For those who've taught toddlers to read

[4KookieKids]

I'm just curious, bc I hear a lot about "reading readiness" and waiting until the kiddo is "ready", and then I hear folks talk about teaching their 2/3 year olds (moderately bright or average intelligence, not super bright who self teach) to read because it's just a "skill." I feel like I've heard a lot from the "reading readiness" camp, and so I'd like to hear from the "any 2/3 yo can be taught to read" camp.

 

How have you done it? With multiple children? How long did it take?

 

Disclaimer: My third kiddo just turned 3 and I'm *not* in a rush to get her reading. I've just noticed that, despite paying attention to older sibs' school work, no amount of practicing blending "c.......at" "c.....at" "c..at" gets her to "cat". And it's really just made me curious how folks actually teach a kid that young to read. :)

 

I'm not concerned about my child or wishing things were different or even looking for advice. I'm also not really wondering about kids who taught themselves to read. I'm honestly just curious to hear from the minority of folks who don't really follow the mindset that reading is *primarily* a skill you learn when you're "ready" and is instead a skill that can be taught to very young children.

Edited August 31, 2016 by deanna1ynne

[Gabrielsyme2]

I don't know if this is the kind of response you're looking for but I HAVE taught a two year old to read so I thought I'd relate our experience. My oldest DD learned to read at 5 after a failed attempt at 4. When we "failed" the year before she just wasn't getting there easily and I laid it aside. She had known the letter sounds for a long time but the concept of making "c" "a" "t" cat wasn't clicking. Much like your daughter. With her younger brother I used the same method (100 e-z lessons) but he just caught it and ran much younger. I am always ok with trying a couple lessons and seeing where things are going and then picking it up later if we need to. To be honest I know that DS was just "ready" and DD was not. In retrospect it was a natural ability type of thing. He's now four and learning to read music with the same speed and ease. I really don't know if there's any advantage to very early reading though. Learning to read was not hard for either of them and the "teach your baby to read" folks I know seem like it's a lot of work for no noticible advantage later on. I have third who is now two and no where near reading. That's fine with me.

[Shoes+Ships+SealingWax]

My DS began decoding & directly asked me to teach him to read at 2.5yrs old. He has always loved letters / numbers / symbols so while surprising, it wasn't completely out of left field.

 

After 6mo of basic blending & phonological awareness activities we "hit a wall" on digraph blends, so we took a break & I ordered LOE Foundations. He has blown through Books A & B, so we will move into C next month. By his 4th birthday he will likely be reading on a 2nd grade level.

 

All of that said, I do NOT think that "any 2-3yr old" can, or ought to, learn to read. No way would I have started so young with my son if he had not shown such a strong interest. Learning to read involves a broad range of skills, consistent practice, willingness to struggle... a child has to be intrinsically motivated to tackle that challenge.

[4KookieKids]

All of that said, I do NOT think that "any 2-3yr old" can, or ought to, learn to read. No way would I have started so young with my son if he had not shown such a strong interest. Learning to read involves a broad range of skills, consistent practice, willingness to struggle... a child has to be intrinsically motivated to tackle that challenge.

 

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying I think that either! But I'd like to hear more, because many years ago when I first started visiting the forum, I know for a fact I read some threads where folks talked about how they'd taught numerous 2 yo's to read and they believed than any child could learn it if you only... And then I don't remember the details. So I was hoping to be reminded of what the details were. And I know that those folks came under a lot of fire in the threads from other folks whose kids read much later, despite lots of work on it, and I'm hoping the same fire doesn't rain down on this thread. But we'll see, I guess! :)

 

[Guest]

Out of six children, I have one who was reading and writing in an elementary level by the age of 3. He was (still is) rather precocious. However, it was really nothing *I* did. It was just something in him. Four others learned at the normal age of 5 or so. I have one who is intellectually disabled, and at age 13 he is still trying to learn to read. I really don't agree that "any 2-3 year old" can learn to read. That's hogwash.

 

You might have a better response if you crosspost your question on the accelerated learners board (if you haven't already).

Edited August 31, 2016 by Kinsa

[Sarah0000]

I can't say that I taught my toddler to read beyond simple things like running my finger under words while reading aloud and playing with moveable letters and making words. Even after he started reading I made him things like phonics flip charts and word ladders to make sure he understood how sounds go together even though he could read the words well. And now at four and reading fluently I am doing syllabication and some word study with him just to make sure he continues to see the parts of words even though he doesn't technically need it for reading.

 

ETA: Like a PP my son is also precocious in writing and math. Academically he is not a typical child.

Edited August 31, 2016 by Sarah0000

[Runningmom80]

My son taught himself to read around 2 by memorizing what words looked like.  He started intuiting phonics around 2.5 and I helped him with letters and sounds he didn't know. 

 

He's highly gifted, his siblings are moderately gifted and read at 4, through direct instruction at Montessori school.  They knew their letters before entering but did not leap ahead like their older brother.  He had a strong desire and they did not.

 

ETA: To your question, I think there are some precocious kids who show readiness, but in my experience, it wasn't a "oh look, he is showing reading readiness signs," it was more like "Oh crap, the toddler just read me an inappropriate magazine headline."

Edited August 31, 2016 by Runningmom80

[Arcadia]

My 5 year old niece was in preschool since 2 years old in SE Asia. They taught English phonics, and chinese characters mainly through flashcards and then copywork/handwriting. The ratio is about 1 credentialed childcare teacher to 8 kids. Compulsory bilingual education starts at 6 years old (primary one) for her.

 

My two kids self taught early so we take no credit. They read graffiti on toilet walls and doors at Target correctly :p

[forty-two]

For a slightly different perspective, my mom taught me to read as a 2yo (started around 18mo).  She did 100% whole word teaching (it was how she learned herself, and the method in the "Teach Your Baby to Read" book she had), and per family stories, I was reading things I hadn't seen/learned before at 2y10m.  I can't remember a time where I couldn't read, and I remember reading Trixie Belden books in kindergarten.  I had no phonics until a smattering of early-Explode-the-Code type worksheets in 2nd, which were trivial, so I more-or-less intuited basic phonics before that point.  I did test as highly gifted in school.  My sister learned in a similar way on a similar timeline.

 

When my oldest dd learned all her letters and sounds before she was two, I thought she might learn to read early, too.  But I was staunch phonics-only (saw weaknesses in my reading skills, even though I was a confident and prolific reader), and didn't go the whole-word approach.  I think dd10 could have learned early if I had gone whole word - she was learning words as wholes on her own and at 4yo completely confused dh and me about whether she was reading - she knew things she could only have learned from reading them, yet she could not blend or even connect the sounded-out /c/ /a/ /t/ with the whole word /cat/.  I introduced the idea of beginning blending several times over the preschool years, but she was never "ready".  I started teaching her phonics at  5.5yo anyway, and after a year on CVC words something clicked and she was reading.  Reading almost entirely by sight (despite very strict phonics-only teaching), as it turned out - blending and other phonetic "reading readiness" skills *never* clicked for her (like they never clicked for me, and like they never clicked for my mom) - she failed the Barton pre-screening as a fluent reader.  I've been spending her 3rd and 4th grade years covertly remediating those missing skills in the guise of spelling and cursive handwriting work (and painfully remediating my own missing skills as a thirtysomething adult). 

