Disadvantage of early reading when going to K ?

[Jessica1501]

Everybody already knows the advantages of early reading, but I am always thinking about how my child will be when she goes to K.

I have a friend whose kid just started his school last week, the kid gets bored and loses concentration because he is taught phonics while he already can read books.

On the other hands, my kid is eager to learn to read and of course early reading has many benefits.

Could you moms tell me some experience about this? How do you and the K teacher help the child to like class?

(Just a side information: my kid's home school has a high ranking in the city so perhaps the teachers have lots of experience about this? )

Thanks moms.

[rubidoux]

Am I the only one that didn't know that early reading has advantages?    What sorts of things are we talking about?

[Jessica1501]

Originally Posted by rubidoux 

Am I the only one that didn't know that early reading has advantages?    What sorts of things are we talking about?

Improving cognition, memory, love of reading, love of learning other things, curiosity, boosting the brain system, etc.

I don't mean to focus on reading and reduce playing time because at this age playing is more important.

I just read your other post, you mentioned that your child is going to Montessori. By the end of PreK, your child will do maths and read well anyway.

This happens to my kid because she learns from school, it's a good school so I don't want to change just because I want to stop her from learning to read.

[rubidoux]

I am surprised that there are benefits, I guess, because my older one started preschool (same montessori) two weeks before he turned 5.  At that point he had no recognition of written letters at all, had almost no idea about phonics, no writing, I think maybe he could count to ten.  But by the end of that school year he was totally reading, like fairly advanced stuff.  Like, we would read novels to him, but for the first 15 minutes (so 3 or pages) he read to us.  So, it wasn't "age appropriate" stuff.  When we went through that, I was surprised at how fast and easily he caught up.  But I guess because of it, I imagined that kids who learned to read (or whatever skill) late would probably catch up to an age appropriate level pretty quick.  Like, whether they learned at 3 or at 6, at 8 they'd end up in a similar position.  

My little guy is only 3 1/2, so I'm not worried about where he is or where he'll go.  I am really interested, though, to see how different it will be given that he's starting so much earlier.  He also doesn't seem nearly as opposed to learning about letters and numbers as my older one was.  He would tune me out immediately if he thought I was going there.  Just hated it!  lol  Now, at 9, you'd never know he was that way though.

[meemee]

Originally Posted by Jessica1501 

Improving cognition, memory, love of reading, love of learning other things, curiosity, boosting the brain system, etc.

are you saying if a child reads at 4 they have this advantage, but if they are a late starter like say first grade they dont have that advantage? i am sorry but your list is v. triggering. a child who reads at 3 is no better than a child who reads at 6 or 7. 

boosting the brain system - i just dont get that. i would think everything else but reading would be more important. all you can do with reading is amass a bunch of knowledge. so yeah maybe a 4 year old would know all say the 200+ bones of the body. so what? what does that do to the brain? 

boost the brain seems to be a line from those teach baby how to read advertisements. i would say boosting brain would come more with hitting and fights and trying to find things as brains make connections and you have to figure things out. 

to me early reading in a regular school setting has far more negatives than positives. the only positive in my mind is the parent can show off that their child can read. 

knowing their letters before care - sadly yes is advantagous. at least you wont be labeled the dumb guy and have to deal with self esteem issues. 

[ollyoxenfree]

Originally Posted by Jessica1501 

This happens to my kid because she learns from school, it's a good school so I don't want to change just because I want to stop her from learning to read.

I'm struggling a little with your question because I'm trying to figure out HOW one would stop a child from learning to read. IME, true early readers seem to acquire the skill naturally and there's not much you can do about it even if you wanted - and I'm not sure why you would want to.

I think the disadvantages flow when the adults don't accept and adjust to a child's individual natural pace of learning wherever it falls on the spectrum of normal development.  Most kindergartens have students who span the spectrum from non-readers to fluent and advanced readers. Good kindergarten teachers are able to accommodate them. If a child is bored because s/he can already read, then it's incumbent on the teacher to provide appropriate work for the child. If a child isn't ready yet, then it's incumbent on the teacher to provide good pre-reading support.  Parents should do likewise. 

[transylvania_mom]

I'd say, if your dk wants to read, let her. There are so many new and fun things to do in kindergarten besides reading that she won't be bored.

Ds also learned to read at 4, mostly by himself. On the other hand he never liked to colour or draw; he refused to let me show him how, but they did a lot of colouring in kindergarten and he liked it. Go figure. He is a self-proclaimed artist right now.
 

[Jessica1501]

Meemee and robidoux totally misunderstood my points.

If you say the kids can read or do math later on anyway, you're totally right.

Scientist proves that the brain will grow to about 80 percent of the adult size by the age of 3 and 90 percent by the age of 5.

I don't mean reading is the only way to get this number, no way! But learning to read at this age is fun, like games (puzzles or something, at least with my kid), not like academic, so it still benefits like many other games. Also, while preschools teach reading and your kids love to learn, they naturally know how to read, why refusing?

