s/o - did you teach (or help) your kids learn to read? - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 64 Old 10-07-2011, 09:15 AM - Thread Starter
 
purslaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,937
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

On another thread, fillyjonk said:

 

"I had a strong unschooling-based belief that all kids can teach themselves to read."

 

...and I started wondering if this is true.

 

Can all kids teach themselves to read?  Most?

 

Secondly, did you teach your kids/help your kids learn to read?

 

For myself, I have no idea if most kids can teach themselves to read. I haven't really been willing to find out.  Once they reached an age where they expressed interest in learning to read, I helped facilitate the process.  Maybe I lack patience or trust in "they can learn to read on their own" (having never seen it) but in any event, I was not risking it.  

 

My oldest needed a little help, my middle needed almost none (full disclosure - she is very bright) and my youngest has needed a lot of help.  She does read fluently and on her own, but it has been a 2 year process, where I have done a dance between knowing when to push and when not to. 

 

 

purslaine is offline  
#2 of 64 Old 10-07-2011, 09:43 AM
 
Luckiestgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 393
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

My eight-year-old taught himself to read at age 5 with no instruction.  I did the same as a child.  My six-year-old is just now starting to read, using a combination of phonics (sounding words out) and memorizing sight words.  I am helping her as requested--and she does ask for my help with this every few days--but if it takes two or three years for it to come together, I'm fine with that.  Dh was a later reader, and seemed to benefit from phonics instruction.  He now reads constantly--history, political science, philosophy, etc.  He's also an attorney, which I mention only as evidence that kids who read later can still do very well in vocations that require strong reading skils.  Also, I think it's important to remember that reading is more than decoding words.  Reading is comprehension, critical thinking, analysis.  Both my dh and six-year-old seem to have really exceptional analysis and comprehension skills, which I find interesting.

Luckiestgirl is offline  
#3 of 64 Old 10-07-2011, 11:17 AM
 
moominmamma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: In the middle of nowhere, at the centre of everything.
Posts: 5,692
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 66 Post(s)

Define "teach themselves." wink1.gif

 

I believe that the vast majority of children require no direct instruction to learn to read. That's not to say they aren't "taught" things, for instance, when they ask "What's the E on the end of ICE for?" or "How do you spell 'birthday'?" or "Why does 'Philip' start with a P?" That's not to say that a small proportion won't need direct instruction. That's not to say that some children won't request direct instruction.

 

All four of my kids learned to read without direct instruction. Three learned very early (well before age 5), one learned early-ish (at 5). Many children would probably accomplish the same learning perhaps on a later schedule if they were given the freedom and trust to do so, and if they were in environments well insulated from the assumption that "normal" kids can read by the age of 6 or 7, an assumption which can whittle away at their self-confidence. That last one is a big "if," though.

 

Miranda


Mountain mama to three great kids and one great grown-up

moominmamma is online now  
#4 of 64 Old 10-07-2011, 12:04 PM
 
Luckiestgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 393
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by moominmamma View Post

Many children would probably accomplish the same learning perhaps on a later schedule if they were given the freedom and trust to do so, and if they were in environments well insulated from the assumption that "normal" kids can read by the age of 6 or 7, an assumption which can whittle away at their self-confidence. That last one is a big "if," though.

 

Miranda



Yes.  If we assume there's a problem because a child isn't reading at six, and start pushing direct instruction when it's not welcome, then how will we know he or she would never learn to read?  There's a growing trend, and not just in reading, to bring in "expertise" as soon as the child gets close to the "deadline" someone decided upon.  One of my children didn't walk until he was seventeen months old, and another walked at ten months.  You cannot tell from observing them today which one walked first. I understand worrying, and how scary it can be to have a child at the extreme end of some "normal" range.  But early intervention can sometimes do harm.  Scores of two-year-olds are now recommended for speech therapy, under the argument that it's better to be on the safe side.  But what might be the harmful effects of sitting a two-year-old down and correcting his/her speech?  Might the child not lose confidence?

 

 

 

Luckiestgirl is offline  
#5 of 64 Old 10-07-2011, 12:30 PM
 
Attila the Honey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: swimming with sharks
Posts: 2,663
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I helped my dd learn to read at 6 by answering her questions and reading to her a lot.  But she didn't have any sort of formal lessons.   I don't believe children need formal lessons to read but everyone needs a little help sometimes. :)  

 

 

Honey693 likes this.

flowersforyou.gif

Attila the Honey is offline  
#6 of 64 Old 10-07-2011, 12:43 PM - Thread Starter
 
purslaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,937
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by moominmamma View Post

Define "teach themselves." wink1.gif

 

 

Miranda



That is why I put "help" in brackets in the title, lol.

 

I like your use of the words "direct instruction".  I have no idea if many or most kids require direct instruction - I think a good chunk do not require direct instruction but do require a word rich environment and support.  Support might mean saying  - "oh, yeah that word is telephone.  The ph makes a "f" sound." I do wonder if this method of helping kids learn to read takes longer overall, which is fine as long as the kids and children involved are fine with it. 

 

 

 

purslaine is offline  
#7 of 64 Old 10-07-2011, 12:45 PM
2xy
 
2xy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,162
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I taught both of my kids to read. DS1 needed a lot less help than DS2. Maybe they both would have learned to read with no instruction, but I don't really see the point in that. They learned when they were ready, with my help. DS1 was 5yo and DS2 was 7yo. I don't understand why teaching them would be seen as an undesirable thing.

