For those who've taught toddlers to read

[JennSnow]

I haven't read through the entire thread but I'll chime in with my own experience with my two kiddos :).

Both could recognize the letters of the alphabet and knew the sounds they make by 15 months just from typical baby/toddler exposure...alphabet blocks, puzzles, books, and baby TV shows that exposed them to the letters/sounds.  With little instruction both could sound out simple CVC words sometime around turning 2.  By 3, once again, with little to no formal instruction both could read small sentences and simple BOB type books.  At some point they both had an "aha" moment..for both it was sometime between 3.5 and 4 where they just kind of took off with reading..the older kiddo was more of a sigh/whole word reader and seemed to intuit the phonics rules..the little kiddo seems to be following along a similar path although I'm making more of an effort to teach phonics with him because..I don't know..I keep reading that I'm supposed to, lol.  By the time the older kiddo turned 5 he was fluently reading chapter books..the younger kiddo is currently 4.5 and while he is ready to read chapter books I'm not sure his comprehension is quite yet ready for longer, more involved story lines.

So that's our story :).  

[ReadingMama1214]

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?

There's a difference between teaching a toddler who shows signs of being ready to read and programs such as Teach Your baby To Read. There are toddlers on the boards who started reading early and were then taught. I think that's different than sitting down with flash cards for an infant.

[drjuliadc]

There's a difference between teaching a toddler who shows signs of being ready to read and programs such as Teach Your baby To Read. There are toddlers on the boards who started reading early and were then taught. I think that's different than sitting down with flash cards for an infant.

The original poster said she felt she had heard plenty from the "reading readiness" crowd and wanted to hear from people who feel any child is ready.

 

I would not withold exposure to the auditory expression of language (speech) until a child showed signs of readiness OR the visual representation of language (written words).

[nature girl]

My DD is a very visual learner, and from a very early age (I'm talking before 2) was pointing to letters in books we read in the way she'd point to pictures asking what they were. So I'd just tell her the letter sound whenever she pointed, it was very casual, I had no intention of teaching her to read. She learned letter sounds extremely early that way, and at around 2.5 she strung the sounds together on a stop sign. I never taught her formally, never even used readers for her, she just understood the concept, loved books more than anything else (she has ADHD and it's one of the few things I could get her to sit still for) and was driven to learn on her own. She's not gifted at all, probably average intelligence, but reading is her "thing."

 

I was a little taken aback, although I never would have discouraged early learning and I went with the flow, if she hadn't been so interested I wouldn't have taught letter sounds early or taught reading before 5 or so. I've read that kids who are taught early don't read for pleasure later on, and I just don't see any benefit in it. Unless there are learning issues, all kids will read at basically the same level by 8. Sitting babies down with flash cards (I guess teaching sight words?) just seems silly to me, a waste of time, and actually detrimental in that it takes away from the learning that's actually important for toddlers.

 

The skills that will actually be needed for future success are creativity, problem solving, social skills and emotional regulation. (We're focusing on these last two more than anything else now, issues because of DD's ADHD, and I wish we'd dedicated more time to it at a very early age.) Sitting your young child down with a cardboard box, construction paper and markers is infinitely more valuable (and fun for them!) than sitting them down with flash cards or videos.

 

As a sidenote, my niece is in a Waldorf school where they don't start teaching reading till 7. I don't know that I agree with Waldorf principles in general, but reading late wasn't at all a detriment to her. She learned to read fluently within a few short months (compare this to how long it typically takes a Kindergardener now that reading is pushed early...), now at 8 she devours books on her own, writes long, complex stories and is the most creative and interesting child I know.

 

And as for the Brillkids child whose IQ was measured at the 99th percentile? I have a hard time believing that this is "real" IQ, and not just a sign of his brain being crammed with information that most children don't get till later. I'm guessing it will even out in a few years.

[ReadingMama1214]

The original poster said she felt she had heard plenty from the "reading readiness" crowd and wanted to hear from people who feel any child is ready.

