Have you Seen - Your Baby Can Read? - Page 2

[MyLittleWonders]

Originally Posted by RedWine

So what if the kid didn't want to try anything else at that point in time? Why not let a kid be into reading read for as long as they please?

i'm not trying to be confrontational. I just look at my own kid -- who loves to read and is so proud of it, and I don't understand how reading early (for the kid who wants to and enjoys it) could possibly be a bad thing.

To me, there is nothing wrong with it in and of itself. I think the point of contention with many is the *forcing* of the child to read early, if you will. I was an eary reader (4 years old) and have never stopped since I first learned. My parents didn't try to teach me - it came naturally. My ds#1 is 5 1/2 and probably *could* read if he truly tried, but he doesn't want to and isn't ready to, so we let it be. He will read when he wants. I have a feeling ds#2 might read earlier than ds#1 (when compared by age of beginning). Again, if it happens it will be of his own accord. Each child is an individual and they will learn when given the freedom to learn (and, imo, a strong background of a love for reading - a lot of lap time being read to).

Also, what I have taken from this thread is that there are unforeseen issues that can arise from a young child being gifted in reading ... the ability to read words/concepts/ideas at an age where they are not ready to understand. The example given above regarding the word "genocide" is a prime example. But, just because a young child can read at a bigger age/grade level doesn't mean that he/she should be discouraged from reading if that is what they want to do. It just means that parents need to be aware that there can be a downfall to early reading ... IMO, a 4 or 5 year old who is capable of reading at a 2nd, 3rd, 4th ... grade level isn't ready to deal with the concepts and knowledge that is often presented for those age groups.

Hopefully this makes sense ... I've been interupted a few times by discussions of earth worms, show-and-tell of earth worms, and a request to buy two cans of earth worms for ds#1 and ds#2!

[Lillian J]

Originally Posted by brendon

I hear what you are saying Lillian. Point taken...I was being judgemental.

Oh, no, no...that wasn't what I was saying. I was just saying that... Well, I guess I'm not sure what I was trying to say, but not that you were being judgemental.

I guess what I was saying was that it can get crazy either way - one parent may be overly excited about a child reading early while another can get overly intense about getting a child to learn it early and another might be upset about a child not learning early. And it's all just such a fuss over nothing... They're all so individual and unique - and, unless there's a rare problem, they'll all be reading by the time there's anything important for them to read for themselves... Lillian

- Lillian

[Aeress]

Lillian- Thanks. I was feeling so bad...

I am truely fascinated by how each child learns. My dd just turned 5 and she is writing and beginning to show interest in chapter books. She loves to read but isn't reading on her own yet. I know she will do it when she is ready. I don't push her, we just read when she wants to and she rides by herself all the time.

[Lillian J]

Originally Posted by brendon

I am truely fascinated by how each child learns. My dd just turned 5 and she is writing and beginning to show interest in chapter books. She loves to read but isn't reading on her own yet. I know she will do it when she is ready. I don't push her, we just read when she wants to and she rides by herself all the time.

When mine was 5, he was not even particularly conscious of the fact that he'd be reading on his own one day - he just loved being read to. He didn't know the letters or anything, but knew a lot about a lot of other things. I felt awful about hustling him through fast lessons in reading to get him ready for that stupid school he was about to go into for 1st grade. Not the way I would have wanted to do it at all...

And there are also those with children who don't seem to be developmentally ready yet but are frustrated with themselves and their moms because they can't read yet. : So many different kinds of learners... - Lillian

[RedWine]

Originally Posted by MyLittleWonders

To me, there is nothing wrong with it in and of itself. I think the point of contention with many is the *forcing* of the child to read early, if you will. I was an eary reader (4 years old) and have never stopped since I first learned. My parents didn't try to teach me - it came naturally. My ds#1 is 5 1/2 and probably *could* read if he truly tried, but he doesn't want to and isn't ready to, so we let it be. He will read when he wants. I have a feeling ds#2 might read earlier than ds#1 (when compared by age of beginning). Again, if it happens it will be of his own accord. Each child is an individual and they will learn when given the freedom to learn (and, imo, a strong background of a love for reading - a lot of lap time being read to).

