Disadvantage of early reading when going to K ? - Page 3

[ollyoxenfree]

Further to my last post, I should also mention that I support "ability grouping" both within a class or within a grade (or a few grades), where students at a similar level in a subject are brought together to work. Again, it's different from tracking.  Ability grouping tends to be subject-specific, temporary, less formal and there's less likelihood that a student is permanently pigeon-holed into a particular academic level for the rest of his/her school career. 

[pranava]

Originally Posted by meemee 

trying to get kids to 'read' as fun i still find work. not fun. just the same as i dislike educational toys. trying to introduce 'unfun' things in a fun way. in my books - rather like bribing. perhaps i am a bit radical here. no. no. no. didnt want that. dd was interested in the human body. i got her all she wanted. i did not introduce the human body through toys hoping she would be interested. she had enough on her plate that she was curious about. i didnt need to introduce anything to totally overwhelm her. that's how i see educational toys or fun reading as. 

Learning to read not fun?  Try to tell that to my DS who at 10 months would chase me down the hall speed crawling while pushing a book.  He did learn to read early, even though I hid all his books for weeks at a time because I could no longer stand reading them.  Try to get him to jump, climb, and make mud pies, and he'll act like you're trying to torture him.  Every kid is different.

What really suprises me, is how many kids here seem to be reading, and reading well at 3,4, or a young 5.  If so many are doing it, then maybe it's not really early? 

[meemee]

Originally Posted by pranava 

Learning to read not fun? 

To the child who is not interested no its not fun. to the child chasing you down to read to him absolutely. but that is not the same thing.

as much as it seems like kids are learning to read earlier and earlier if you look at the statistics in K it does not show that. out of 25 kids maybe 2 or 3 kids enter K reading. many do come in at least knowing some of their alphabets and counting till 10 and writing their name as a picture not as a series of letters they can identify individually.

i absolutely hate the focus of academics on children starting so young. those who are interested of course they need it. but in most of the cases the pill is being sugar coated with teh hope that the kid will swallow it. they even have alphabet teething toys. i mean come on!!!

or this whole business that there is something wrong with you as a parent if you dont read to your child at nigth from a book. there are many parts of the world who do not read to their kids except once in a while. instead they tell stories.  

[SweetSilver]

Originally Posted by meemee 

To the child who is not interested no its not fun. to the child chasing you down to read to him absolutely. but that is not the same thing.

i absolutely hate the focus of academics on children starting so young. those who are interested of course they need it. but in most of the cases the pill is being sugar coated with teh hope that the kid will swallow it. they even have alphabet teething toys. i mean come on!!!

or this whole business that there is something wrong with you as a parent if you dont read to your child at nigth from a book. there are many parts of the world who do not read to their kids except once in a while. instead they tell stories.  

(Bolded sentence)  This drives me nuts now, though it never used to.  

 I also think a great emphasis is placed on reading, more than there should be.  At home we read mostly, but we also tell stories.  I tell stories of my childhood, and dh tells "Jack and Jill" stories with characters like Crackity Joe and others.  The girls are engaged in these oral stories in ways that reading never does, as much as we all love our books.  I think our society, especially in recent years, is missing out on the benefits of the oral storytelling tradition.  Why?  Watch how a good storyteller engages the children, looking straight in their eyes.  I know storytime librarians do this some, too, but the focus is truly on the book.  Interpreting all the pictures, as wonderful as it is, takes some of the focus off the words.  The cadence of a good storyteller is far different from someone reading a book, even a good reader (I consider myself a very good narrater of books :)

When we focus on reading at such an early age, perhaps we are missing something vitally important.  Even kids who love to read and be read to at an early age could do with some storytelling.  Why we save it for campouts, I have no idea.

My dd1 loved to be read to, even at 4.5 months.  I have a picture of her sitting up in a laundry basket, poring over "Mr. Brown Can Moo, Can You?"  So, I would never stop a child wanting to be read to, or learning how to read.  But I think there is some line of thinking that this is a sign of superior brain development and that other children would be better off, too, if they learned reading as soon as possible.  Like I said earlier, I was an early reader, picking it up soon after 4yo, and those differences simply melted by the third grade, where I was a bright but otherwise average student.  (I still have an ease with words, but I'm afraid that I am more than a bit deficient in other areas. )

I better stop before I lose track of where this discussion started.....

[AmandaT]

To keep the subject OT for just a bit longer....

DD is a child who LOVES being read to. If I don't read to her multiple times a day she gets very cranky. The other day we could not leave the house until I read Clifford's Bathtime to her eight times. In her six month professional pictures she's reading The Very Hungry Caterpillar​ . 

.. okay back on subject!