 

I would not withold exposure to the auditory expression of language (speech) until a child showed signs of readiness OR the visual representation of language (written words).

Several of those who commented with toddlers reading, had toddlers who naturally learned to read due to early readiness or intense interest in written language. It seems that the majority of reading toddlers did so due to early readiness and development, not because they were taught simply to gain a skill. I personally haven't seen teaching reading simply as a skill and therefore teaching it early, advocated at all on wtm. Quite the opposite actually.

[Sarah0000]

I'm curious in the progression of reading related skills between kids who read very early, say before three, and kids who read a little later. My very early self taught reader who is now 4.5 and reading fluently still sometimes mixes up letter sounds when asked in isolation. He does not know all the sounds of vowel teams. He misses some letters when writing out the alphabet. He has a hard time blending sounds aloud.

 

I've seen people post (on these boards) that they expected their kids to read early because they knew all their letter sounds very early. Usually people say its because they can't get the next step, blending.

 

I don't think that kids who read as infants or young toddlers (excluding those who only read a few sight words) are doing so according to the usual progression for preschoolers and school age kids. At least not in a way which benefits from dividing and targeting these skills.

 

Is it possible to observe and codify the progression of reading skills for infants and young toddlers at an age where they can't necessarily talk well (my own son was slightly speech delayed, his beginning reading was a combination of his own baby words, ASL and traditional sounding out) and potentially can't respond consistently to targeted questions. If there was a series of skills to gauge reading readiness (is there?) I would not at all be surprised if many infants and young toddlers who are already reading (again, not sight words) failed most of them.

[wintermom]

Reading is definitely a skill, just as playing tennis is. Try forcing all your young children to play tennis and you'll quickly find out how important developmental readiness is. 

[ReadingMama1214]

I'm curious in the progression of reading related skills between kids who read very early, say before three, and kids who read a little later. My very early self taught reader who is now 4.5 and reading fluently still sometimes mixes up letter sounds when asked in isolation. He does not know all the sounds of vowel teams. He misses some letters when writing out the alphabet. He has a hard time blending sounds aloud.

 

I've seen people post (on these boards) that they expected their kids to read early because they knew all their letter sounds very early. Usually people say its because they can't get the next step, blending.

 

I don't think that kids who read as infants or young toddlers (excluding those who only read a few sight words) are doing so according to the usual progression for preschoolers and school age kids. At least not in a way which benefits from dividing and targeting these skills.

 

Is it possible to observe and codify the progression of reading skills for infants and young toddlers at an age where they can't necessarily talk well (my own son was slightly speech delayed, his beginning reading was a combination of his own baby words, ASL and traditional sounding out) and potentially can't respond consistently to targeted questions. If there was a series of skills to gauge reading readiness (is there?) I would not at all be surprised if many infants and young toddlers who are already reading (again, not sight words) failed most of them.

I think from what I've read, it seems very early and fluent readers tend to teach themselves by whole word and sight and intuit the phonics.

 

My Dd wasn't crazy young (3.5) and started blending once she knew letter sounds (which she learned through play and leapfrog). I don't think she'd have progressed past CVC and CVCC words without phonics Instruction.

[KBadd]

We used The Ordinary Parent's Guide to Teaching Reading. I was teaching my 4yo at the kitchen table, and my 2yo was around, listening in. I didn't sit down with him one-on-one to learn until he said, "Mom, look! I can read, too! See - C..a..t. Cat!" I then began going through the book with him, starting at that place in the book, and he finished the book a few months after his older brother 😊 They've both become excellent readers and are now 7yo and 5yo.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[Mama Geek]

We started off watching Leap Frog Letter Factory when dd was very young.  I then went to OPGTR and got stuck with the rhyming so I then went to ElizabethB's Blend phonics method.  We went through Bob books and then Step into Reading books and now dd is reading books like Black Stallion at the age of six.  We have also spent many many hours reading aloud to dd from the time she was born.  That helped as well because she was able to read words because she already knew the vocabulary.   It took work, but it was well worth it for us.