Also, what I have taken from this thread is that there are unforeseen issues that can arise from a young child being gifted in reading ... the ability to read words/concepts/ideas at an age where they are not ready to understand. The example given above regarding the word "genocide" is a prime example. But, just because a young child can read at a bigger age/grade level doesn't mean that he/she should be discouraged from reading if that is what they want to do. It just means that parents need to be aware that there can be a downfall to early reading ... IMO, a 4 or 5 year old who is capable of reading at a 2nd, 3rd, 4th ... grade level isn't ready to deal with the concepts and knowledge that is often presented for those age groups.

Hopefully this makes sense ... I've been interupted a few times by discussions of earth worms, show-and-tell of earth worms, and a request to buy two cans of earth worms for ds#1 and ds#2!

Gotcha, and ITA.

[chfriend]

Originally Posted by Lillian J

And there are also those with children who don't seem to be developmentally ready yet but are frustrated with themselves and their moms because they can't read yet. : So many different kinds of learners... - Lillian

And as we know from my posts, that would be my dd1. But I think her abilities to see beauty and color are as valuable as my ability to read at 2. Fortunately, I'm a life long learner, so I can learn this new way of seeing from her.

[LeftField]

Since this thread has taken a different turn...

If both my kids read at 2, I would totally support that. I don't wish that they had read at 2, but if that's what their developmental timetable looked like, I would be happy for them. But they didn't and that's fine too. I, personally, have no feelings either way. But I see people absolutely tripping over themselves trying to get their kids to read ASAP and I just don't understand the rush. It's almost like people think that if the kid reads earlier, they have the long-term advantage and that's just not true. Why is everyone in such a big rush to turn their little ones into readers? There are so many people that feel this way that there's a very lucrative industry profiting from it...Leapfrog and such. I just sincerely don't understand the desire to speed everything up. Sometimes a kid points to a letter and correctly says, "B" and that's all that is. Why do people seek out formal programs to hurry up and turn that into reading? I am not judging. I just don't understand it. I don't care when my kids read. If it's early, great. If it's typical, great. If it's late, great. All I really care about is that they love books and have good comprehension.

I actually did know someone who had disdain for her son's early reading. It conflicted with her Waldorf beliefs and she frequently made disparaging remarks about reading in front of her son. She had told me that she would make him leave his books to go outside in the yard, because "that's what kids are supposed to do at this age." You would have had to hear her tone to hear her disdain and discomfort. That was sad. I felt badly for her son.

Anyway, I'm just repeating myself at this point. I have neutral feelings on when my kids learn to read. But I do not understand the desire to turn a 2 or 3 year old into a reader. I do not understand the sense of urgency to expedite development.

[chfriend]

"I actually did know someone who had disdain for her son's early reading. It conflicted with her Waldorf beliefs and she frequently made disparaging remarks about reading in front of her son. She had told me that she would make him leave his books to go outside in the yard, because "that's what kids are supposed to do at this age." You would have had to hear her tone to hear her disdain and discomfort. That was sad. I felt badly for her son."

I had a neighbor who had been a Waldorf Kindergarten teacher before her dd was born. When her 4 year old showed an interest in reading, she removed all books and magazines from her home.

It seemed pretty over the top to me.

4 years later she felt bad about it....

[RedWine]

Is there a psychological advantage to reading early? I don't know -- maybe. I'm responding to Lillian's post above. For my daughter, I am very happy she's reading early...because she has this insatiable desire to learn everything, and this is a way she can do some of it on her own. She can now pick up a book of her choosing on a topic of her choice and read it. Which makes her very happy and proud, and gives her the opportunity to learn things totally on her own (as opposed to my reading something of interest to her). We still do tons of things together of course -- but this new independence gives me a slight break (which is nice) and gives her a boost in her developing self-confidence.

I have a younger daughter (22 months) who "reads" next to her sister, because she sees her sister reading and wants to do everything that she does. I have taken to going over some phonics with her every day. What does that mean? That once or twice a day I'll show her a big foam letter and make the appropriate sound in a silly way. She loves this and we do it together. Am I pushing her to read? I don't think so. Am I giving her tools to do eventually be able to do what her sister does? Yes. Do we have great fun going "AHHH" together loudly and ferociously while crawling around like an alligator, and then attacking the foam letter A? Yes, we sure do.

