a school environment, you will begin to fall behind at that point b/c so much of learning is reading based.

[rwilk]

I read Ed Hirsch's book and what I understood was the importance of early exposure to vocabulary and an educationally rich environment. Not necessarily that they needed to read early. It's been a while since I read it so maybe I'm remembering wrong. I try and expose my kids to vocabulary through reading alouds and talking to them as I would talk to an adult. We also have a lot of educational items (magnifying glasses, bug identification books, squishy body, rock collection) readily available. We also for the most part ban electronics other than coding or prodigy math. 

I don't think the research out there is contradictory. There's evidence that early exposure to vocabulary is helpful but that doesn't mean you need to push them to read. There's evidence that some children who pick up reading early are gifted. Those children will outperform their peers due to them being gifted and having above average IQ's. There is also research confirming pushing children to sit for too long at a young age increases instances of ADHD. I prefer play based learning. If they want to sit and learn I will allow them to but I don't ask them I let them ask me. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/201505/early-academic-training-produces-long-term-harm

It seems like the article is focused on large group long term studies of situations where children (as a group) are pushed into early academics regardless of if each individual child is ready.  Those studies may not have as much application to a homeschooling situation, where children can go at their own rate, and adjustments can be made on the fly. The fact that many children are not developmentally ready to read at 5 is certainly relevant for broad education policy, but less relevant for figuring out if any particular child is ready to read at 5, and when an individual child should begin instruction. 

 

For example, the Suggate research (Suggate, Sebastian, P. 2012. “Watering the garden before the rainstorm: The case of early reading.†Edited by Sebastian Suggate and Elaine Reese. Contemporary debates in child development and education. Abingdon, UK: Routledge, Taylor & Francis. pp. 181-190.) which was cited showed that early gains in reading will even out, but that was when the early reading group had to devote significant (2-4 hours of class time daily) to reading and phonics instruction.  The time spent on phonics/reading was not efficient, and did not lead to long term gains.  The social-emotional concerns from early reading also seem to be linked to the lack of play-time, not necessarily the reading itself.  

 

At least some studies have shown that the advantage early readers have remains (see Stainthorp, R., & Hughes, D. (2004). What happens to precocious readers' performance by the age of eleven?. Journal Of Research In Reading, 27(4), 357-372. )  That study showed that while the development of reading and literacy skills tends to follow a clear path those who started prior to age 5 continued to be further along that path by age 11.  Reading accuracy and speed were both significantly higher for the young reading group than for the normal reading group.  Interestingly, the study did show that advantages in phonological awareness (a literacy standard often tested around grade 3) were not maintained, the authors attributed this to the fact that there is a pretty clear ceiling to phonological awareness, and thus, it was not a great comparative measure. 

 

The other issue with early readers losing any advantage is the fact that the schools often don't provide support at the child's level. Once a child meets the standards for the grade, often the school will consider the job done, and not provide additional challenge or development activities.  This is compounded by the fact that there is limited funding for advanced students, and that gifted/talented screenings often don't start until 3rd grade, leaving early readers to spend 3-4 years just sort of hanging out.

 

This is not to say that kids SHOULD be reading early, or that significant time should be devoted to teaching a child to read who is not developmentally ready.  But there certainly are studies to show that supporting early reading (when the individual child is ready) can lead to long term benefits for the child. 

[ElizabethB]

http://www.3rsplus.com/documents/The_Long-term_Effects_000.pdf

 

Not mentioned in the study, but the method was good phonics with almost no sight words. My school was one of the schools that used this method, the books are free online now, search "I See Sam" free online.

 

At the time of the study, most schools were teaching with whole word or balanced literacy methods in 1st grade, the study was for children taught to read with phonics in K. It was most powerful percentage wise for minorities and low SES levels, the graphs on page 927 are especially interesting. It was also a time when there were few tutoring centers and most children did not get tutoring. I do not think current Asian differences would be as different with and without early good phonics because of tutoring, tutoring has grown a lot in the last 40 years, especially the last 20.