[hepatica]

Ok, I've seen this twice now in this thread and I'm confused. How can a child read more words than he can speak? I get that it's possible, but how do you know he is reading? Obviously he can't yet write. Maybe I'm just missing something here??  Scientifically, reading is only easier than talking if there is some speech problem. It is common to find illiterate people who speak naturally just fine. It is rare to find readers who don't speak.

 

Also, please remember that most of the people here with kids who didn't learn to read quite so easily also read to their children all the time!! In fact, I expect the parents of later readers did much more reading aloud than the parents of early readers (out of necessity). Many, many late readers and dyslexic kids have fantastic vocabularies and very high IQs. So reading to your kid is not really what made the difference.

[Arcadia]

Is it possible to observe and codify the progression of reading skills for infants and young toddlers at an age where they can't necessarily talk well (my own son was slightly speech delayed, his beginning reading was a combination of his own baby words, ASL and traditional sounding out) and potentially can't respond consistently to targeted questions. If there was a series of skills to gauge reading readiness (is there?) I would not at all be surprised if many infants and young toddlers who are already reading (again, not sight words) failed most of them.

One of my niece did not talk because her mom does not talk to her. She would have failed speech and reading readiness if there is such a test. She was considered behind for speech. After sending her to 2hr playgroup daily at 2 years old, she went from occasional single words to chatting in sentences. She started learning to read Chinese at 2 and English at 3 at the play center. Chinese is sight words, for English they taught phonics. Most of the two hours is singing, crafts and outdoor play; things her mom isn't comfortable doing which is why my brother paid for this program.

 

The rest of us grew up surrounded by chatterbox relatives and were chatting early. We were rude toddlers who wanted to butt in to adults conversations. We were sent to bilingual preschool by 4 years old for academics and no one taught reading to their kids. Parents did read a louds and audiobooks but leave the teaching how to read to schools. I'm sure some of us read early out of more than 30 cousins and close to 40 nieces and nephews but no one keeps track.

 

My kids who self taught did things out of sequence. They talk in a singing way before taking in a normal tone. They crawl way past 16 months, then finally walk a short while before sprinting. My oldest is non verbal when anyone test him during those well baby check ups because he thinks it is silly.

 

Then there is my brother who can read but used to stutter. He could pass a written comprehension test but not an oral one. No one other than family understands his speech prior to years of braces and speech therapy. None of the exams he took has an oral component so he wasn't penalized for speech issues.

 

I don't think there is an easy or fool proof way to test reading readiness. I'm also not bothered by progressions, as long as the child is not anxiety prone, failure is the best teacher.

[luuknam]

Ok, I've seen this twice now in this thread and I'm confused. How can a child read more words than he can speak? I get that it's possible, but how do you know he is reading?

 

You could do something like a memory game, where the kid has to match a picture to a word. Or have a page with words on it, say a word, and ask the kid to point to the correct word on the page. There are probably other things you could do as well. But anyway, it is possible to test reading skill without the kid having to speak a word.

 

Some kids are early writers, btw. My youngest copied letters at 2yo, and started writing *some* words at 3yo (actually quite a lot of them before turning 4yo). Not that he had a speech delay... his speaking skills were always more advanced than his reading skills, afaik.

Edited September 2, 2016 by luuknam

[SKL]

For a child who is wired a certain way, the visual input of written words may be comparable to the auditory input of words spoken around them.  When we teach our kids the spoken word, we don't wait around until they can identify which mouth position creates which sound and then go sound by sound until the kid can clearly speak every sound and then introduce words.

 

I think generally babies are wired to distinguish heard sounds a lot younger than seen shapes, but there is a range.  The kids who read extremely early are just wired that way IMO.  I don't spend a lot of time trying to understand it, because I don't believe we can somehow re-wire average kids to be super early readers.  At some point over-zealousness on the part of the parent will impact the home atmosphere and the child's attitude toward learning.

 

Of course there are success stories when a wired-for-reading or super IQ child meets an early reading program.  What we rarely hear about is the success rate - how many parents quit bothering after 2 days because their kid was completely uninterested or even annoyed by the program?  How many parents worked diligently only to have an average reader or slightly ahead after x years?