Will I care if she reads at 2 or 6? If her developmental process takes longer than her sister's, then so be it. Am I a pushy mom for going over phonics with her in a VERY play-based fashion? I dont' think so. I think what woud make me pushy is if she didn't find it interesting and I made her try to do it anyway...which is against my philosophy.

All this rambling is to say that I think it's great if parents introduce phonics/reading early to a child -- if the child finds the process fun and readily takes to it. If the child doesn't want to do it, that's a different thing entirely. So if my younger daughter doesn't want to play around with me as described above one day, then we'll stop.

Okay, I need some coffee. I hope some of this made sense!

[chfriend]

Redwine...dd1 has a different way of going about it. She also has an insatiable desire to learn. She sees patterns and colors. She hears music. Really hears it. (I'm a singer, so I do get that one.) She sets up a sort of "unit studies" approach for herself. She knows the children's librarians and uses their skills to find books on subjects that interest her. She asks me to get materials to support what she's learning.

She doesn't read fluently, but that sure doesn't slow her down.

I didn't learn phonics to learn to read. My experience was that I was holding a hymnal and suddenly realized that I could read the words. I didn't learn to "sound out" words until it was required at school. I just read. It was magic as far as I know.

My parents read to me, but I'm the second oldest of 6 children born in 8 years, so trust me, there weren't foam letter games, etc.

Some kids just read earlier. Some, even profoundly gifted kids to use the lingo, learn in other ways. I feel like my job at ages 6 and 2 is to provide a range of materials and pay attention to the cues my kids are giving me.

I'll be surprised if my 2 year old makes it to three without reading. She insists on a couple of *hours* a day reading. She sits and stares at books. She can also hop on one foot already and has admirable fine motor skills. She started talking at 10 months, but is barely understandable.

But reading will come for both of them. Learning is not dependent on being able to read unless you don't have someone to read to you. Here, we'll pretty much drop anything to read or do a project. I honestly have no need for them to develop independence before they want it. dd2 is very interested in independence. dd1 not so much.

I have learned so very much just letting them lead, noticing them, talking to them, seeing what they see. If I had done flashcards or tried "instructing" them as toddlers, I really think we would have gone a very different road. My perspective from here is that they will have reading skills *and* this wonderful creative artist's eye on the world as well.

[Lillian J]

Originally Posted by RedWine

Is there a psychological advantage to reading early? I don't know -- maybe. I'm responding to Lillian's post above.

I don't think I said anything about psychological advantages one way or another - I think someone else asked the question, but I can't find it anywhere... - Lillian

[RedWine]

Originally Posted by Lillian J

I don't think I said anything about psychological advantages one way or another - I think someone else asked the question, but I can't find it anywhere... - Lillian

No, no no -- sorry. I was wondering "out loud." You didn't say there was a psychological benefit (or none) to reading early. I was reflecting based on what you had written.

I mentioned I hadn't had my coffee yet, right? Sorry for the confusion.

[RedWine]

Originally Posted by chfriend

Redwine...dd1 has a different way of going about it. She also has an insatiable desire to learn. She sees patterns and colors. She hears music. Really hears it. (I'm a singer, so I do get that one.) She sets up a sort of "unit studies" approach for herself. She knows the children's librarians and uses their skills to find books on subjects that interest her. She asks me to get materials to support what she's learning.

She doesn't read fluently, but that sure doesn't slow her down.

I didn't learn phonics to learn to read. My experience was that I was holding a hymnal and suddenly realized that I could read the words. I didn't learn to "sound out" words until it was required at school. I just read. It was magic as far as I know.

My parents read to me, but I'm the second oldest of 6 children born in 8 years, so trust me, there weren't foam letter games, etc.

Some kids just read earlier. Some, even profoundly gifted kids to use the lingo, learn in other ways. I feel like my job at ages 6 and 2 is to provide a range of materials and pay attention to the cues my kids are giving me.