Are you gonna switch school just because they teach reading? I believe the answer is no. I like my kid's school because of many things else, but since she can read from playing, not from studying like adults, I like that. I am just concerned about later on in K, and this is my main question. I don't want to discuss or argue about benefits of reading because everybody has different opinions. In my area, there are a lot of learning centers for preschoolers, they teach only math and reading, no way am I going to take my DD there.

[JudiAU]

A good school will address the reading or pre-reading level of all of its students. Many schools groups K-1 together for reading. Some children who are taught to read via a phonics method before school will just leap up a grade level for reading group. However, many children who teach themselves to read don't know any phonics at all and still need to learn them or their reading level is inhibited. A good friend of ours with a self-taught strong reader was really surprised when their very expensive private school made no accomodation for her. But she had no phonics at all and her daughter actually found it useful and interesting. By the end of K, her reading level was up three grades.

[puddle]

My daughter just started kindergarten and has been reading for over 2 years.  It's too soon to say for sure how the year will go, but so far she's really enjoying it.  This week they're learning the letters E and F, which she's known since before she turned 2, but it doesn't seem to phase her.  There are so many other exciting things going on, and DD's school is teaching in a really kinesthetic way so far too, so she likes it so far.  She's known F for years, but never jumped up and drawn one with her whole body, so that's super fun.  If your child is interested in reading, don't hold her back.  If kindergarten really becomes too boring due to her advancedness, you can usually find accommodations to challenge your child.  Besides, some kids are interested in letters and reading years before it all actually clicks into place for them.   
 

[NiteNicole]

My daughter was an early reader and continues to read above grade level.  Her teachers have helped her pick books more on her reading level in the library and classroom and recommended books for us at home.  It has not been a DISadvantage in any way at all.

mee mee, you're taking this far too personally.  Some things are an advantage, there's just no getting around it.  It's not a quality judgement of THE PERSON. 
 

[A&A]

You could always consider a grade skip.  

www.nationdeceived.org

[rubidoux]

I'm sorry!  I did understand you, I just wasn't being terribly responsive to your actual concern.  

I also agree that your dd will likely have plenty to do in K even if she already knows how to read.  Maybe you should talk to her teacher about making sure that she's got stuff to read at her own level while the other kids are doing their thing.  

[MamaPrincess]

That is kind of interesting question because in my area all kids know how to read and pretty well at that entering K.

Phonics though are not a waste of time in my opinion at all as it is an intro to writing, it helps your child to

reverse the process and try to actually build the world from scratch when he decomposes it and sounds the sounds..

the more a child does it the better with writing.

[~Adorkable~]

Originally Posted by puddle 
There are so many other exciting things going on, and DD's school is teaching in a really kinesthetic way so far too, so she likes it so far.  She's known F for years, but never jumped up and drawn one with her whole body, so that's super fun. 

ok i want to go to your school,  that is great!!!  i am super kinesthetic and although i tested at the very top of most my grades or ever far above it , i struggled thru every grade of school because the just didn't get how kinesthetic kids learn or dont learn. one of my twin is showing strong tendencies towards kinesthetic interactions with his world, it will be a top priority to find a school that fosters him with that.

[MamaPrincess]

also..

I would think that nowdays a child would need to try reaaaaaaaaaaaaly hard not to read before going to K if

a child watches any tv. EAch and every program teaches a kid to read, a child is exposed to written

text all the time so it would be highly unnatural process actually protecting a child from reading

prior to going to K.

Children in K and first are on very different levels, one is great at math other great at reading

another at spelling another is great writer.. and that all levels out..

the trick is for each child to develop social and attention skills to sit through what a child

already knows.. it will be happening through the whole school life.

sometimes we all got easy grade as we knew something and other times we had to

hit the books.

[~Adorkable~]

you would be surpassed at the lengths some folks do in fact goto to not expose their pre k kids to the written word. i dont understand it but have been around a handful of parents that are in that category, including a family member with her child.

[SweetSilver]

Originally Posted by ollyoxenfree 

I think the disadvantages flow when the adults don't accept and adjust to a child's individual natural pace of learning wherever it falls on the spectrum of normal development.  Most kindergartens have students who span the spectrum from non-readers to fluent and advanced readers. Good kindergarten teachers are able to accommodate them. If a child is bored because s/he can already read, then it's incumbent on the teacher to provide appropriate work for the child. If a child isn't ready yet, then it's incumbent on the teacher to provide good pre-reading support.  Parents should do likewise. 

My girls are homeschooled, so I answer not as a parent of a kindergartener, but as a former kindergartener myself.  The statement I bolded above hit it right on the nail.  I knew how to read at 4 and knew how to read quite well in kindy, but back then (1974) it was pretty basic pre-reading skills done in a circle: pointing out the window that had a sign saying "window", a lot of singing alphabet songs (and other singing--my teacher played guitar) and lots of storytime. Kindy was filled with other activities, so the gap in reading skills was not troublesome, though it was baffling.  I think kindy then is more like preschool now.