 

IDK what the moral of that story is.  Other than I wonder if I knew then what I know now, if I could have taught those missing skills at 2-3yo, instead of waiting to 5.5 before starting to teach them - because those "reading readiness" skills weren't ever going to magically appear for my kids, not at any age.  (Based on my experience with my oldest and my growing understanding of the phonemic processing challenges my family has (my middle likewise failed the Barton pre-screening, though prior to phonics instruction), I didn't even try to start prior to 5.5yo with either my middle or my youngest.)

[Tanaqui]

Some children are ready to read at 2 or 3. Many of those children will teach themselves with little or no instruction. (Perhaps more would learn with formal instruction, but there's no real benefit to learning to read early, and it's an exercise in frustration for most toddlers.)

 

If your child is asking for reading lessons, by all means, provide them - but if they're not ready, as you've discovered, it just won't stick.

[Runningmom80]

I honestly don't even know what the "readiness" signs are.  I didn't have time to give them a thought before my oldest was reading, and I didn't worry about them with my twins.

[OneStepAtATime]

I will preface this by saying I have a lot of family who are teachers so I have been around various approaches to education my whole life.  Also, I learned to read very early without any phonics.  I learned through whole word exposure...

 

I do not believe that every single child on the planet can be taught to read at the age of 2 or 3 and scientific research backs this up.  Why can't we ALL learn to read by 2 or 3 if we are given some sort of specific special instruction that worked for some other 2 or 3 year old?  Because we are human beings, with a wide diversity of abilities and developmental paths and pacing.  We are not manufactured in a plant.  Some kids are going to be ready at 2.  Some (most) won't be ready until later, sometimes much later.  And some are going to learn well through whole language exposure while others will need phonics based instruction.  All of us are different.  Anyone who says ALL kids can do something by a certain age if they are taught "x" way are deluding themselves and are failing to follow the latest scientific research regarding the human brain.

 

My daughter, in 7 years of brick and mortar school, did not learn to read well.  It was not lack of effort or lack of intelligence.  It was that her brain could not learn to read through whole language instruction, which is all the school provided.  When I moved her to a very detailed, phonics based program in 6th grade she learned to read.  I started reading by 3, with no phonics at all.  Was I a brighter child than my daughter?  Not even close.  In some areas she swims circles around me.  The difference is that 1. I was ready to read developmentally and  2.  Whole language, which is what I was exposed to, worked for my particular brain.  

 

Honestly, if I had needed heavy phonics instead I would have been in serious trouble because the educational system was moving away from phonics and my mother, a reading specialist, had been brainwashed into believing that phonics was evil and antiquated and only whole language instruction worked well.  She admits now that she was wrong.  She recognizes now, after a LOT of years of teaching reading, that some kids need phonics and others need whole language and still others need a blend or something else altogether, etc.

 

I wish I could show you some amazing program that can teach ALL 2 or 3 year olds to read.  There is no such magic program.  Those who had success with teaching a 2 or 3 year old to read had a kid (or kids) that was developmentally ready and they just happened to use something that worked well with that particular child's brain or the child was gifted in this area so did not need a reading program.

 

Perhaps someone else will respond with what they feel is an amazing program or way of approaching reading that they are convinced will work for every single child at age 2 or 3.  Perhaps it will work for many.  It will not work for all.

 

Best wishes...

[Haiku]

I'm just curious, bc I hear a lot about "reading readiness" and waiting until the kiddo is "ready", and then I hear folks talk about teaching their  2/3 year olds (moderately bright or average intelligence) to read because it's just a "skill." I feel like I've heard a lot from the "reading readiness" camp, and so I'd like to hear from the "any 2/3 yo can be taught to read" camp.

 

Reading is a skill. But like most skills, not everyone can learn it at the same time, or ever, really.

 

People who say that any kid can learn to read as a toddler are guilty of trying to squash all kids into the same box that any public school who says all kids should be reading at five are.

 

My dd started learning to read when she was three but didn't really care to put much effort into it until she was nearly 6. She's very bright and academically advanced.

 

My ds was still struggling to read at 9 or 10 and now, at 13, still doesn't read on grade level or with comfortable fluency despite tutoring for dyslexia and an intense focus on reading skills.

 

My ds is a gifted hockey goalie. Being a hockey goalie is a skill that, supposedly, anyone could learn, but few will ever really excel at it (to point of being elite level, like my son). Most people can learn to read, but few will be gifted, early, or precocious readers.

[luuknam]

Disclaimer: neither of my kids are normal - my oldest has HFA, which can be associated with hyperlexia, and my youngest is ahead in just about everything.

 

I have to agree with forty-two above. I think they mostly learned by whole word at that age. I did sound stuff out and all that, but it seems that didn't really register all that much - I put my oldest through a phonics program with a lot of nonsense words (Toe by Toe) from 6-8yo because he was reading above grade level but couldn't even sound out CVCs (despite, like I said, me having sounded stuff out, and him have completed 3 years of public school before we started that where they taught phonics as well). And after completing that this spring I started All About Spelling with him this summer to keep reinforcing the phonics because he was still making crazy spelling mistakes (his spelling was above grade level as well, but the mistakes made no sense if you sounded them out). With my youngest I don't think we'll be doing a phonics program, per se, but after oldest finished AAS 1 I started youngest on AAS 1 mostly for phonics practice (and segmenting... turns out that at 5yo he could decode 5th grade level words without being able to segment... ???). He was also spelling above grade level, fwiw. But, trouble spelling words he didn't know because he wasn't sure how to segment a word.

 

Anyway, as to *how* they ended up reading at almost 3 or 3yo or so... I ran my finger under anything I read to them right from the start. I read alphabet books a zillion times. I'd let them them fill in words they knew when reading (pause finger, have them say the word before continuing). Like I said, I did sound words like cat out... but I'm not sure how much of that registered.

[SKL]

Having taught a variety of kids reading, it really depends on the individual.  There are some intelligent kids who cannot read that young, period.  For them, the time is better spent doing things they can succeed at, many of which promote their readiness to read.

 

The kids who have been able to begin reading for me prior to 4yo have had good vision and naturally excellent visual memories, and quickly understood the letter-sound relationships.  Going from there to word building / sounding out and sight words was a matter of relaxed repetition.

 

In my personal experience, the intelligent kids who could not read early had vision issues.  They did other things early.  One could pick out tunes on the piano at 2yo.  Another could pump her own swing on the playground at 2yo.  A third could cook eggs for breakfast at 2yo.  Early reading just wasn't in their cards.