I'll be surprised if my 2 year old makes it to three without reading. She insists on a couple of *hours* a day reading. She sits and stares at books. She can also hop on one foot already and has admirable fine motor skills. She started talking at 10 months, but is barely understandable.

But reading will come for both of them. Learning is not dependent on being able to read unless you don't have someone to read to you. Here, we'll pretty much drop anything to read or do a project. I honestly have no need for them to develop independence before they want it. dd2 is very interested in independence. dd1 not so much.

I have learned so very much just letting them lead, noticing them, talking to them, seeing what they see. If I had done flashcards or tried "instructing" them as toddlers, I really think we would have gone a very different road. My perspective from here is that they will have reading skills *and* this wonderful creative artist's eye on the world as well.

I agree with everything you've written. I think we are both following our children's cues, and therefore each one is naturally developing along their own individual path. Both your kids and mine have great mamas who are willing and able to help them however they want/need help.

[Lillian J]

Originally Posted by RedWine

I mentioned I hadn't had my coffee yet, right?

Sitting her sipping my tea - have been off of coffee for a while, just have it occasionally as a yummy TREAT! Anyway, your conversation with CH got me to thinking, and I think I may be able to articulate something.

I have no criticism whatsover of anyone helping their children learn anything they want to learn at any age whatsoever. What bothers me, though, is that there are so many things to enjoy and learn about in this big world, and so many people these days are eagerly focused on reading being an important thing for their young children to learn - as if it's the thing. In the case of yours, I understand what you're saying - she's busy looking things up that she's interested in, and that's great. But a whole lot of people are thinking of it just as something that a child is supposed to do. And the earlier it happens, the more intelligent they feel their child is, and the better they feel their child will be able to do in college and life - which isn't so at all. Meanwhile, there are so many really wonderful and important things for the young child's age that go unrecognized as important - like free, imaginative play and wonder. We can't control our children's basic natures and drives - so much of it is built in - but I think we can at least back off on the craze to turn them into little mini-scholars instead of developing human beings who are just becoming acquainted with their bodies, homes, families, neighborhoods, nature, etc... - Lillian

[chfriend]

I'm from a family full of building school educators...here's what I think about this drive to get them reading earlier and earlier. It does make building school easier if you can read. The teachers accept that you are "smart." They lay off you.

When dd1 was only 1 my mom got on me to make sure she had an early bedtime because otherwise she'd have trouble when it came time for school.

The thing is, I think she's right. If you're going to send your kid to building school, it'll be a lot easier for them if they go to bed at 7 pm, follow a behavior modification plan and learn to read before pre-K....as many of my nieces and nephews did.

I think their parents did the right thing since their path was building school. It was when I had this conversation with my mom, that I decided that I didn't want my kids' needs subsumed into a need to "get them ready" for the next thing.

I think as school starts earlier and earlier (it's age 3 here), parents, wanting their kids to have a positive experience, encourage earlier and earlier reading.

I find that to be the joy of homeschooling. We can do what seems right to meet the kids where they are right now, without worrying about getting them ready for the next thing.

[Lillian J]

Originally Posted by chfriend

If you're going to send your kid to building school, it'll be a lot easier for them if they go to bed at 7 pm, follow a behavior modification plan and learn to read before pre-K....as many of my nieces and nephews did.

Maybe...but it makes me cringe to think of it. My son went to school, and I never did a lot to accomodate it, but he did okay. We hated having to try to squish into the schools' routines, though, I must say. I remember one night when we were up to 11 p.m. (much later than usual) building a marshmallow and toothpick pyramid just because it was so much fun. He was tired in the morning, but it was worth it to just follow our passion that night - took it to school to show. That day when I picked him up, all these other first graders were coming out carrying one. It was surreal... Turned out the teacher had loved it and sent someone to the store to get toothpicks and marshmallows for everyone.

Rambling...

Have you read Alfie Kohn's article on "Getting Hit on the Head Lessons"? Lillian

[chfriend]

What a totally cool teacher!!!

The folks in my family that work in building schools are equally passionate about learning. They do a tremendous job and love it.

[Lillian J]

Originally Posted by chfriend

What a totally cool teacher!!!