Edited May 14, 2016 by ElizabethB

[ElizabethB]

In a follow up paper, that part is at the end after rehashing the original study, they relooked at the original study and looked at just ESL students. I would not have thought it would have been as helpful for them since we are talking a short period of time in K, it was a 25 week program, 20 to 30 minutes of group instruction of time per day, and I would have thought that learning just this bit in your non native language would not have been that powerful. (In my kindergarten, we were also given a bit of class time to read the little books on our own, but that is not mentioned in the study and may have varied by school, or it may have been part of the completion of program they mentioned, those schools that completed the program had more success that those that had partial completion. Also, we were not given the books to take home like they talked about, but my school was fairly poor, they might not have been able to afford extra books.)

 

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED391372.pdf

Edited May 14, 2016 by ElizabethB

[Momto4inSoCal]

It seems like the article is focused on large group long term studies of situations where children (as a group) are pushed into early academics regardless of if each individual child is ready.  Those studies may not have as much application to a homeschooling situation, where children can go at their own rate, and adjustments can be made on the fly. The fact that many children are not developmentally ready to read at 5 is certainly relevant for broad education policy, but less relevant for figuring out if any particular child is ready to read at 5, and when an individual child should begin instruction. 

 

For example, the Suggate research (Suggate, Sebastian, P. 2012. “Watering the garden before the rainstorm: The case of early reading.†Edited by Sebastian Suggate and Elaine Reese. Contemporary debates in child development and education. Abingdon, UK: Routledge, Taylor & Francis. pp. 181-190.) which was cited showed that early gains in reading will even out, but that was when the early reading group had to devote significant (2-4 hours of class time daily) to reading and phonics instruction.  The time spent on phonics/reading was not efficient, and did not lead to long term gains.  The social-emotional concerns from early reading also seem to be linked to the lack of play-time, not necessarily the reading itself.  

 

At least some studies have shown that the advantage early readers have remains (see Stainthorp, R., & Hughes, D. (2004). What happens to precocious readers' performance by the age of eleven?. Journal Of Research In Reading, 27(4), 357-372. )  That study showed that while the development of reading and literacy skills tends to follow a clear path those who started prior to age 5 continued to be further along that path by age 11.  Reading accuracy and speed were both significantly higher for the young reading group than for the normal reading group.  Interestingly, the study did show that advantages in phonological awareness (a literacy standard often tested around grade 3) were not maintained, the authors attributed this to the fact that there is a pretty clear ceiling to phonological awareness, and thus, it was not a great comparative measure. 

 

The other issue with early readers losing any advantage is the fact that the schools often don't provide support at the child's level. Once a child meets the standards for the grade, often the school will consider the job done, and not provide additional challenge or development activities.  This is compounded by the fact that there is limited funding for advanced students, and that gifted/talented screenings often don't start until 3rd grade, leaving early readers to spend 3-4 years just sort of hanging out.

 

This is not to say that kids SHOULD be reading early, or that significant time should be devoted to teaching a child to read who is not developmentally ready.  But there certainly are studies to show that supporting early reading (when the individual child is ready) can lead to long term benefits for the child. 

 

Ultimately I believe everything would even out when accounting for IQ's. I agree with the discussion upthread about controls needed for IQ. 

http://www.3rsplus.com/documents/The_Long-term_Effects_000.pdf

 

Not mentioned in the study, but the method was good phonics with almost no sight words. My school was one of the schools that used this method, the books are free online now, search "I See Sam" free online.

 

At the time of the study, most schools were teaching with whole word or balanced literacy methods in 1st grade, the study was for children taught to read with phonics in K. It was most powerful percentage wise for minorities and low SES levels, the graphs on page 927 are especially interesting. It was also a time when there were few tutoring centers and most children did not get tutoring. I do not think current Asian differences would be as different with and without early good phonics because of tutoring, tutoring has grown a lot in the last 40 years, especially the last 20.