[transylvania_mom]

Originally Posted by meemee 

i absolutely hate the focus of academics on children starting so young. those who are interested of course they need it. but in most of the cases the pill is being sugar coated with teh hope that the kid will swallow it. they even have alphabet teething toys. i mean come on!!!

or this whole business that there is something wrong with you as a parent if you dont read to your child at nigth from a book. there are many parts of the world who do not read to their kids except once in a while. instead they tell stories.  

Originally Posted by SweetSilver 

But I think there is some line of thinking that this is a sign of superior brain development and that other children would be better off, too, if they learned reading as soon as possible.

I agree with this. Ds started reading early, it was an advantage for him when he went to school, but if a child is not interested in learning until later, that's fine too. I come from a culture where children start learning to read at 7-8 y/o. It didn't stop me and my friends from school to earn graduate degrees at universities all around the world.

It makes no difference when a child starts reading imo. The important thing is not to pressure him one way or the other.

[KCMichigan]

Originally Posted by SweetSilver 

When we focus on reading at such an early age, perhaps we are missing something vitally important.  Even kids who love to read and be read to at an early age could do with some storytelling.  Why we save it for campouts, I have no idea.

I agree that oral story-telling is an amazing way to explore words, language, and is an excellent imagination builder. One of my DD loves books on tape, library oral story-time, musical story-telling (peter and the wolf and other musical adventures) and making up oral stories of her own.

Our library offers preschool and grade school storytelling, it is fabulous. No books, sometimes music or visual props-- but it is really neat.

That said-- I think some people that are weak in auditory skills gravitate toward reading. Myself and one of my DD has trouble following oral stories, books on tape, long strings of information, etc. I love stories,  but really struggle to tell them verbally unless I am reading a book. I have to write them down and embellish- but to follow a structure I have to have a written 'framework'. My DH is the opposite, he is not a reader but enjoys books on tape and can tell a great story!

I make an effort to make sure that I provide access to both auditory and written story-telling for both my DD, but it is clear that one DD (like myself) has trouble attending to storytelling. That has not prevented me from getting some great stories on tape that are narrated by very talented people.

Some of the 'early' reading may simply be learning style-- the same environment presented to a child (lots of music and auditory experiences/books and written word) and a visual learner may be much more likely to seek out a book and an auditory learner is more likely to want to talk, listen, or speak about ideas.

I think music is a great teaching tool as well as books. 

All things in moderation- kids often will gravitiate toward their own style and learning methods if given exposure to multiple options. 

[dogretro]

DD1 is four and is going to full-day Headstart this year (her first preschool experience). Dh and I are definitely into not formally teaching her to read, just letting it flow organically. That said, she has always been a v academic kid, knowing (and recognizing) her letters at age two, memorizing full books, etc. She currently wants to learn how to tell time, is learning about coin money, asks what different signs say when we are out, traces letters & can write many of them on her own. With her schooling this year, we have no doubt that she will be reading by the end of school year b/c the teacher will see her abilities and run w/ them. I am sad about this b/c I wanted it to unfold as it would, but I cannot control that when she is going to an academic preschool. Now, obv ps is different than kindy, but the fact that dd1 already knows what is being taught right now does not seem to bother her. We sent her for social & behavioral reasons anyway. They are doing abc's & counting. I doubt she is bored. I expect that if she goes to kindy next year (want to hs, we'll see), I would let the teacher know her abilities and ps background & expect that the teacher would work w/ it. Even older kids who can read still enjoy being read to. Some kids are going to come into kindy still not knowing their abc's and some will be reading. That is part of the challenge of teaching kindy :)

I looked at dd1's class schedule and it is, at the most, an hour of her day spent on literacy activities (this includes being read to). She is there for six hours. I do not have a problem w/ this ratio. As I said, she loves academics, it's still ps, so there is lots of play, and we play play play the rest of the day at home. I would NOT skip a grade this early b/c socially & behaviorally dd1 will still be only five next year. Not at all ready for the rigors of first grade, nor that mature. This is also part of why, despite loving Waldorf, W school is off the table for us :(

[mariee]

My gosh, I just cannot imagine any reason in the world NOT to teach a young child how to read.  I'm not even going to entertain any alternative theories about needing to play, etc.  Everything in balance.

And to answer your question, yes, I it is absolutely possible for a child who is advanced to be bored beyond belief in a classroom where his peers are far behind.  I've seen it constantly in my own classroom in 10 years of teaching.  A proactive teacher can make a difference, but not all teachers are procative. Unfortunately, that is a huge drawback to public education.  Public ed was not built to challenge the advanced learner, sadly, but I can't see that as being a reason not to teach a child to read at home.  