I guess it sounded that way, huh... But no, she had quite a bullying to her as well, unfortunately. But that's what drove us to homeschooling so early on, so I guess it was a blessing in disguise. - Lillian

[jessicaSAR]

Originally Posted by RedWine

I have a younger daughter (22 months) who "reads" next to her sister, because she sees her sister reading and wants to do everything that she does. I have taken to going over some phonics with her every day. What does that mean? That once or twice a day I'll show her a big foam letter and make the appropriate sound in a silly way. She loves this and we do it together. Am I pushing her to read? I don't think so. Am I giving her tools to do eventually be able to do what her sister does? Yes. Do we have great fun going "AHHH" together loudly and ferociously while crawling around like an alligator, and then attacking the foam letter A? Yes, we sure do.

Will I care if she reads at 2 or 6? If her developmental process takes longer than her sister's, then so be it. Am I a pushy mom for going over phonics with her in a VERY play-based fashion? I dont' think so. I think what woud make me pushy is if she didn't find it interesting and I made her try to do it anyway...which is against my philosophy.


!

I read this this morning and I have been thinking about it all day. I completely understand the desire for kids to be proficient in reading. As was mentioned previously it really is seen as a measure of intelligence, and that pull is hard to ignore. And the way you describe introducing letters sounds totally fun, which if it is going to be done early is absolutely the only way to do it.

But, I still have lingering doubts. There has been much talk recently about valuing ( or re -valuing) play and giving children room to play. And, nobody seems to argue with this, but I fear most of the time we are just giving lip service to the idea of play. The way I see it, and as was evident in the wonderful article Lillian posted, using play to introduce phonics or math or whatever is taking the play away from children and appropriating it for adult purposes. We cannot really value play unless we are really able to see the kind of learning and developing that goes on when play is really unstructured and unappropriated. If we really believed that play is in and of itself important, then I think we would not feel compelled to replace the amazing world of child-directed play with our own overriding sense of what play should be teaching. There is a sort of mastery to unstructured play,of the self, and the will and the world that children cannot achieve when the play is planned by adults. And I think that lack of mastery lingers in ways that we do not yet fully understand.

Anyway, these are just thoughts that have been bumping around in my head all day.

[Sharon, RN]

Originally Posted by LeftField

Since this thread has taken a different turn...

But I see people absolutely tripping over themselves trying to get their kids to read ASAP and I just don't understand the rush. It's almost like people think that if the kid reads earlier, they have the long-term advantage and that's just not true. Why is everyone in such a big rush to turn their little ones into readers? There are so many people that feel this way that there's a very lucrative industry profiting from it...Leapfrog and such. I just sincerely don't understand the desire to speed everything up. Sometimes a kid points to a letter and correctly says, "B" and that's all that is. Why do people seek out formal programs to hurry up and turn that into reading? I am not judging. I just don't understand it. I don't care when my kids read. If it's early, great. If it's typical, great. If it's late, great. All I really care about is that they love books and have good comprehension.

You know, before my son started K, I never worried much about it, either. We read together, and we were both fine with that. I was floored with the amount of work that K involved, including reading. And here I thought K was just to get the ball rolling!

In 1st grade they actually had a 1-1 resource teaching work with him during reading time because he was in the bottom "20%" of the class- most of whom were a year or so older than him. He advanced quickly, but after all the letters/calls/etc from the school, then I became paranoid about his reading! I think people are getting obsessed with it because we are lead to believe (through the media, schools, etc) that the only way not to have a totally illiterate child to have them reading Moby Dick by age 3! (This is an exaggeration, but ykwim.)

He did fine when he started 2nd grade, but then all the letters became about his writing! Not detailed enough, not neat enough, not long enough... and just before I became all upset about that and tried to force him into becoming a proficient writer at six, I thought, whoa, you know, maybe he's not ready! Ding ding ding!

Now we homeschool and take things more in stride.

But I would be untruthful if I didn't say I wish my ds had taken to reading like a fish to water. But he didn't, and now that I don't have "experts" calling me all the time telling me that certain doom awaits him if he can't do everything at the level they expect him to, I feel alot better.

Anyway, that kinda went on a little longer than planned, but I just wanted to explain how some of us do get sucked into this "earlier is better" mentality.