 

The implication that early reading lessons increase IQ is dangerous IMO.

[mathmarm]

Ok, I've seen this twice now in this thread and I'm confused. How can a child read more words than he can speak?

My son is fluent in ASL, and before he was able to articulate words, he was able to sign them manually.

 

We also played a picture matching game for him to practice his phonics and matching skills, using phonetic words that he had not seen before as a part of his lesson and game time.

 

We also played a matching game where hehad to match words in different cases and fonts.

 

We would lay a group of word cards on the floor and have him "find the word...."

 

I knew he was reading because we explicitly covered every category/pattern but purposefully avoided trying to teach "every word" in that phonics category. (ie teach -at words and practice sounding out only 5 instead of all 11, but later having him read the other 6 without having practiced or seen them before.)

 

We spiral back over phonics using nonsense words and a game called "trash em".

 

There are many different ways to get a child to demonstrate their knowledge and skills without having them verbalize the words.

[luuknam]

The implication that early reading lessons increase IQ is dangerous IMO.

 

And also a little silly, imo. My oldest scored >99th percentile on the reading subtest of the Woodcock Johnson at 4 years 2 months. At the same time, he scored a verbal IQ of 75 (due to massive speech delay and high-functioning autism). At that age, I would've much preferred a 99th percentile IQ and a below average reading score. He's doing better now, is mostly caught up with his speech (though he still struggles with pronouncing some words, including his name), and on the 7yo IQ test his verbal IQ was about average, but still. Early reading does not magically give someone a genius IQ.

[Arcadia]

Ok, I've seen this twice now in this thread and I'm confused. How can a child read more words than he can speak? I get that it's possible, but how do you know he is reading?

I am pretty sure my oldest can speak what he could read as an under 3 years old. But this kid is just not interested in talking unless he needs something he can't reach and can't climb to reach. He was silent for well baby checkups but the pediatrician saw him talking to his baby brother and us at the waiting area so she checked those baby/toddler speech milestones on his health record.

 

We know he is reading because he reads and laugh and sometimes summarise billboards and other large print stuff as he sees them. He still loves the printed word a lot more than opening his mouth to talk. This kid of mine has a tough time with any oral interview for any program. It is a personality issue rather than speech issue because he does well enough for his science fair oral presentations Q&A.

Edited September 2, 2016 by Arcadia

[Sarah0000]

When DS was a young two he use to bring me a letter magnet for the first sound in a word when I was having trouble understanding his speech. He also spelled out simple words with straws and would label his drawings with markers. He could spell "robot" before he could say it. He's very visual. You can see it more readily in math.

[SKL]

Funny thing, one of my early reader's first [spoken] words was "logo."  She was fascinated by the idea that a picture stood for a thing or idea.  I guess that should have been my first clue.  :p

Edited September 2, 2016 by SKL

[SKL]

And one more thing I need to say on this thread and get it out of my system.  I couldn't stand that letter factory video.  I probably ruined my kids' life chances because there was no way I was replaying that noise over and over.  :P

[drjuliadc]

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! :)

 

Deanna

 

I knew it would rain down. I just have balls and don't care what people think of me. I did consider answering privately but I thought someone else might want to know too. Not that I would expect any one else to be brave enough to admit it.

 

Do you think it is ironic that in a question about reading that no one actually read your question?

 

I take that back.  Mama geek read it.

Edited September 2, 2016 by drjuliadc

[Tanaqui]

I would not withhold exposure to the auditory expression of language (speech) until a child showed signs of readiness OR the visual representation of language (written words).

 

In a literate society like the one most of us live in, it is difficult NOT to "expose your child to written words". You'd have to never leave the house and never read to your child!

 

Most people do at least one of those two things.

 

However, this is where your analogy fails. Typically developing children do not need to be explicitly taught how to speak. Some of them don't need to be explicitly taught how to read either - but that's exactly what you're advocating, teaching toddlers via explicit instruction. Which, fine, you do you - but please don't insult the rest of us by implying that we're "withholding" something from our kids.