[luuknam]

Oh, btw, my mom tried to teach me using whole word the summer before 1st grade (around my 6th birthday) because I was begging her to teach me to read (they didn't (don't?) teach reading in NL until 1st grade). I didn't 'get' it at all, and was super frustrated. Then, in 1st grade, they had the alphabet on the front wall, and they explained a few letters, and it clicked (I knew the alphabet song before then, but didn't knew the letters made individual sounds). Within weeks I was reading well above grade level, before they'd even gone through all the letters in the alphabet - once I figured out the concept of phonics, the rest was easy (Dutch phonics is easier than English phonics, fwiw). There's a decent chance I could've learned to read at a younger age if someone had explained phonics before then, but we'll never know. So whole word did not work at all for me, but my kids seem to be wired for it.

Edited August 31, 2016 by luuknam

[mamiof5]

I have been curious about this in the past, was thinking about trying it out many years ago, with now 12 and 10 years old. Dh suggested to just let them be kids, and that was the end of that 😂.

 

Our current almost 2yr old? No way. He's too busy playing cars and trains...no interest in letters or anything related. He does like it when you read to him, but is just looking at the pictures... couldn't care less about the words.

[4KookieKids]

You might have a better response if you crosspost your question on the accelerated learners board (if you haven't already).

Thing is- I'm not asking about particularly bright kids. I'm asking bc I saw this topic discussed a long time ago, and I recall a few posts from parents who taught all their kids and even extended family kids to read by age two. It was so far back, I can't find the old thread anymore, and maybe those folks don't frequent these boards anymore? I'm not sure, but I always like hearing how folks do things differently! :)

[Monica_in_Switzerland]

Of my three oldest:

 

Child 1 could read three letter words at age 3.5

Child 2 could read three letter words at age 3.5

Child 3 was 4.5 before she could blend.  We very gently revisited blending from time to time beginning around the age her siblings could (they all knew their letter sounds from age 2.5 or so).  Blending was simply not possible for her this young.  Then, she woke up one morning, we attempted a three letter word... and she could blend.  This was about a month ago.  She can now read things like "I pet the big, fat pig."  

 

Blending is like walking.  You can't force it, it just happens.  And yes, we played so many readiness games and rhyming games and segmenting games and...  

 

 

[Monica_in_Switzerland]

Thing is- I'm not asking about particularly bright kids. I'm asking bc I saw this topic discussed a long time ago, and I recall a few posts from parents who taught all their kids and even extended family kids to read by age two. It was so far back, I can't find the old thread anymore, and maybe those folks don't frequent these boards anymore? I'm not sure, but I always like hearing how folks do things differently! :)

 

I think anyone who is getting a neurotypical kid to read before 2 is using a whole word flashcard approach, and this generally leads to major burnout and ultimate failure, not to mention the child not actually being able to "read".  

[forty-two]

Thing is- I'm not asking about particularly bright kids. I'm asking bc I saw this topic discussed a long time ago, and I recall a few posts from parents who taught all their kids and even extended family kids to read by age two. It was so far back, I can't find the old thread anymore, and maybe those folks don't frequent these boards anymore? I'm not sure, but I always like hearing how folks do things differently! :)

 

I remember a poster here who had a blog about teaching young kids to read (starting around 18mo, aiming for reading fluently by age 5): https://teachingmybabytoread.com/static/  She isn't claiming that *all* kids can achieve that but that many can, and that all kids can learn *something* beneficial through child-friendly early reading instruction, even if they do not learn to read early.

[SKL]

My kid who had vision issues used to actively avoid looking at letters and words.  I think it made her head swim because of her convergence issues.  In a way it was good that I at least noticed that, as it prompted me to get her checked and pursue therapy.  But no, it would not have been good for her to be required to work on letters and words as a tot.

 

There is some research indicating that kids are more likely to require glasses in populations where the norm is to start everyone on reading early.

[forty-two]

Of my three oldest:

 

Child 1 could read three letter words at age 3.5

Child 2 could read three letter words at age 3.5

Child 3 was 4.5 before she could blend.  We very gently revisited blending from time to time beginning around the age her siblings could (they all knew their letter sounds from age 2.5 or so).  Blending was simply not possible for her this young.  Then, she woke up one morning, we attempted a three letter word... and she could blend.  This was about a month ago.  She can now read things like "I pet the big, fat pig."  

 

Blending is like walking.  You can't force it, it just happens.  And yes, we played so many readiness games and rhyming games and segmenting games and...  

 

I agree that you can't *force* either to happen when the precursor developmental skills aren't there.  But on the other hand, for non-neurotypical kids, where the precursor developmental skills *aren't* "just happening" on their own, you most certainly *can* explicitly work on the missing skills and build them up on purpose.  (As I said, blending *doesn't* "just happen" in my family.  My mom is in her 60s and can't blend; my sister is in her 30s and can't blend; I realized I couldn't blend in my 30s and have been using what I've learned to help my kids on myself; I taught my oldest dd to blend at age 9, *after* she was a fluent reader for over two years - even a year of pure phonics teaching (and a few years practicing) wasn't enough to get her blending.)

 

So, in theory, why can't you do the same with neurotypical kids?  Identify what skills they are missing, start at the beginning of the sequence, and - gently and in a child-friendly way - build them up one-by-one.  I mean, I know why people mostly don't - explicitly working to build skills that usually develop naturally without intervention can be a *ton* more work than waiting and letting them happen naturally.  So usually you only do it when it's clear that it's *not* going to happen naturally no matter how long you wait.  But it does seem like you *could* do it if it mattered to you.  Kind of gently encourage the development of each stage to happen earlier rather than later.  With NT kids, it might not change the overall timing much from what "would have happened", but maybe it would - especially if you gently persist when kids plateau (as you do with non-NT kids) instead of giving up and waiting for it to happen naturally. 

 

That is what I think happens with most early teaching when it stops coming easily - people take a break instead of persisting.  Which is understandable and may well be the best use of time and effort - it's hard work to be cheerfully and gently persistent in the face of no progress, especially when you don't "need" to be - when there's a real expectation it will come on its own sooner or later.  That's the main difference I see between the non-obsessive, non-build-a-baby-genius approach to serious early learning and the typical approach to early learning - whether you value it enough to persist even when there's a) no *need* to do it (kid's not begging for it) and b) there's no obvious progress.  Do you value it enough to keep going even if, in the end, it makes no measurable long-term difference?

Edited August 31, 2016 by forty-two

[Josh Blade]

Our daughter read Hop on Pop by herself just before her third birthday (end of December last year). We had started 100 Easy Lessons with her sometime in August, so that was 4-5 months worth of lessons (She was round lesson 85 or so if I recall). She had known what all of the upper/lower case letters looked like and their basic sounds since about 18 months. So she had known the letter sounds for almost a year before we started instruction. She learned the names and sounds through Bob Book Pre Readers (a book for every 2-3 letters) which my wife and I ready way too many times, a wooden letter puzzle, and lots of Leap Frog movies (specifically Letter Factory). 