 

This study was about starting reading in Kindergarten vs First grade. The OP mentioned reading by the age of 4 which would be in pre-school for most children. Do you think starting reading instruction at 3 or 4 would be beneficial to children? 

[ElizabethB]

Ultimately I believe everything would even out when accounting for IQ's. I agree with the discussion upthread about controls needed for IQ.

 

This study was about starting reading in Kindergarten vs First grade. The OP mentioned reading by the age of 4 which would be in pre-school for most children. Do you think starting reading instruction at 3 or 4 would be beneficial to children?

But, it was also phonics vs. whole language. Other studies have shown phonics results to be superior to whole language. The study did sort of account for IQ, indirectly, because it used large numbers of participants, looking at whole high school populations where some of the elementary schools used the program and others did not, then comparing by other factors which are correlated by IQ. The method used is even easier than normal phonics for low IQ students because they do not introduce rule breakers and there is slow, gradual addition of new sounds. They are almost 100% decodable.

 

At age 3 and 4, some children are not developmentally ready to blend. Depending on how individualized the instruction was and how failure was treated would be important to the outcome. My daughter learned to read young and it has made all the rest of her schooling easier for her and for me--if I need to, I have been able to hand her the book since almost forever and have her read both her portion and the teacher's portion, and it had made her assignments easy to read. I think it could be a positive if handled well, but would be hard to implement on a large scale without a lot of work and thought. At home or in small settings, I think it is beneficial to teach as early as they are ready and willing.

[Arcadia]

4 would be preschool age. There are local academic private preschools that teach kids phonics at three years old and the parents hope their kids are reading by preK.

 

Back home word recognition for two languages start at three but my 4 year old niece is not expected to read english and chinese without help until 1st grade. So it is a three year gradual process to basic fluency required for independent school work. I knew many late bloomers in public schools helped by extra instruction time but education is funded differently back home so there is no lack of funds. Vision and dental care for kids are also funded differently.

 

A study did find that the Head Start advantage was gone by 1st grade. So Head Start prep the kids well for K entry but that advantage is not long term.

http://mobile.edweek.org/c.jsp?cid=25920011&item=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.edweek.org%2Fv1%2Fblogs%2F85%2F%3Fuuid%3D29781

 

I don't see a need to read at 4 but I do see the fall behind scenario for public schools when a child can't read at the end of K because from 1st grade onwards the curriculum is reading heavy.

[ElizabethB]

4 would be preschool age. There are local academic private preschools that teach kids phonics at three years old and the parents hope their kids are reading by preK.

 

Back home word recognition for two languages start at three but my 4 year old niece is not expected to read english and chinese without help until 1st grade. So it is a three year gradual process to basic fluency required for independent school work. I knew many late bloomers in public schools helped by extra instruction time but education is funded differently back home so there is no lack of funds. Vision and dental care for kids are also funded differently.

 

A study did find that the Head Start advantage was gone by 1st grade. So Head Start prep the kids well for K entry but that advantage is not long term.

http://mobile.edweek.org/c.jsp?cid=25920011&item=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.edweek.org%2Fv1%2Fblogs%2F85%2F%3Fuuid%3D29781

 

I don't see a need to read at 4 but I do see the fall behind scenario for public schools when a child can't read at the end of K because from 1st grade onwards the curriculum is reading heavy.

The study I posted tested high school seniors after the 25 weeks of phonics in K, 20 to 30 minutes a day, and found lasting gains, with low SES individuals outscoring some higher SES students who did not get the program...and the study was basically ignored and/or misinterpreted. Edited May 14, 2016 by ElizabethB

[Ellie]

I've been wondering this for a while, because so much of what I read is either devoid of any real research content (e.g., I taught for (blank) years and saw.... Nevermind that so-and-so also taught for (blank) years and saw the exact opposite...) or isn't adjusted or controlled for things like socioeconomic class, parental education level, etc.

