Importance of early reading

[skueppers]

This morning I was listening to Morning Edition on the radio, and they had a short segment that began with something like, "if your child doesn't know how to read before they enter school, they may never catch up," and included a statement along the lines of, "many parents are unaware of the long-term benefits of early reading."

OK, color me one of those parents. I was under the impression that, on average, kids who were taught to read later would quickly catch up to kids who were taught to read earlier, so that by the time they were in the third grade, it would all have evened out.

Do you have any idea what research they were talking about?

Just to be clear, I'm not really looking to debate early reading instruction. I'm just wondering what evidence there might be that it is beneficial.

[skueppers]

I now realize that it wasn't in NPR's Morning Edition, it was in my local station's hourly news.

http://wamu.org/news/09/09/18.php#28838

The press release linked to on the web site isn't about the importance of preschoolers READING, but the importance of them being READ TO, obviously a totally different issue.

So I guess I just wish the actual radio story had accurately reflected what the research was about!

[Youngfrankenstein]

I don't see how learning early is specifically better. All of my kids learned to read at ages 3 and 4, which is early, but I wouldn't have forced it.

Before my kids went to Kindy, we didn't do pre-school, "everyone" told me how much they need to know nowadays just while starting kindy. It was a bunch of bunk.

While I wouldn't call it suffering, my boys had to sit through daily lessons of sounding out letters and learning letter names which was too easy for them because they were already readers. And that was 1/2 day Kindy.

So they were reading a ton and doing chapter books then but I believe that *most* of their classmates are caught up. I do think some kids will be better readers than others. But I don't think that puts those other kids behind, per se. They are in 3 and 4th grade and they have reading groups at school but I would say those kids who are in the "lower" reading group aren't there because they didn't learn early enough. I just think different kids learn different things in different ways. My dss will never be artists while other kids are brilliant at it. I couldn't have taught them art skills early to make sure they were good at it, KWIM?

[Kismet_fw]

Skkueppers, there are alot of emotional benefits to reading to your child early, not just the exposure to books.

Having the child choose a book makes them an active part of the reading process, when you sit with them it's all about being with them. And no commercials. My older sister used to read to me, and it's still my #1 hobby.

I wouldn't compare reading to art - language skills vs sculpting in play dough? Art is something most homes have in some way - like crayons.

[elizawill]

in regard to what was said on the radio, i would probably agree that kids entering public school would be at a disadvantage if they had no previous exposure to reading or phonics. i imagine they would be "behind" and possibly struggle (unless reading comes very natural to them).

but like you, i also believe it makes little difference by the time the child is 8-10 years old. my daughter didn't learn to read until about age 6 (and that was simple 3 letter words). she is now a few weeks shy of age 8 and reads very well. there is no difference at all in her reading ability and that of her peers. my ds is 5 1/2 and just started kindergarten. he is learning what others probably would consider preschool work. however, it is comparable to what i was learning in grade k (i'm 38), and i feel it is very age appropriate for a 5 year old. we are taking our time, and i have no doubt he'll be on "grade level" compared to his peers over the next few of years.

[fruitfulmomma]

Okay, yes it is very important to read to your children!!!

But to your original question, do kids need to learn to read early, I don't agree with that. Ruth Beechick (author of The Three R's) talks about a study done in a school where the children were divided into two groups. One group was taught to read early, while the other group concentrated on other studies like science or whatever. As they followed them through the following years they found that not only did they non-early readers catch up but actually did better than the early reader group because they were allowed to develop a better vocabulary rather than focusing on reading mechanics.

Which is not to say that children who are ready and eager to learn at an early age should be disuaded from it. I think you just need to let your kids go at their own pace. I believe one of our President's (wish I could remember which one) did not learn to read until the age of 12!

[momtokea]

Originally Posted by skueppers

Do you have any idea what research they were talking about?

.

Could you call the radio station and ask? I would really be curious to find out, too. If they are saying it is based on research then they should be able to provide the research for you. Otherwise, I would assume it is just a bunch of hooey and I would call them on it

[greenthumb3]

This reminds me of something...isn't there a study or something that was done that many homeschooled kids read later than their schooled peers, but that their reading level was almost always above that of their peers when they did begin reading?


Ring a bell for anyone?

ETA: K, so I couldn't find any studies online with a few searches, but I did find this article with very intriguing ideas about reading early vs. late.

http://school.familyeducation.com/ho...ing/38692.html

Just one bit: In A Developmental Approach to Reading Problems, Ames states that "a delay in reading instruction would be a preventative measure in avoiding nearly all reading failure."

Don't know if that is the evidence you were looking for or not, but I thought it was interesting to think about, OP.

[riversmommy]

I just wanted to mention that a lot of people, including myself, feel sculpting with play-dough actually IS just as important as language skills.