 

I really like how 100 EL has you sound out words. It really tries to stress stretching the sounding out into one long word. So, instead of: C...A...T, you hear CCCCAAAATTTT. Every time our daughter would fall into trying to sound out a word with disjointed sounds, we'd tell her to take a deep breath and say the whole word (prompting if needed). Even after finishing 100EL, her fluency wasn't great. She could sound out a lot of words, but when she would read a book, it was more like she was reading a collection of words instead of reading sentences. She could understand what was happening in the story, but it honestly didn't sound great (relative to reading fluently at least. It sounded great for a 2-3 year old). She's 3.5 now and suddenly in the past 2 weeks something has just clicked for her and her fluency has greatly improved. It was almost an overnight change and we've been doing reading lessons for just over a year. 

 

I guess what I'm saying is I think there are definitely some developmental aspects, but you can probably help push those developmental dates up with a little bit of effort as well. 

[ReadingMama1214]

Our daughter read Hop on Pop by herself just before her third birthday (end of December last year). We had started 100 Easy Lessons with her sometime in August, so that was 4-5 months worth of lessons (She was round lesson 85 or so if I recall). She had known what all of the upper/lower case letters looked like and their basic sounds since about 18 months. So she had known the letter sounds for almost a year before we started instruction. She learned the names and sounds through Bob Book Pre Readers (a book for every 2-3 letters) which my wife and I ready way too many times, a wooden letter puzzle, and lots of Leap Frog movies (specifically Letter Factory).

 

I really like how 100 EL has you sound out words. It really tries to stress stretching the sounding out into one long word. So, instead of: C...A...T, you hear CCCCAAAATTTT. Every time our daughter would fall into trying to sound out a word with disjointed sounds, we'd tell her to take a deep breath and say the whole word (prompting if needed). Even after finishing 100EL, her fluency wasn't great. She could sound out a lot of words, but when she would read a book, it was more like she was reading a collection of words instead of reading sentences. She could understand what was happening in the story, but it honestly didn't sound great (relative to reading fluently at least. It sounded great for a 2-3 year old). She's 3.5 now and suddenly in the past 2 weeks something has just clicked for her and her fluency has greatly improved. It was almost an overnight change and we've been doing reading lessons for just over a year.

 

I guess what I'm saying is I think there are definitely some developmental aspects, but you can probably help push those developmental dates up with a little bit of effort as well.

I agree. I think there need to be the developmental foundational aspects, but parents can help home those skills. My Dd started sounding out words at 3.5. We explored that for a bit and then started OPGTR. She is about halfway through and probably a 1st grade level?

 

She has a friend who attends her preschool but is a grade ahead. Dd was in prek3 last year and he was in prek4. His mom said that he had started to read but that she was, "leaving the teaching to read to his teachers." He still read some, but I imagine if his mom had decided to work on it with him that he would have developed more as a reader. I imagine that he will catch on quickly though.

 

There are parents who see their kids picking up skills and then decide to practice and hone those skills. Then there are those who believe educating is up to the schools and while they notice skills and praise then, they have no desire to teach.

[hepatica]

There's a simple, scientific explanation for why you can't teach all kids to read at age 2 using one set method - that is because not all brains are doing the same thing when they are reading. We have known this, factually, ever since we have had brain imaging technology.

 

So, yes, reading is a skill. But it is not just one skill. Different brains are activated in different places/ways while they are engaged in this skill. 

 

It will likely take thousands and thousands of years for the human brain to evolve to "read" the way it has evolved to walk and talk. We simply haven't, as a species, been reading long enough for that to happen. So our brains are literally making it up as we go along. My brain does it this way, your brain does it that way. 

 

What we do know about reading instruction is that we cast the widest successful net when we teach all kids with comprehensive phonics starting at age 6 or so. If you are looking for tried and true methods of instruction before that, then it is really just hit or miss. People who say otherwise simply don't have enough experience, or are setting a pretty low bar for what it means to "read."

[Bluegoat]

I'm just curious, bc I hear a lot about "reading readiness" and waiting until the kiddo is "ready", and then I hear folks talk about teaching their 2/3 year olds (moderately bright or average intelligence, not super bright who self teach) to read because it's just a "skill." I feel like I've heard a lot from the "reading readiness" camp, and so I'd like to hear from the "any 2/3 yo can be taught to read" camp.

 

How have you done it? With multiple children? How long did it take?

 

Disclaimer: My third kiddo just turned 3 and I'm *not* in a rush to get her reading. I've just noticed that, despite paying attention to older sibs' school work, no amount of practicing blending "c.......at" "c.....at" "c..at" gets her to "cat". And it's really just made me curious how folks actually teach a kid that young to read. :)

 

I'm not concerned about my child or wishing things were different or even looking for advice. I'm also not really wondering about kids who taught themselves to read. I'm honestly just curious to hear from the minority of folks who don't really follow the mindset that reading is *primarily* a skill you learn when you're "ready" and is instead a skill that can be taught to very young children.

 

Surfing is a skill too, but you aren't going to teach a six week old to do it, because their body and brain is not yet capable of aquiring that skill.

 

There seem to be some outlier kids who have the brain and eye development to read at very young ages.  I would be very suspicious of anyone who claimed that all or even most toddlers have it.

 

What particularly would worry me is that sometimes you can get something done when the development isn't there by a kind of cheating - so say, the child isn't ready to decode, really, but she might be able to memorize the appearance of quite a lot of words by sight.  But is that really reading, and will it cause problems in the future as you expect reading to progress?  What about eye strain on such a young child, over time?

 

You could in many cases also ask wider questions - such as what will the comprehension be even if the words are read, or how long does it take the child to learn this skill and what other skills that are more developmentally appropriate for the child to be working on is it taking time away from.  Will it be possible to learn those other skills well later or do they have a developmental window?

[Runningmom80]

I think anyone who is getting a neurotypical kid to read before 2 is using a whole word flashcard approach, and this generally leads to major burnout and ultimate failure, not to mention the child not actually being able to "read".  

 

Yes, exactly.

[4KookieKids]

Thanks so much for all your thoughts! It's really interesting to me to consider, even if I do tend to have "better late than early" leanings! We potty train earlier than most people we know, and get a LOT of flak for it bc folks assume I'm pushing a kid before they're "ready." I see certain similarities in the two conversations, even if there are also marked differences as well. :)

[OneStepAtATime]

By the way, for those saying that skills can be boosted earlier than they might have developed on their own if a parent targets specific areas, that is true for many kids, possibly most...up to a point.  As has also been mentioned, though, there can also be a kind of "cheat" affect where the parent is working hard on targeted skills before the child is developmentally ready and the child then learns to mimic those skills, not truly understand or master them.  

 

For instance, a neighbor used word flash cards with her daughter from the time she was 6 months old.  She would say the words over and over while flashing the cards in front of her child.  She would do this while we were even at the park.  Eventually the child was able to say the words that were associated with the flash cards.  Her mother insisted she was now reading.  She was not.  When she went to school she could not read.  All she could do was repeat the sounds associated with those cards when the cards were presented to her.  She had not learned to "read".  She had learned to mimic.  