 

I'm just curious because I've seen folks say that early reading helps kids for the rest of their lives, early reading harms kids in the long run, everything evens out by 2nd grade, and a whole slew of other conflicting things. And it's been on my mind, because I'd always mostly heard the first (i.e., the earlier you teach them to read, the better they'll be at everything their whole lives!), and I got all out of sorts trying to teach my oldest boy to read (lots of tears from both of us!), only to find that, when he actually started reading, he was caught up to other "advanced readers" his age (the ones who started reading at 3, for example) in less than 12 months and I really shouldn't have worried so much about the irreparable harm I was causing him by not having him reading by 4. :)

 

I know research ideas change over time. But just thought I'd ask all you fabulous educators! :D

 

Dr. Raymond Moore wrote two books about that: "Better Late Than Early" and "School Can Wait."

[Jackie]

A study did find that the Head Start advantage was gone by 1st grade. So Head Start prep the kids well for K entry but that advantage is not long term.

http://mobile.edweek.org/c.jsp?cid=25920011&item=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.edweek.org%2Fv1%2Fblogs%2F85%2F%3Fuuid%3D29781

 

 

So, I'm not sure the headline on this matches the results reported within the article. While many benefits were gone by the end of third grade, reading still was measurably higher for those who attended Head Start. Additionally, a full 60% of the non-Head Start group did attend other formal preschools. So much of this study really compares Head Start to other preschool options, not preschool vs no preschool.

[4KookieKids]

I I'm loving all the articles, and the discussion of their respective strengths and weaknesses as well. This is the kind of conversation I was hoping for! :)

[Monica_in_Switzerland]

The two best books I have read that summarize the evidence that can be applied to K-12 education are:

Willingham (Why don't students like school?...)

Hirsch (the knowledge deficit)

 

If you want good research that is applicable to real life including homeschool, start with those. You won't be disappointed.

 

 

I second these.  

I think one of the biggest factors in "reading comprehension" that both authors bring up is NOT the ability to decode, but relevant background knowledge.  To paraphrase a research study cited, students of various reading abilities were asked to read an article about a baseball game, then answer related questions.  The results of the test were entirely correlated to their background knowledge in baseball, and completely unrelated to their "reading grade level".  Wellingham goes on to explain why exercises to teach "strategies" of reading comprehension, while not perhaps totally useless, are a horrible use of time versus simply READING TO THE STUDENTS from a variety of texts.  

 

It's all about the background knowledge (core knowledge, as Hirsch calls it).  

 

I have quite a few researched blog posts on this here- http://www.homeschoollaboratory.com  .  My blog is generally neglected, but I hope to get back to it!  Try the Bloom's Taxonomy or Retention Toolkit 3: Hooks posts.  

[luuknam]

It also doesn't take into consideration that some highly intelligent or gifted individuals are dyslexic, which means that for them to succeed in reading/writing they may need more specialized instruction/later instruction/more time, but the individual is actually highly intelligent, potentially gifted or even profoundly gifted.  Their intelligence may not be recognized, though, and nurtured, because they struggle to learn to read through conventional means.

 

And, on the other side, kids with hyperlexia, which is linked to autism. And kids with autism have other issues that may make them less academically or otherwise successful when they get older, e.g. struggling with literature analysis because of trouble understanding social issues.

[OneStepAtATime]

And, on the other side, kids with hyperlexia, which is linked to autism. And kids with autism have other issues that may make them less academically or otherwise successful when they get older, e.g. struggling with literature analysis because of trouble understanding social issues.

Agreed.

[Momto4inSoCal]

But, it was also phonics vs. whole language. Other studies have shown phonics results to be superior to whole language. The study did sort of account for IQ, indirectly, because it used large numbers of participants, looking at whole high school populations where some of the elementary schools used the program and others did not, then comparing by other factors which are correlated by IQ. The method used is even easier than normal phonics for low IQ students because they do not introduce rule breakers and there is slow, gradual addition of new sounds. They are almost 100% decodable.