There are a lot of different brains in this world doing some really amazing things with some really different talents. As for early reading, I find that sometimes it's an excuse for parents to feel good about themselves(oh, yes, all of MY kids read BEFORE kindy!). And if you're a kid that learned to read very young, you sort of feel great about it when you're in school and ahead of other kids, but then you miss out on stuff like...well, feeling really excellent about sculpting with play-dough because most of the parents I know don't puff their chests with pride at the beautifully dextrous blob-o-creations of their children!...my best ironic braggy voice-Oh, MY child learned to make a play-dough snake when she was 3, well BEFORE she went to kindergarten!

That said, I was 4 when I learned to read, was bored in kindy, and STILL resent it!

[Momma Aimee]

Originally Posted by skueppers

I now realize that it wasn't in NPR's Morning Edition, it was in my local station's hourly news.

http://wamu.org/news/09/09/18.php#28838

The press release linked to on the web site isn't about the importance of preschoolers READING, but the importance of them being READ TO, obviously a totally different issue.

So I guess I just wish the actual radio story had accurately reflected what the research was about!

I hate when the news is "not correct" .

I have, recently, done a lot of reading about reading and the importance of being read to, having books, and haveing a good / great foundation in language. I have seen over and over again, children who come from families that don't read and who don't have books -- they do lag in theri ablity to read and "make sense" of print. But again, that is being read to and enjoying books.

and the reading war is getting old

I can't see anything, on my own, that indicated the child, him or herself, reading sooner or later is that big a deal...save whent he not reading is an indication of learning challanges.

[Ellie'sMom]

I heard a talk by David Elkind, author of The Hurried Child, and he pointed out that in countries where reading instruction is introduced at later ages (around 7), the incidence of language/reading learning disabilities is significantly lower than in countries which place an emphasis on early literacy. I don't have a link to the primary source he was citing, but I thought it was extremely interesting. My daughter didn't really take off with reading until she was 5, and now at 7 is reading at about a 4th grade level.

I should add that she was read to several times a day since birth and saw her parents spend lots of time reading themselves.

[Lillian J]

Originally Posted by skueppers

This morning I was listening to Morning Edition on the radio, and they had a short segment that began with something like, "if your child doesn't know how to read before they enter school, they may never catch up," and included a statement along the lines of, "many parents are unaware of the long-term benefits of early reading.

That just doesn't make any sense to me - unless maybe the idea is that somehow they might not have a chance to do all the same things their classmates are doing because they'll be busy trying to learn to read instead??? But to say they'll never catch up is just silly! In fact, the first thing that comes to my mind is the daughter of a friend of mine who was still struggling to learn to read when she was 9, even though her teacher was her next door neighbor and mom of her best friend - and was putting a lot of energy into helping. Then suddenly she just "got" it. She went on to be her 8th grade class valedictorian, a member of the high school newspaper staff, and got a scholarship to Amherst where she excelled and went on to graduate studies. I know that's just one anecdote, but still, it just doesn't make sense. Here's an interesting thread you might take a look at - "7 yr. old non-reader" support.

Lillian

[Lillian J]

Originally Posted by greenthumb3

TA: K, so I couldn't find any studies online with a few searches, but I did find this article with very intriguing ideas about reading early vs. late.

http://school.familyeducation.com/ho...ing/38692.html

Just one bit: In A Developmental Approach to Reading Problems, Ames states that "a delay in reading instruction would be a preventative measure in avoiding nearly all reading failure."

Nice article! I especially loved the beginning subtitle - Beware Experts' Advice. Lillian

[SubliminalDarkness]

I dunno.... Early reading did me a big favor. Because I was always reading grade levels ahead, by the time I was in middle school I was reading at a college level.
A peer who'd learned to read years after me(I was reading books at 4, sentences at 3) would have been hard pressed to have caught up to that.

Of course, that's not the end all be all of learning, but it did make it a lot easier for me to expand my knowledge base since I was equipped to absorb anything.

[dotnetdiva]

I have read a few sources that stated this:
"if your child doesn't know how to read before they enter school, they may never catch up"

but I do not recall where... I've been reading all kinds of phonics, reading, and homeschooling books this year, they blur together now. I tend to think that kids already reading well in first grade will generally have an easier time than kids who spend that first year still learning their alphabet and sounds. Some won't have any problem catching up, some might.

I know I didn't learn to read until normal school in first grade, and I was dying to learn, trying teach myself from a dictionary at home, and I very quickly surpassed many grade levels. So with my children I'm just going to offer teaching reading early, no pressure to actually read books until they want them.

Anyway, I wasn't going to post to this, but thought I'd share that I turned out fine and quickly excelled, although nobody was homeschooled back then where I lived and nobody came to school already knowing how to read.

I am however, completely sold on the idea to read aloud to your children as much as you can!

[WalkingByFaith]

I don't think it's terribly important to be reading early. Some kids do, some don't.

I do agree, that early exposure to books, reading, literacy in general and in the form of parents reading to children is important. How important, I'm not sure.