 

My daughter learned how to mimic reading and even math, too, but actually had very little understanding of what she was doing.  I had worked with her at home, my mom worked with her, the teachers worked with her.  What we did not understand was that we were approaching the material in a way her brain could not process it, and honestly we probably started her too young thinking we could boost her ability to read at an early age.  We were wrong.  She learned to mimic but did not understand what she was doing and could not apply what she was mimicking to other scenarios.  I had to change our approach before she could truly learn reading and math.

 

Does that mean that no one should ever try to teach reading to a 2 or 3 year old?  No.  Gosh no.  Some kids are absolutely ready.  Go for it.  If they aren't, though, then it can be detrimental to keep pushing if they aren't.  There are SO MANY THINGS that children that age could be learning that are just as developmentally important, if not more so, than early reading skills.  I am grateful my mom taught me to read at 3.  I love reading.  I was ready.  But if I hadn't been, I would hope she would not have pressed me to read even if I was not yet ready to do so.

[Monica_in_Switzerland]

I agree that you can't *force* either to happen when the precursor developmental skills aren't there.  But on the other hand, for non-neurotypical kids, where the precursor developmental skills *aren't* "just happening" on their own, you most certainly *can* explicitly work on the missing skills and build them up on purpose.  (As I said, blending *doesn't* "just happen" in my family.  My mom is in her 60s and can't blend; my sister is in her 30s and can't blend; I realized I couldn't blend in my 30s and have been using what I've learned to help my kids on myself; I taught my oldest dd to blend at age 9, *after* she was a fluent reader for over two years - even a year of pure phonics teaching (and a few years practicing) wasn't enough to get her blending.)

 

So, in theory, why can't you do the same with neurotypical kids?  Identify what skills they are missing, start at the beginning of the sequence, and - gently and in a child-friendly way - build them up one-by-one.  I mean, I know why people mostly don't - explicitly working to build skills that usually develop naturally without intervention can be a *ton* more work than waiting and letting them happen naturally.  So usually you only do it when it's clear that it's *not* going to happen naturally no matter how long you wait.  But it does seem like you *could* do it if it mattered to you.  Kind of gently encourage the development of each stage to happen earlier rather than later.  With NT kids, it might not change the overall timing much from what "would have happened", but maybe it would - especially if you gently persist when kids plateau (as you do with non-NT kids) instead of giving up and waiting for it to happen naturally. 

 

That is what I think happens with most early teaching when it stops coming easily - people take a break instead of persisting.  Which is understandable and may well be the best use of time and effort - it's hard work to be cheerfully and gently persistent in the face of no progress, especially when you don't "need" to be - when there's a real expectation it will come on its own sooner or later.  That's the main difference I see between the non-obsessive, non-build-a-baby-genius approach to serious early learning and the typical approach to early learning - whether you value it enough to persist even when there's a) no *need* to do it (kid's not begging for it) and b) there's no obvious progress.  Do you value it enough to keep going even if, in the end, it makes no measurable long-term difference?

 

 

 

Maybe you could advance certain skills by... a month?  two months?  Could we, through patience and perisirant work teach a 2 year old to jog a mile in ten minutes?  Could we teach them their multiplication tables if we just work at it enough?  Could we, through persistent and cheerful training, get them to state the scientific name of every local wildflower in our nearby green space?  

 

For the flowers, probably yes because kids are born imitators.  For reading and jogging, my guess is no.  Children who are 2 years old are naturally wired to be paying attention to certain specific things... and none of those things are communication through two dimensional symbol systems.  Maybe, if you had a people-pleasing toddler you could get him to try really, really, really hard to make mommy happy by reading cat.  But here's the thing:  everything has an opportunity cost.  When you ask your 2 year old to dedicate that kind of attention to... blending symbols together into a word they may or may not actually understand to begin with, but certainly don't understand out of context as one of many squiggles on a page, what you are doing is also limiting their ability to *actually* form necessary understanding of their world.  

 

Maybe some people have two years olds that are not like mine.  My two year old is still learning to TALK.  If I play a reading-readiness game with him like saying /c/ /a/ /t/ and trying to get him to figure out what I'm talking about... well... what I'm NOT doing is speaking to him normally, pointing out that cats have fur and pointed ears and whiskers.  And yes, I could do both things I suppose, but as you mentioned, why spend a two years (maybe?) patiently saying "/c/ /a/ /t/ says cat!", when I could simply wait two years, spend two weeks saying it, and be done?  What has been gained?   

[SKL]

I don't know the order 100 lessons takes, but everyone seems to talk about starting with "cat."  So I just thought I'd share a thought.

 

When I was studying to be a special ed teacher about 100 years ago, I read about a method designed for dyslexic kids.  The method starts with soft / hummy consonants so you don't have to chop words up like kh aa t.  For example fan, fffaaannn, you can say without any stops and it sounds like a word.  Seems to me that would be the smart way to start phonics with any kid.  By the time you've played with words using f,h,l,m,n,r,s you have lots of practice sounding out, and then it's not so hard to try some words ending with a hard consonant (sat, rat, sad, had...) and finally beginning with a hard consonant.

 

With my early reader, she sort of picked which words she learned first, but the other kid benefited from the above.

[fralala]

Decoding is a skill, sure.

 

Really reading requires a lot more than decoding, and I think many people aren't so much on the side of "delaying reading until a child shows readiness", but rather interested in focusing on helping kids acquire the vast amounts of background knowledge, vocabulary, and grammar sense that are required for becoming good readers. I think learning to decode comes more naturally when the words aren't gibberish. (I, for instance, can decode Cyrillic but have a very limited Russian vocabulary, and therefore feel no motivation to even try.)

[macmacmoo]

With my eldest i thought he'd be an early reader because at his second birthday he knew all his letters and sounds.

My mom had been a tiger mom so with her nagging in the back of my ear and me on  the premise of well if he is ready why should i hold him back... yeah it was a very very very stressful few years.

Blending two letters didn't take shape till he was about four.

CVC didn't take hold till about five.

at seven he is right on level with his peers.

 

With the other kids i didn't push them along if they showed early signs. if they figured out letter and sounds at an early age yay! But i just wait till five or six now to do formal phonics lessons and every one is happier (and i'm a how lot less stressed about it)

[MotherGoose]

My daughter started reading at late 3 years old, in the "cat" cat sort of way. So I'm not really the person to whom you are speaking. But she showed all the signs of readiness, was driving me crazy asking what words said, etc. she was ready. If they start younger, I think it's either just that they are completely precocious and you are mainly holding on for the ride, or else you've spent untold hours of time better spent by a 2 or 3 year old digging in the dirt making them memorize words. And another question is, why would anyone want to do this other than for bragging rights? Some kids just do it because they are profoundly gifted. But the regular kids, even the bright ones, would better spend their time doing something else than being taught to read. You have the rest of your life to read but only a short window where running around in a diaper and throwing mud is fun. Read books to them of course. Talk about letters, etc. I read "teach your baby to read." In a lot of ways, precocious reading causes problems. I had to hide the newspaper from my 1st grader because I didn't want her to read it. We had trouble finding books that were on her emotional level and her reading level. She couldn't do any curricula that tied reading and writing together in any way. I wanted to do Sonlight or one of those with her, but it was impossible. I wouldn't change anything for HER, because she was ready and wanted to read, but I'm just cautioning those who might be reading this thread who want to push their kids (not the Op) to read early, that there are disadvantages. My middle dd is slightly advanced, but it's lovely to pick up books that are on her grade level or maybe a couple of grades ahead (not 5-6 grades ahead), and have her do them.