[tm919]

Interesting thread... my kids could recognize sight words on their own, before age 2, but blending came much later.

 

I really wonder how much of this is about teaching whole words v. phonics. That is,  it sounds like a predominant way to teach children to read early is through sight words. I would suspect that most children could learn very early using sight words. 

 

I'd be curious to hear if anyone believes you can teach ANY child to read as a baby or toddler using a phonics approach. My kids could remember sight words, even without being taught, at least a year before they could blend.

 

Over time I've been convinced phonics is better for almost everyone; I would be really uncomfortable relying on an approach that was mostly sight words.

Edited September 6, 2016 by tm919

[Bluegoat]

Interesting thread... my kids could recognize sight words on their own, before age 2, but blending came much later.

 

I really wonder how much of this is about teaching whole words v. phonics. That is,  it sounds like a predominant way to teach children to read early is through sight words. I would suspect that most children could learn very early using sight words. 

 

I'd be curious to hear if anyone believes you can teach ANY child to read as a baby or toddler using a phonics approach. My kids could remember sight words, even without being taught, at least a year before they could blend.

 

Over time I've been convinced phonics is better for almost everyone; I would be really uncomfortable relying on an approach that was mostly sight words.

 

I remember reading something, years ago, about kids that had been taught to read with sight words at a rather young age.  It was, I think, by a remidial reading teacher.  What she found is that the kids she was seeing would get along fine for a while, memorizing thousands of sight words, but at a certain point it became unsustainable for them as texts became more difficult with more words - they could not keep up or increase their speed.  The problem was by that time, they were really trained to use a sight approach to reading generally and so there could be some significant retraining involved which is much harder to do. 

 

I wish I could remember where I read this, but to me it is closely related to why I tend not to favour starting kids early with a sight word approach.  I think a mixed approach makes sense for a lot of reasons, but it means being able to take advantage of all even if the student tends to favour one.

[mathmarm]

Interesting thread... my kids could recognize sight words on their own, before age 2, but blending came much later.

 

I really wonder how much of this is about teaching whole words v. phonics. That is, it sounds like a predominant way to teach children to read early is through sight words. I would suspect that most children could learn very early using sight words.

 

I'd be curious to hear if anyone believes you can teach ANY child to read as a baby or toddler using a phonics approach. My kids could remember sight words, even without being taught, at least a year before they could blend.

 

Over time I've been convinced phonics is better for almost everyone; I would be really uncomfortable relying on an approach that was mostly sight words.

I can only speak to our family.

 

We were also uncomfortable with a sight word heavy approach and so We started with 100% phonics, but relaxed our stance later for convenience and taught Jr. 90-95% phonics and 5-10% sight words and he is a very strong phonetic reader. We did not use digital media with Jr, we used paper and traditional mediums.

 

We followed the example set by a few people who taught toddlers phonetically and it worked for us. I admit that it was intensive work for US, the parents, but Jr does not seem any worse for the wear. He loves bookss, which is what I wanted for him and he reads A LOT.

 

We taught words that make sense to be "sight words" (one, once, is, was, of...) when explaining sophisticated rules and exceptions don't make sense.

[tm919]

I can only speak to our family.

 

We were also uncomfortable with a sight word heavy approach and so We started with 100% phonics, but relaxed our stance later for convenience and taught Jr. 90-95% phonics and 5-10% sight words and he is a very strong phonetic reader. We did not use digital media with Jr, we used paper and traditional mediums.

 

We followed the example set by a few people who taught toddlers phonetically and it worked for us. I admit that it was intensive work for US, the parents, but Jr does not seem any worse for the wear. He loves bookss, which is what I wanted for him and he reads A LOT.

 

We taught words that make sense to be "sight words" (one, once, is, was, of...) when explaining sophisticated rules and exceptions don't make sense.

Thank you for the description. It is interesting to see all the different approaches and philosophies.