For the record, ds learned to read early and at 7 1/2 is reading at a high school level and still well ahead of his peers. That may change at some point but for now it doesn't seem as if the leveling off theory applies to us.

[greenthumb3]

Originally Posted by SubliminalDarkness

I dunno.... Early reading did me a big favor. Because I was always reading grade levels ahead, by the time I was in middle school I was reading at a college level.
A peer who'd learned to read years after me(I was reading books at 4, sentences at 3) would have been hard pressed to have caught up to that.

Of course, that's not the end all be all of learning, but it did make it a lot easier for me to expand my knowledge base since I was equipped to absorb anything.

While I agree that reading is one doorway to finding and digesting bits of knowledge, I don't think that by not reading (at a certain level by a certain age), the door to learning is entirely closed or knowledge not as readily available to a person. I also think that there is more to learning than just reading, like SubliminalDarkness posted above.

From the article I linked to above in a previous post, I gleaned this quote which shows another perspective on how to learn no matter one's "reading level", especially from a homeschooling point of view:

Allowed to learn at their own pace, homeschooled children often don't begin to read until 8 or 9 years old. Mary Griffith, author of The Homeschooling Handbook, says that late reading (even as late as 12) is not much of a handicap to homeschoolers. "Because schools rely so heavily on text-based instruction, we tend to forget there are other ways to acquire knowledge" Griffith writes. "The late reader frequently blossoms suddenly into a capable and independent reader and the late-reading homeschooler remains an eager and interested learner."

Reaffirming my own personal belief and observations that parents are in the perfect situation to know their kids best and support them in their learning, and that the outcome is maybe not always what an expert may expect, but is just right for that particular learner's needs.

[Vermillion]

This is a subject that is close to home for me as my 7yo DS is not yet reading (only now is he even becoming interested, despite being read to since birth), so I think about it a lot.

I also recently read that if a child isn’t reading at such and such age then they may never catch up. In that same article I read that kids who are not reading at such and such age will be behind their peers, may be labeled as special needs/learning disabled, held back a grade, etc. My immediate thought was that the negative labeling, holding kids back, etc. is what may be keeping these kids from catching up. I can’t think of any better way to kill a love for learning and reading by making it into a huge issue and damaging a child’s self esteem by the labels and keeping them back. That doesn’t seem very encouraging to me. Where is the motivation in that? It just seems like punishment for being a "late bloomer", which I feel could easily squash any desire to even try. Of course I may be totally wrong, but that's just my feeling about it all... *shrug*

[elizawill]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

My immediate thought was that the negative labeling, holding kids back, etc. is what may be keeping these kids from catching up. I can’t think of any better way to kill a love for learning and reading by making it into a huge issue and damaging a child’s self esteem by the labels and keeping them back. That doesn’t seem very encouraging to me. Where is the motivation in that? It just seems like punishment for being a "late bloomer", which I feel could easily squash any desire to even try. Of course I may be totally wrong, but that's just my feeling about it all... *shrug*

Liz, hugs to you! I completely agree with you 100%.

Last night I was babysitting for my SIL, and the book I was reading actually touched on this. The author was saying how public schools have arbitrary ages for grades & a "checklist" in abilities and skills that simply cannot (and do not) meet the individual needs of all students. He discussed how detrimental this is to a child that is being forced to learn to read in kindergarten or first grade, when they simply are not ready for it. They get labeled, discouraged, and often lose their love for learning & can even struggle emotionally & socially. Labels stay with children for many years, sometimes a lifetime. The author said it would be incredibly beneficial to keep a child home for at least the first few years of elementary school if they aren't ready for grade K & simply allow them to learn through play, field trips, etc. and leave academics to the wayside. He cited studies that show homeschoolers entering public school later (even if initially behind) not only do they catch up to their peers quickly, but they usually surpass them. Not to mention that they also fit in socially, and often are comfortable in a leadership-type role.

And you know what I found most humorous? The author was James Dobson of all people!!!!!! LOL. I was bored, and it's the only book my SIL had in her home. I read the whole thing (disagreeing with the majority) but this section of the book made me say, "Wow! Even James Dobson gets it!!".

Anyway, I agree with you totally. It is awesome as homeschoolers that we are able to create a learning environment for our kids that focuses on *their* abilities. I think some kids read at 4 with ease, others at 6, and others at 8. In the end, I personally don't think it makes a difference and no one is behind the other one (unless they're in PS and going through the labels & pain of it all).

[no5no5]

Can I just say what I think is the elephant in the room here?

Many (but not all) gifted kids learn to read early, and these kids are going to stay ahead of their peers. Many (but not all) kids with learning disabilities or other learning difficulties learn to read late, and these kids often stay behind their peers. So if there are statistics or studies (and I have never heard of any) that indicate that early reading is a predictor of later academic success, I would attribute that to the kids in these groups skewing the statistics for the rest of the kids. I would be very surprised to learn that for normally developing, non-learning disabled kids early reading skills (or early reading education) are any kind of predictor of academic success.