First grade was a different story.  Sitting at desks instead of in circles, I was so far past all the other kids in reading (even though I was the youngest in the class) that I was sent, lonely and confused, to the library, and I did my best.  I definitely had that teacher who didn't know how to accommodate me.

I think that that is the only real drawback.  And considering this disparity mostly disappeared by 3rd grade or so, I can't really say it had a particular advantage, either.  I don't think there is an inherent, biological advantage to reading early.  (Waldorf philosophy addresses "crystallization" and "expansiveness" of children's brains in respect to what the schools teach and do not teach at certain ages.  I point this out simply to show that it is not just my personal opinion.)   Reading for children is fairly recent in human history, so if there are any advantages to reading early it is because in the past few years we have placed great importance for it, thinking that it confers real advantages.  

[LynnS6]

Read Einstein Never Used Flashcards.

If your child wants to learn to read early and does so organically, I don't think there's much downside. However, if YOU want your child to learn to read early, then there can be. Preschoolers need lots of play time. They do not need to be learning phonics or sight words. There's good research to show that kids who are pushed hard academically in preschool (having to do worksheets, sit and read, etc.) end up not liking school as much as they're older (2nd-3rd grade). In addition, kids who weren't pushed as hard  usually catch up by 2nd or 3rd grade. AND the kids who had a more play based preschool experience are more curious and have a greater set of experiences to apply their knowledge to.

There's a big difference between an child who is gifted and is driven to learn skills early and a child, however bright, who is pushed to them.

My daughter said she wanted to learn to read when she was 3 (because her big brother was in 1st grade and had to read out loud as homework). We got a few Bob books from the library, and she tried a few and lost interest. She expressed interest again at age 4, and started to memorize books to pretend she could read. Sometime before her 5th birthday, she could read. By the end of the summer before she started K, she was reading short chapter books. I still sent her to a largely play based kindergarten. It was hands down the best experience for her because there was so much more to the day than phonics. And she was still reading Harry Potter by the end of first grade.

My other child was not an early reader. He is a different kind of learner. For him, having the experience of a play based kindergarten was crucial for his social development and for giving him a range of experiences. He actively refused to learn to read until 1st grade. Once he started reading, he took off really quickly. At 11, he's got dynamite language skills (he's really good with puns, for example), and well above average reading skills.

Really in terms of my children, I don't see a huge advantage for the early reader vs. the averaged age reader.

Originally Posted by Jessica1501

Meemee and robidoux totally misunderstood my points.

If you say the kids can read or do math later on anyway, you're totally right.

Scientist proves that the brain will grow to about 80 percent of the adult size by the age of 3 and 90 percent by the age of 5.

Yep. So? Bigger does not mean better for human brains. Really. It's all about the connections that are formed.

Just because that's the brain grows doesn't mean that it won't grow if you didn't teach your child to read. It will grow in many areas. You know what one of the most important predictors of academic success is? Understanding the concepts. It's not early reading. It's not early math. It's being able to understand what people are talking about. Since most children are physical learners, being engaged in DOING something is much more important than learning to read. As my kids get older, the experiences we have together are leading to that understanding.

Originally Posted by Jessica1501

I don't mean reading is the only way to get this number, no way! But learning to read at this age is fun, like games (puzzles or something, at least with my kid), not like academic, so it still benefits like many other games. Also, while preschools teach reading and your kids love to learn, they naturally know how to read, why refusing?

Are you gonna switch school just because they teach reading? I believe the answer is no. I like my kid's school because of many things else, but since she can read from playing, not from studying like adults, I like that. I am just concerned about later on in K, and this is my main question. I don't want to discuss or argue about benefits of reading because everybody has different opinions. In my area, there are a lot of learning centers for preschoolers, they teach only math and reading, no way am I going to take my DD there.

Yes, I would have. Because if they're teaching reading, what other experiences is your child missing out on? Because they're missing out on something in that time that's devoted to reading in preschool. That's not time I want my children to miss.

[dovey]

you would be surpassed at the lengths some folks do in fact goto to not expose their pre k kids to the written word. i dont understand it but have been around a handful of parents that are in that category, including a family member with her child.

I can understand their point of view, although my 6 year old non-reader and I do a little reading practice together.  (She is homeschooled.) She has an older brother who learned to read at age 6.  I did specifically teach him.  He did not really teach himself.  When he learned to read, it was a huge developmental turning point in his life.  He stopped most imaginative play and began a process of constantly reading books - learning lots of interesting ideas, experiencing literature for himself, figuring out how to write sentences based on the cadences of what he had read, learning math from books - basically, he took off into an intellectual mode of thought and never looked back to early childhood. 

The developmental period of creative and imaginative play is not a phase to be hurried through.  It is important in its own right as well as helping the child develop his/her motor skills, social skills, and the ability to imagine and create detailed ideas.  It makes sense to help a child work through this phase without a lot distractions from screens or the written word.  I sometimes feel that I rushed my son through this phase, and I regret it.