 

At age 3 and 4, some children are not developmentally ready to blend. Depending on how individualized the instruction was and how failure was treated would be important to the outcome. My daughter learned to read young and it has made all the rest of her schooling easier for her and for me--if I need to, I have been able to hand her the book since almost forever and have her read both her portion and the teacher's portion, and it had made her assignments easy to read. I think it could be a positive if handled well, but would be hard to implement on a large scale without a lot of work and thought. At home or in small settings, I think it is beneficial to teach as early as they are ready and willing.

I wasn't disputing the results or validity of the study linked. I was only pointing out the OP was asking about instruction for children that are 4 and under. In children that young a year makes a big difference. I think the majority of people start reading instruction in kindergarden but very few begin before kindergarten. I value your opinion because I know it's your field so I was hoping you would comment on that aspect of it. I think many people think if teaching reading at 5 is good and has advantages wouldn't 4 be better.

 

Also has anyone considered Finland? I know they've been discussed on this board but their reading instruction begins later (I believe around 7) yet their PISA reading scores are higher than ours. The public schools in my area all have the children reading by the end of kindergarten but it is a combination of sight words and phonics so methodology might be part of the problem we are having (maybe all of our problem).

Edited May 15, 2016 by Momto4inSoCal

[Tsuga]

Yes, there is.

 

I once posted all these articles about it.

 

I will try to find them. If I don't please help. The long and the short of it is, early reading doesn't help. However, for children with learning disabilities, getting treatment around the overall processing issues helps; in addition, if you are naturally an early reader, it is unlikely that anything can be done to stop you and also, you are likely to be good at many other academic areas as well.

 

But for the people between the 5th and 95th percentiles, not a lot of proof showing that reading at 3, 5, or 7 makes a difference, but you can train them.

[SKL]

This isn't a research link, just an observation.

 

I often hear people say "I tried to teach my kid early, s/he wasn't ready, eventually she caught up with the early readers anyway."  The thing is, if you were trying to teach reading, you were exposing the child to all the pieces of the puzzle, so when s/he was ready s/he could put it together quickly.  Would the result have been the same if you hadn't exposed the child to the alphabet, letter-sound associations, books, etc.?  Can you know the answer to that?

 

I have an early reader.  I didn't exactly teach her to read, but I exposed her to the elements of reading from an early age.  When she started to really read [sentences etc.] at age 4, it all came together very quickly.  I don't think it would have been that way if I'd waited until age 4 to start introducing the fundamentals.

 

I agree with the pp who said that if you have a kid with reading challenges, it is helpful to address them earlier rather than later; but how can you do this if you never explore reading skills with the child?  My later reader had vision issues, which I realized mainly because she was so slow to learn her letters.  She began vision therapy a little before age 4.  If I'd waited until she was 6 or so to start working on early reading skills, she would have had delays in school.  Delays in school tend to impact self-image and later success.  So even for a kid who wasn't "ready to read," the early beginning was helpful.

[Tsuga]

" I don't think it would have been that way if I'd waited until age 4 to start introducing the fundamentals."

 

The thing is, my mother did nothing but read to me and I learned to read at three. My sister didn't learn to read until six and my mom actually did more with her, because she was concerned that she [my sister] wasn't learning to read like me!

 

There's foundations for reading--phoneme awareness, letter awareness, read-alouds, etc. and there is training to read.

 

Training to read involves sitting there and painstakingly sounding out word after word after word for an hour a day, every day during reading. For most kids, doing this at six or seven will be necessary for some time as they develop fluency. For very few, it's never necessary, and for others, that's too little.

 

We did TONS of reading awareness with my older one who wanted nothing to do with books until she was about 7. I did far less with the little one because I had basically come to the conclusion (based on studies) that it had been for naught. Well, the little one learned to read in English at five and is reading short books in Chinese at six and chapter books in English at six.

 

I think we need to separate the impact of early reading to, the impact or meaning of being an early reader, and the types of preparation: awareness, training, etc. to have a really meaningful discussion about this.