[ReadingMama1214]

By the way, for those saying that skills can be boosted earlier than they might have developed on their own if a parent targets specific areas, that is true for many kids, possibly most...up to a point.  As has also been mentioned, though, there can also be a kind of "cheat" affect where the parent is working hard on targeted skills before the child is developmentally ready and the child then learns to mimic those skills, not truly understand or master them.  

 

 

My daughter learned how to mimic reading and even math, too, but actually had very little understanding of what she was doing.  I had worked with her at home, my mom worked with her, the teachers worked with her.  What we did not understand was that we were approaching the material in a way her brain could not process it, and honestly we probably started her too young thinking we could boost her ability to read at an early age.  We were wrong.  She learned to mimic but did not understand what she was doing and could not apply what she was mimicking to other scenarios.  I had to change our approach before she could truly learn reading and math.

 

  

I am wondering what you mean by "mimic". What does it look like for a child to mimic skills rather than learn them? For example, if you have a child who starts to read simple words on their own and then you begin phonics lessons, how do you tell whether the child is mimicking or not? I could see this with whole language approaches, but I am genuinely curious as to what mimicking of skills looks like in real life. It would be helpful to know how to distinguish between gaining skills and mimicking them. 

[HomeAgain]

I don't know the order 100 lessons takes, but everyone seems to talk about starting with "cat."  So I just thought I'd share a thought.

 

When I was studying to be a special ed teacher about 100 years ago, I read about a method designed for dyslexic kids.  The method starts with soft / hummy consonants so you don't have to chop words up like kh aa t.  For example fan, fffaaannn, you can say without any stops and it sounds like a word.  Seems to me that would be the smart way to start phonics with any kid.  By the time you've played with words using f,h,l,m,n,r,s you have lots of practice sounding out, and then it's not so hard to try some words ending with a hard consonant (sat, rat, sad, had...) and finally beginning with a hard consonant.

 

With my early reader, she sort of picked which words she learned first, but the other kid benefited from the above.

 

100 EZ starts just like that: sa, am, ma...all letters created with different strokes, too.  It slowly builds up to introducing a hard letter (and a different symbol under it to show you 'read it fast')

 

To the conversation, there were markers we looked for, and some we created, before teaching how to read in an organized manner.

 

Stage 1 was learning speech.  Talking about everything and anything from birth on, always having baby at eye level.

Stage 2 introduced visual discrimination - simple puzzles, learning how things fit together.  Many of our puzzles had similar pieces (like all shades of blue rectangles, or all green triangles of different sizes)

Stage 3 introduced whole to part breakdown - looking at a picture and recreating the shape.

Stage 4 was auditory discrimination - being able to play with sounds and mimic or hear differences.

 

 

We introduced plastic letters as sounds starting at age 2, giving him the set one by one as they were learned, but there was no way my kid was ready to read before age 4.  He was done with lessons in 3 months, though.  Most of the things we did people do with their kids anyway.  They just don't call it anything or even think of it as a precursor to reading.

[drjuliadc]

You are definitely looking for me.  This isn't a good board to ask this question though because teaching early reading is discouraged here.  I think most who do it use the Doman method or offshoots of it.

 

I started at birth with my now 3 year old and at 22 months old with my now 5 year old.  My 3 year old could read every sight word I had ever shown him by 15 months old and could phonetically decode almost anything by 22 months old.  That was the age he went to preschool and the teachers told me he read the word "chocolate" when they put it on the board.  That is also the age he read the words "liquid highways" off of a sign at the park.

 

My 5 year old could read by 2 1/2.  It is actually easier for a child to read than it is for them to speak.  My 3 year old could read many, many more words than he ever spoke at 22 months old.  My 5 year old could only say "woof woof" at 22 months old and by the time he was reading had pretty impressive speech.  Teaching him to read was the best thing I did for his speech.

 

I was seriously impressed with Glenn Doman before I ever had kids.  He was talking neuroplasticity for 20 -30 years at least before anyone else.  It wasn't his reading stuff that I was exposed to either, it was his work with brain injured children that I was aware of. He was listed as a reference repeatedly in a neurodevelopmental disorders of childhood course I was taking.

 

Shortly after I took that year long course, I had a kindergarten teacher as a patient, who I absolutely loved anyway, show me a video of her 2 year old granddaughter reading beautifully.  She said she bought her Your Baby can Read and recommended it.  I later found out that program was based upon Doman's methods.

 

When I was pregnant with my first, I started looking into doing Doman stuff and found the Brillkids computer program.  It seemed to make the Doman method much easier. While Your Baby can Read had around 200 words, the software had around 2500 words.  I also liked that the software had shorter lessons, like 5 minutes instead of a 30 minute video.

 

I think the actual Doman method would be hard, but the software was astonishingly easy.  I have more to say but have to get the kids to school.

[drjuliadc]

OK, kids at school.

 

If you look on the Brillkids forum, which isn't very active now, look up old posts by aangeles or teachingmytoddlers for some great info.  Mandabplus3, kerileanne are also good.  I might not have spelled them OK. Also read any blogs that come up from frequent posters there.

 

When I say I started at birth, I mean I started visual discrimination stuff with my 3 year old soon after he was born.  Black and white picture books. I didn't do actual words until he was 3 months old.  When he was 3 months old we got guardianship of my oldest son who we eventually adopted.  He was 22 months old at the time.  That's why I didn't start with him until 22 months.

 

Doman is definitely a whole words method, but I taught phonics too.  When I say "taught," I'm talking very easy stuff for me.  My kids have very large heads so they don't do tummy time well at all.  I showed Preschool Prep videos to my 3 year old when he was 4 months old because he would hold his head up to watch them.  That was the only thing that motivated him to hold his head up for any length of time.  I only showed him to them for the time he was supposed to be in tummy time for his age and no other time.

 

Preschool Prep teaches phonics and sight words.  I have all of their DVDs, but I like to wait until a child can read before I teach letter names.  As far as alphabet, I only showed the letter sounds DVD.  I've never showed the alphabet DVD with letter names.  I just bought everything preschool prep sold at the time so the alphabet one came with it.

 

The only screens he saw other than that was the Brillkids software lesson twice a day that I think was 5 minutes each time.  I had my 22 month old in a booster chair eating so I held my 3 month old in my lap as the lesson played.  I did this every breakfast and lunch.  They were sitting there anyway.  I aimed for 7 days a week but hit about 5 days a week for 1 year.  After than I managed to do it about 3 days per week until my younger child was 20 months old and my older one was 3 1/2. 