 

My kids learned to read early... but it was almost 2 years between when they started recognizing sight words and when they read chapter books easily by blending. I do wonder if it would have been different if I'd set out to teach them, or whether it would have been frustration until they magically started blending. I never taught either of them to read until (a) they already blended c-a-t on their own and (b) they asked... and only one ever asked and it was for later stuff.

Edited September 6, 2016 by tm919

[mathmarm]

Thank you for the description. It is interesting to see all the different approaches and philosophies.

 

My kids learned to read early... but it was almost 2 years between when they started recognizing sight words and when they read chapter books easily by blending. I do wonder if it would have been different if I'd set out to teach them, or whether it would have been frustration until they magically started blending. I never taught either of them to read until (a) they already blended c-a-t on their own and (b) they asked... and only one ever asked and it was for later stuff.

As Jrs speech improves so does his oral blending ability. He speaks well for a boy his age, but he is still just a boy his age :laugh;

[Renai]

I remember reading something, years ago, about kids that had been taught to read with sight words at a rather young age.  It was, I think, by a remidial reading teacher.  What she found is that the kids she was seeing would get along fine for a while, memorizing thousands of sight words, but at a certain point it became unsustainable for them as texts became more difficult with more words - they could not keep up or increase their speed.  The problem was by that time, they were really trained to use a sight approach to reading generally and so there could be some significant retraining involved which is much harder to do. 

 

I wish I could remember where I read this, but to me it is closely related to why I tend not to favour starting kids early with a sight word approach.  I think a mixed approach makes sense for a lot of reasons, but it means being able to take advantage of all even if the student tends to favour one.

 

I've also read that, and the reason given was because they need to be able to sound out the harder words (phonetics) in order to read the harder words. They were unable to do so because they were not taught phonics at any point. The brain could only hold so many sight words. I found this true when I tutored reading as well. Student goals that were for "comprehension" turned out to be because they were reading words wrong due to lack of phonics. Thus, they couldn't  "comprehend" the text. I was teaching phonics to 6th graders, starting with the sounds of the vowels, and then also syllables. Of course, by that age they picked up easily and could then read the harder words.

 

My tutoring experience was the reason I favored the phonics approach. With my oldest, I did phonics (in Spanish first, then English), but she reached a point that she could read any word, but not fluently. At that point, I did use sight word games and such to increase her fluency (I used Hooked on Phonics). She wasn't a toddler when I started her though, she was 4, and very interested in learning her letters and reading. 

[BlsdMama]

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.

 

 

IMO,  after teaching a few to read (seven) and working with reading successes and failures of non-family members, 2 and 3 year olds can definitely learn to read.  Our DD (now 8) learned to read phonetically before she turned 3.  That said, she's unusual.  Our oldest DD is teaching our current 3yo to read.  This would not have been possible for some of my children.  They lacked phonemic awareness and the ability to understand segmenting and blending.

 

Sarah learned it as a skill.  I think she is quite bright but I don't think intelligence is a factor in early reading.  That's misguided.  A child of normal intelligence who possesses phonemic awareness can learn to read simple words in a few months at age 3 and then will progress, albeit not as fast as a 6yo in my limited experience.  That said, another child who lacks phonemic awareness will find this task incredibly frustrating and it's a lot like digging a hole in frozen ground with a spoon --- pointless and frustrating.

 

DD possessed phonemic awareness, the working memory to not only remember the sounds but work with them, and she has a very high frustration level - meaning she can do a lot before it's "too much."

 

I have a child who is incredibly strong in reading NOW (99% on ITEDS) and he could NOT have done this at age 3 (or age 7) despite being super bright because he just didn't have the skills to do it at that age.

[Guest]

Having taught three children to read (one we are right in the middle of), the earliest readiness I've seen around here was 4-5. One kid struggled for two years and then it clicked. Current learning to read guinea pig probably could have learned two years earlier but he didn't care and neither did we.