[SweetSilver]

Originally Posted by mariee 

  Everything in balance.

"Everything in balance" is in itself an unbalanced idea.  *Everything*?  

I promise I'm not being snarky.... just a little bit silly, though.

[meemee]

Originally Posted by mariee 

My gosh, I just cannot imagine any reason in the world NOT to teach a young child how to read.  I'm not even going to entertain any alternative theories about needing to play, etc.  Everything in balance.

what is your definition of young child? do you think a 4 year old needs to be taught how to read? i am not talking about the alphabets. but to actually read. 

how about a 3 year old? is it ok to do the alphabets with them? 

[meetoo]

I just skimmed the posts, but I don't believe there is any advantage to teaching preschoolers to read(not to be confused with readiness skills). I've read many studies that actually state teaching preschoolers academics slows the learning process in the long run(even when done in a "fun" way). The brain connections they make are not as good as the ones they would have made had they been taught later. It also takes away from the very important skills preschoolers need to be learning (social, problem solving, etc. etc.) Also, most of the time kids even out by 3rd grade. Now that said, some kids just learn to read as preschoolers and are ready....That's not what I'm talking about. :) 

Originally Posted by meemee 

however under no circumstances will regular public K or 1st be a great experience for a child who knows how to read and is grades ahead. all the trouble makers or the dreamers in her class fit that category. 

This is not at all true in our experience. Many kids start k reading. Most are emergent readers, but occasionally there are kids reading quite well(this is rare according to our teachers but does happen). Our schools work at each child's individual reading level for all grades. In any given classroom (particularly the lower grades!!) you will see kids working in many different reading levels. Often kids learn to read in spurts too, so you can have a child who moves up 5 reading levels in 6 weeks. It goes at each child's pace.....

[squimp]

Originally Posted by meemee 

however under no circumstances will regular public K or 1st be a great experience for a child who knows how to read and is grades ahead. all the trouble makers or the dreamers in her class fit that category. 

Of course blanket statements like this are just begging to be wrong.  My DD learned to read at 4, in her first of two years of preschool.  She is now 9 and thrives at gasp public school.  She loves school, loved K and loved 1st grade.  Luckily she is not the only one (but she was the most advanced) and has great teachers.  She is neither trouble-maker nor dreamer and neither are the others who were advanced.  She didn't need to learn to read in K but there were plenty of other things to do.  I say, if kids want to read (or play violin, or write a book) at an early age, my goodness, encourage it.  

[mamazee]

Yeah, my dd started reading right around her 4th birthday, and was reading very well by kindergarten, and has had a great experience at public school. Our school has a great GATE program and is really good about differentiating. It's probably different for all kids, but I agree that "under no circumstances" is not accurate. I can see how, depending on the school district and the kid and the teacher, it could cause problems, but i would see that as a failing of the schools and not a reason to hold back a child who is wanting to read.

[mariee]

Maybe I'm totally misunderstanding the debate here, but here's what I think of when I hear "teaching a young child to read":  reading to the child with a book in front of you both, pointing out capital letters, pointing out names and other proper nouns, pointing out things like exclamation points, question marks, and periods, and eventually, pointing out short words such as "car" or "dog".  And certainly not all these things at once, but perhaps a few of them each time a book is read.  And, yes, the alphabet is a great idea, even if kids don't recognize all the letters.  JUst familiarizing them with the concept of letters is a great start.   Drilling, worksheets, and phonics never even entered my mind, so I"m not sure what others are envisioning with the idea of teaching young children to read.  Am I missing something??

[meemee]

Originally Posted by squimp 

Of course blanket statements like this are just begging to be wrong.  My DD learned to read at 4, in her first of two years of preschool.  She is now 9 and thrives at gasp public school.  She loves school, loved K and loved 1st grade.  Luckily she is not the only one (but she was the most advanced) and has great teachers.  She is neither trouble-maker nor dreamer and neither are the others who were advanced.  She didn't need to learn to read in K but there were plenty of other things to do.  I say, if kids want to read (or play violin, or write a book) at an early age, my goodness, encourage it.  

eeeh making statements on a tired brain is certainly not my stellar moment. however in my later posts i corrected it and said = for those not getting differentiation - whichever way it goes IS the part that really messes things up. 

it all varies according to state. and depending on teachers to provide differentiation is really hard in my state with crowded classrooms nad no help. let me tell you the teachers suffer too. their hands are tied and they cant help. they want to but dont have the means to. 

so for those who DO get some sort of 'services' - school is not so bad. 

we have limited differentiation. there is such a marked change in some kids when they DO get the differentiation. 

'under no circumstances' when a child isnt getting any kind of differentiation - is trouble land - in some form.