 

I let my 22 month old watch 30 minutes of screens twice a day.  I needed something to occupy him so I could make dinner.  I don't allow any screens unless it is educational.  At first it was only preschool prep videos, then LeapFrog DVDs.

 

I also used physical flashcards and the books that came with the Brillkids software and the Preschool Prep sight words books.  I used preschool prep flashcards and all the flashcards from Monkisee.  I got some from Target too at the dollar spot.

 

I didn't use the physical flashcards anything like the Doman method says to.  I never found the time, but I think the way I did it worked.  I can't remember when I started showing them, but I would flash them to them, each child individually, as fast as I physically could.  My youngest wanted to see ALL the flashcards I had at once.  He wasn't happy when I stopped, so I showed them all to him maybe once per week.  I probably had 400 flash cards. Sounds like a lot, but if you show them as fast as you can, it doesn't take very long.  I'm guessing 5 minutes, maybe 10 at the most.

 

I also showed my older child readingbear.com once and only showed it to him when he asked for it after that, which was enough to get through maybe 1/2 of it.  That is blending and that is when his speech really took off.  I never got around to showing it to my younger.  It was definitely understanding what sound a letter made and knowing which letter sounds made up words that had a sharp and undeniable rocket fuel effect on his speech.  I was actually quite concerned about his speech before that.  He still wasn't clear, but he went from saying barely anything to way ahead of age level.

 

I think I pretty much did the "slacker" Doman method. Haha.  It worked for my two.  Whether it would work for anyone else, I don't know.  My mother died when my kids were 20 months and 3 1/2 and I didn't do anything active like that with them educationally after that.  When they started Montessori at almost 3 and 4, my younger child was at a 1st grade reading level and my older child at a 3rd grade reading level.

 

I see where people would think it was bad to teach a very young baby to read.  It would be bad to teach a baby to read they way they teach a 5 or 6 year old.  Even if I showed the flash cards slowly, the way you would think a baby would need to see them, they would lose interest.  You had to flash them super super fast.  Even faster than your hands could flash them would probably be better.  I didn't even show actual physical flashcards much to my oldest, because at 22 months old he was mobile and wasn't as interested by then.

 

Another VERY important point is that you don't require ANY output of a baby or toddler.  I don't even require any output of my 5 year old now.  That is a very big reason why it isn't developmentally inappropriate.  I really didn't know how much my youngest could decode until he started a 2 year old preschool class.  He wasn't 2 yet and I just needed two mornings a week to do bookkeeping for our practice.  The teachers just put him in the preschool class.  They were the ones who wrote stuff on the board to see what he could read.  It was so easy for him, he didn't mind so I didn't tell them not to do it.

 

The main reason I wanted to do this was because my husband's family has some dyslexia and my adopted son's bio mom is a very poor reader.  She is smart but had a horrible time in school because of reading so slowly.  There were also drugs involved with both parents and I know while he was in utero. I just figured if there were problems I would have more time to remediate them if I found out right away.

 

It was the best educational thing I ever could have done.  My oldest has a lot of confidence because of how he sees himself compared to others in his class, basically the best student in every area of his small Montessori class.  This is in our high socioeconomic area and he is the child adopted out of foster care from parents with drug problems.

 

I used Brillkids Little Reader software AND Brillkids Little Musician software.  The auditory discrimination part of reading is promoted with attempting to learn perfect pitch through the Little Musician software.  My children do not have perfect pitch as far as I know.

 

Although it sounds like maybe I did a lot educationally, it was very little time spent.  I also had a goal of getting them outside 3 hours each day.  I often reached that goal and usually got close.

 

I've had twins since then so I am less ambitious in all areas.  Ha ha.

 

Julia

[Guest]

I've had twins since then so I am less ambitious in all areas. Ha ha.

 

Julia

I started off with twins. So that's my excuse. (LOL)

[mathmarm]

How have you done it?

We taught reading with the "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks method" which means that we...

• labeled items around the house
• run our finger along when we read.
• have "Phonics time"
• play a huge selection of "phonics games"
• allowed "sight words"
• did buddy reading, letting him or encouraging him to read the words that he could sounds out or knew.
• read a ton to him.
• made reading a part of our daily routine
• got him his own library of books
• have a word-wall
• gave him a special reading folder and made a rewards chart for when he reads.
• Make it a family activity and endeavor that is just fun, fun, fun
• Cover sight words phonetically BUT use sight word readers to encourage fluency and "cement" recognition.

 

With multiple children?

We have a toddler who can read chapter books. I'm starting with my 2nd baby now.

 

 

How long did it take?

Hard to say exactly, we've been doing it "forever" as far as Jr is concerned but we started in earnest when he was about a year old I think that it took about 9 months to get him to a 2nd grade level phonetically.

[OneStepAtATime]

I am wondering what you mean by "mimic". What does it look like for a child to mimic skills rather than learn them? For example, if you have a child who starts to read simple words on their own and then you begin phonics lessons, how do you tell whether the child is mimicking or not? I could see this with whole language approaches, but I am genuinely curious as to what mimicking of skills looks like in real life. It would be helpful to know how to distinguish between gaining skills and mimicking them. 

Sorry, I only have a moment but I will try to dash off a quick explanation.

 

With regards to reading in particular, since that is what this thread is about, what DD was doing was things like carrying books around and pretending to silently read.  She was mimicking the behavior of others.  She was also really good at intuiting what picture based story was about, especially if she ahd heard it before, so she would "read" it to me but she wasn't actually associating specific sounds with specific words.  When she needed to read something out loud she would try listening to other kids read passages or she would get someone else to read a passage first or get me to read something to her first, then she would "read" it back to me.  She wasn't reading.  She was mimicking.  She actually was not decoding very much on her own.  My mother and the school all pushed whole language instruction.  I didn't even know what phonics instruction was.  For DD whole language did not help her learn to read because that is not how her brain processes but she got good at pretending to read.  She was mimicking.  If I had known more about reading and had been homeschooling her I probably would have recognized what was happening long before I did, but I trusted my mother the reading specialist who in turn had trusted the training she received.  I also trusted the school and the professionals to know what they were doing.  We worked a ton on stuff at home but we were using a system that did not work well for the way DD's brain perceives and processes written language.

 

Another example, with spelling we would be given all these words to rote memorize.  She and I would study 7 days a week trying to memorize those words.  She could often pass the test for that week, but she actually was not internalizing the words.  She was just sort of parroting them back in written form but as soon as we weren't constantly reviewing the information was lost again.  The next week she couldn't spell or read over half of the previous list.  We did this for years before I finally had her evaluated, found out she is dyslexic, pulled her from school and started her on a very in depth phonics based program for dyslexics.  She went from barely decoding Clifford books independently in 5th grade to reading Divergent a year and a half later.  She went from being completely unable to retain rote memorized spelling lists past a few days to spelling words she had never seen with at least a 95% success rate.  

 

Not sure that helps you much but I have to run.  Best wishes.