 

I don't see much benefit in early reading unless it is child led, truth be told. If they're picking up books, looking at pictures, and asking what it says? We tell them. We also drill phonogram sounds, ALL the sounds of even the easiest phonograms and vowels, because that's the foundation we want them to have. Memory and understanding of those sounds and the rules is a little later to click with many children than a whole word approach, but in terms of decoding and fluency I think the former is much superior even if the latter sounds more impressive at first glance.

 

My recommendation is using a program like Logic of English, from Doodling Dragons on up. Some kids will fly through it at 3-4 years old. Some kids will be very slow on the handwriting side (our current student in A) but lightning fast on the sounds and auditory identification of phonemes. And some kids, like one of the olders, will walk through it at a respectable pace but still be slow to read fluently until his or her brain is ready for it. No amount of drilling can make that happen faster.

 

Early skill acquisition isn't a thing I'm really into - something that takes two years for a four year old to learn can take three weeks for a seven year old, and maybe I'm a lazy parent but I'm okay with waiting a bit until they're at the point where it's not a battle against their physical maturity to get something planted in their brains. Those kids who read on their own at a young age are ready, but most children aren't really developmentally there from what I have seen.

[Donna]

All three of mine were very different learners and learned to read in different ways at different times.

 

My oldest knew all his letters by sight and memorized simple books before 2yo. He loved books and sat in a drawer surrounded by books "reading" to himself over and over. He brought me books to read to him constantly and when he was 3.5yo, asked to learn to read so I used the 100 EZ lessons book and in 4 months, he could read very well. He loved learning to read and took his "reading lessons" very seriously. He was a voracious reader from that time on.

 

My middle ds never met a book he liked. He sat nearby playing with something else while I read to his brother. We tried 100EZ lessons when he was almost 5yo but he had no interest. I used a couple other things over the next 1.5 years but none really caught his attention...he complained and squirmed until I put them away for a bit. He eventually brought me a book and read it to me when he was 6.5yo. He still is not all that interested in reading though he will pick up a book if it is about something he wants to learn about.

 

My youngest, dd, had her oldest brother's love of books. She memorized everything read to her beginning at 11 months old. She loved to play with letters in the bathtub and on the refrigerator, spelling words, changing letters and sounding them out. She knew all her letters by their sounds (rather than their names) and wrote them on a magnetic board for fun before 18 months. She read a sign now and then as we passed them on the road. Because she memorized books, I don't credit her with actually reading on her own until 3.5yo when she told me it was her turn to read Little House in the Big Woods fluently with voices for the characters. I never used a reading curriculum with her. She has always been a whole to parts learner and a natural speller. I used Spelling Power with her beginning at 5yo just in case she missed some phonics rules but she always spelled words correctly during the pre-test so we didn't use it long before she had gone through all the lists.

 

 

 

[lanalouwho]

I started phonics with my 5 year old a few months ago. He isn't really getting it. He does a little better with a whole word approach, but I'm thinking I may wait a few months and try again.

However, to my complete surprise, his 2 year old brother seems to really enjoy the phonics work. I won't be surprised if he learns to read just by listening in to big brother's lessons.

 

I think reading is just like walking or potty training. You can push it and you may get results after lots of frustration. But ultimately, it is up to the child. You cannot do it for them; they have to be willing and ready to do it themselves.

 

Sent from my HTCD200LVW using Tapatalk

[quark]

Deleted. Shouldn't be posting so late at night, sorry.

Edited September 9, 2016 by quark

[Guest]

This could get long, but I wanted to be full disclosure...

 

When my first child was born, I was highly interested in all the "brighter kids" stuff and read all Glenn Doman's books and made a billion word cards and the math dot cards and was on a Bright Babies yahoo group and YadaYadaYada. I started out doing some Doman stuff "by the book," but DH, who is not a BTB kind of guy, did different things with our DD, things Doman would have said was not strictly correct. (For example, we had those DK books with all kinds of animals or object or whatever and he would just point to them and tell her what they were called.) I soon saw that this worked for this child and I stopped caring about following Doman's programs per se; I was just going to tell her lots of things and expose her to a ton of information. She was very precocious and had a huge vocabulary and ability to identify objects, letters, numbers, shapes, colors, etc. before age 2. She seemed to be able to identify some words on sight alone, but did not really read. However, by age three, she would arrange letter magnets into phonetically correct words and could read them. She understood blending the sounds and also understood that these words stood for the object. She also could draw far ahead of her age-mates and would "name" her drawings with phonetically written words.

 

I don't know exactly when the fluent reading came together fully, but I think she was three. I know in Kindergarten she was reading The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe, and Bambi (original book). I do think all the information we gave her made it possible for her to read early, but I do also think she is a very bright person with a strong aptitude for language. She is double majoring in French and English in college.

 

With my second child, we did many of the same things, with less emphasis on anything by Doman and more emphasis on just a lot of exposure, a lot of talking and music. He also had very precocious knowledge of shapes, colors, letters, and numbers, but was a whiz at mental math and not so great at vocabulary. He could sound out CVC words at three and read some BOB books, but there was a vlong, long lag where he didn't really connect reading. The words all together, telling a story - he just didn't seem to get it. So, we did a lot of exposure, but I didn't pour a lot of effort into helping him "get" reading; I just waited it out. he could read simple books like Magic Treehouse by age six, but he never latched on to reading as his sister had. He continued to have very good math skills, especially mental math. He is a high school Junior now with ADD and some other learning challenges. Math is his strength; he loves History and did well in Biology, but he does not like learning French and he despises writing. He does not read for pleasure. I believe he has a high IQ; I have had no tests, though.

 

In summary, I do think the foundation of reading can be laid from infancy and kids with high IQ and aptitude will learn to read well before five or six. But I think there is an element where they may not connect the symbols with meaning until later and/or blending will not make sense until later. I think there is no harm at teaching kids, "this is an 'S'! It says, 'Ssss'!" It can be fun if you make it fun and no stress and learning things young is not harmful and adds much richness to their lives.

 

P.S. I did zero things that were Glenn Doman with my youngest child. I was mostly just happy he was alive, having experienced the opposite by then. I did continue to read books all the time, expose to music and physical acticity, and the pointing and naming objects. He did not read early or late, but is an avid consumer of audiobooks and has a great vocabulary. He is okay at math, not phenominal; he's very athletic.

[Tanikit]

My eldest child knew her letters by 18 months and was blending around 2.5. She learnt a lot of sight words from age 1 however and showed her day care teacher that she could read at 2.5. I covered all the phonics with her at age 4 just to make sure we didn't miss anything.

 

She is now 8 years old. She can read anything but does show ADHD tendencies and can lose her place when reading even despite being able to skim. She still chooses shorter pieces to read though doesn't mind if the reading level is very high. Her comprehension and vocabulary are excellent, but I still think her strength is more mathematical. At the library she chooses non fiction books before novels and devours those far more easily than novels.

 

My younger child knew her letters and many sight words at age 2. She was more interested in reading than her older sister and is a more visual learner than her sister who is kinaesthetic. This means that she possibly learns better by reading than her sister and may explain why she has been more keen. She likes fiction. She is now 5 and reading at about a grade 3 level. However she can read the Bible to me too without errors and I know certain sections she has read are well above a grade 3 level. Her comprehension and vocabulary are probably comparable to my eldest at the same age. She is more independent with her reading however and will read easy chapter books to herself in the car - something my eldest would never have done at that age.

 

I know from just my two children that each child is an individual. That reading, like many other skills is complex and involves multiple processes that we don't fully understand. I think one can only expose and see what the child does and then adapt the exposure.

 

I do come from a family of early readers. My sister was reading at 2 - we have a recording of her reading Beatrix Potter aged 3. I read my first full chapter book at 4. My Brother had dyslexia and yet even he learnt to read (with difficulty) at a fairly young age and by high school was an excellent reader despite the dyslexia - still not sure how he managed that.

 

I believe that a lot more children could read early than do. Should they - I don't know. I do not believe that all children can either though. Mine did, and I will never be sorry, but then if they hadn't I don't think I would have been that sorry about that either.