[ReadingMama1214]

Sorry, I only have a moment but I will try to dash off a quick explanation.

 

With regards to reading in particular, since that is what this thread is about, what DD was doing was things like carrying books around and pretending to silently read.  She was mimicking the behavior of others.  She was also really good at intuiting what picture based story was about, especially if she ahd heard it before, so she would "read" it to me but she wasn't actually associating specific sounds with specific words.  When she needed to read something out loud she would try listening to other kids read passages or she would get someone else to read a passage first or get me to read something to her first, then she would "read" it back to me.  She wasn't reading.  She was mimicking.  She actually was not decoding very much on her own.  My mother and the school all pushed whole language instruction.  I didn't even know what phonics instruction was.  For DD whole language did not help her learn to read because that is not how her brain processes but she got good at pretending to read.  She was mimicking.  If I had known more about reading and had been homeschooling her I probably would have recognized what was happening long before I did, but I trusted my mother the reading specialist who in turn had trusted the training she received.  I also trusted the school and the professionals to know what they were doing.  We worked a ton on stuff at home but we were using a system that did not work well for the way DD's brain perceives and processes written language.

 

Another example, with spelling we would be given all these words to rote memorize.  She and I would study 7 days a week trying to memorize those words.  She could often pass the test for that week, but she actually was not internalizing the words.  She was just sort of parroting them back in written form but as soon as we weren't constantly reviewing the information was lost again.  The next week she couldn't spell or read over half of the previous list.  We did this for years before I finally had her evaluated, found out she is dyslexic, pulled her from school and started her on a very in depth phonics based program for dyslexics.  She went from barely decoding Clifford books independently in 5th grade to reading Divergent a year and a half later.  She went from being completely unable to retain rote memorized spelling lists past a few days to spelling words she had never seen with at least a 95% success rate.  

 

Not sure that helps you much but I have to run.  Best wishes.

 That does help! Thank you. So essentially, it is mimicking the reading behaviors and using pictures to "read" the story. So a child who can decode phonetically is actually reading in this case.

 

I find reading specialists to be funny. And it varies greatly by where they were  taught. I had a friend who is getting her Masters to become a reading specialist tell me that I couldn't teach DD to read using 100% phonics method. She told me point blank that I needed to teach DD to look at context clues, picture clues, and sight words in order to truly teach her to read. I just gave up. DD is learning to read phonetically and while she may not be able to read the early readers, she is able to decode better than kids I have seen who were taught whole language. 

[drjuliadc]

I also wanted to mention that I hate the idea that anyone would feel like they weren't doing enough for their child for not doing any of this pretty eccentric stuff. In real life I've never met anyone who has done anything like it.

 

The moms on this forum are so far ahead of what anyone else is doing anyway.

 

I learned to read at the age they normally teach in school and did great and your kids will too.

 

...but in case you are naturally eccentric, like I am, you might want to look into it.  Giggle.

 

I know that one of the frequent posters on Brillkids had her daughter tested after really doing a lot of Doman stuff and her IQ was 99.5% percentile.  This was a mom who was a travel agent before full time mommying, so no PhD.  Think about it.  How could everything about the brain be plastic except IQ or intelligence?  ... not likely.

[OneStepAtATime]

 That does help! Thank you. So essentially, it is mimicking the reading behaviors and using pictures to "read" the story. So a child who can decode phonetically is actually reading in this case.

 

I find reading specialists to be funny. And it varies greatly by where they were  taught. I had a friend who is getting her Masters to become a reading specialist tell me that I couldn't teach DD to read using 100% phonics method. She told me point blank that I needed to teach DD to look at context clues, picture clues, and sight words in order to truly teach her to read. I just gave up. DD is learning to read phonetically and while she may not be able to read the early readers, she is able to decode better than kids I have seen who were taught whole language. 

I'm glad it helped.  Honestly, it seems that learning to read is something that really depends on the needs/abilities/developmental time table of each individual child.  Which makes perfect sense.  We are all individuals.  

 

DH hates reading unless it is manuals and reference papers.  I love reading all kinds of things, but while I will readily read manuals and reference papers out of necessity, I don't read them for pleasure and downtime like DH.  We're different.  Not better or worse, just different.

 

I learned to read very early with whole language instruction.  DD did not.  We can both read.  We just had different needs and were on different time tables.  :)

[ReadingMama1214]

I'm glad it helped. Honestly, it seems that learning to read is something that really depends on the needs/abilities/developmental time table of each individual child. Which makes perfect sense. We are all individuals.

 

DH hates reading unless it is manuals and reference papers. I love reading all kinds of things, but while I will readily read manuals and reference papers out of necessity, I don't read them for pleasure and downtime like DH. We're different. Not better or worse, just different.

 

I learned to read very early with whole language instruction. DD did not. We can both read. We just had different needs and were on different time tables. :)

I was reading fluently in preschool. But am not sure how much I was "taught". My mother claims to have taught me, but I highly doubt it haha. She was a young single working mom to 4.

 

Dd has learned young, but not insanely early. She learned phonetically. She learned the letter sounds through play and leap frog and then went to CVC from there.

 

But it's entirely individual. I wouldn't expect my son to do the same. We tend to follow developmental leads and interests.

[luuknam]

I know that one of the frequent posters on Brillkids had her daughter tested after really doing a lot of Doman stuff and her IQ was 99.5% percentile.  This was a mom who was a travel agent before full time mommying, so no PhD.

 

Please, you do not know someone's IQ by knowing what they did for a living. I was a truck driver for a while and I stacked boxes in a factory for a while before becoming a full time stay-at-home parent. I don't even have a BS, let alone a PhD. My IQ is >99.5th percentile (I've been tested at 11 and 19). FWIW, from what I remember, they say that IQ is about half nature and half nurture. Also, I have no idea at what age her daughter was IQ tested, but tests before 8yo aren't very reliable.

Edited September 1, 2016 by luuknam

[ReadingMama1214]

Please, you do not know someone's IQ by knowing what they did for a living. I was a truck driver for a while and I stacked boxes in a factory for a while before becoming a full time stay-at-home parent. I don't even have a BS, let alone a PhD. My IQ is >99.5th percentile (I've been tested at 11 and 19). FWIW, from what I remember, they say that IQ is about half nature and half nurture. Also, I have no idea at what age her daughter was IQ tested, but tests before 8yo aren't very reliable.

 

Thank you. I've kind of been ignoring the plug for teaching infants to read and silently rolling my eyes over here....

[drjuliadc]

Thank you. I've kind of been ignoring the plug for teaching infants to read and silently rolling my eyes over here....

Why didn't you ignore the whole thread if it was addressed to people who taught toddlers to read if you knew you would be offended by someone who did so?

[drjuliadc]

I was very impressed with the former travel agent mom on many levels. I do think she was very intelligent and I learned a lot from her. Mostly I loved how she took being a mother and educator so seriously and how she would look into any way she thought could be more effective at teaching her children.

 

There are many moms like that on this forum and I learn a lot here too.

 

Julia