 

There's nothing wrong with teaching something to a child who is ready and willing.

 

 

Honey693 likes this.
2xy is offline  
#8 of 64 Old 10-07-2011, 12:46 PM - Thread Starter
 
purslaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,937
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Attila the Honey View Post

   I don't believe children need formal lessons to read but everyone needs a little help sometimes. :)  

 

 


 

I am not picking on you  smile.gif, just using this as a launching pad for an idea I have played with....

 

Do you ever think we are kidding ourselves - and that really we do teach our kids things, we just do not use the word?  Or do you think there is a qualitative difference between USing "help" and direct instruction "teach"  (lets assume that in both cases the kid wants to learn the task at hand)

purslaine is offline  
#9 of 64 Old 10-07-2011, 01:04 PM
 
Fillyjonk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 825
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)

hahaha, ok. I should say, I don't know if its a correct belief or not, that kids don't need to be taught reading. Its interesting to hear the opinions of others. I have absolutely no data or evidence to back it up and to be fair I have also known unschooled teenagers who literally do not know their alphabets, who reached 18 completely unable to read or spell. Dunno if this is a problem or not really.

 

This is just the assumption that I had when my kids were little, and this was based not just on extensive reading-Holt, alison mckee, etc-but also on having known several homeschooled and unschooled kids while growing up (round here, unschooling is really not such a big deal, we don't really have many highly structured homeschoolers at all and back when I was growing up I think even more British homeschoolers were unschoolers/autonomous than now).

 

What I meant by "teach themself" was really being in charge of learning to read. Learning to read without anyone else sitting down and saying "you need to learn to read". For some kids, this might mean asking parents to research and buy a reading program. Others might learn to read off the back of cornflakes packets or by asking what the odd word meant, like my middle child.

 

I do still believe most children-most people even-can and will, at some point, take charge and decide to learn to read, and be sucessful in doing so. I've seen it with my older daughter, and I'm seeing it begin with my younger daughter. I've seen it with any number of my kids friends. I also believe that there is a normal range of learning to read which spans something like 3 to 10, but also that reading outside those years is even then not a huge concern. Bascially, reading, once you are fluent, is not something that you get much better at, and so IMO there isn't much advantage in reading at 4 over reading at 13. A lot of reading ability is actually maturity, growing familiarity with language, etc, and these aren't skills you gain by doing a lot of reading. IMHO. Reading is a composite of skills, which is why, IMO, it is SO incredibly common to see late reading kids catch and and surpass their peers who have been reading for ages-late readers have been working on other skills that ultimately serve them as well or better as readers than simply perfecting phonic knowledge.

 

However, I also believe that some children do struggle disproportionately with learning to read, and can be helped by systematic intervention. Based on my experience with my son, I think that these children can also sometimes benefit from having an adult step in and take the lead, because by the time they'd tried and failed to teach themselves, all the while often watching other kids learn quite easily, they really can have lost confidence in their ability to learn to read. My feeling with my son was that the best route out of a really vicious cycle was to teach him, as swiftly and effectively as possible. Of course it would have been even better if either he had taught himself (he would then have had the confidence and knowlege that he could teach himself), or if it stopped being such an issue for him, but neither were happening any time soon. I should point out that he has never been to school, he has never ever been told that he is a failure, or MUST learn to read by a specific time. We only stepped in after it became an issue for him, in response to the face that it was an issue for him. His difficulties were also unsual and marked enough by this time that we could be pretty sure that the problem was not that he wasn't ready to read. He was ready, but there were blocks in his way.

 

I think there is a specific issue with kids who have certain reading difficulties. Because of the nature of these difficulties, for some kids it can be much harder for them to pick words out of their environement. It can be harder to remember words, or sequences. I think if kids are struggling in this way, it is possible that they will need systematic teaching at some point. For my son this was making sure he had strong phonics knowledge, because he needs to be able to compensate for other problems he has when reading.

 

I also think that the psychological effect of having struggled is really great in some kids, including those who have never been to school, like my son-some kids are perfectionists, and this is a big deal for them. Its easy for a child like this to give up and write themselves off as not a reader, when actually all they might need is a bit (lot) of encouragement and time set aside every day to do the work, whether they feel like it or not . If my son really didn't want to do it, of course I would explore why, I never forced him to learn, but I found it so important to make sure that he knew I'd set aside time for this, I saw it as important enough to schedule in every single day.

 

What I do not think is that, because a small percentage of kids do have difficulties with reading, all kids should be systematically taught at an early age. TBH, when a child has reading problems, and yet wants to read, this is a pretty obvious situation to an attentive parent. There should be no need to teach every child lest a few go unnoticed.

 

 

ETA: I don't think there is anything wrong with teaching a child who has asked to be taught, so long as we remain attentive and stop if we are "overteaching". There are a couple of reasons why I, personally, would rather a child took control of the process of learning to read, even aside from the moral questions of whether people get to decide what they are taught. First, they are going to do it most effectively themselves. Its such an individual thing, building on such diverse skills, that I think its much better if it comes from the person learning. Second, more importantly, I'm in favour generally of giving kids as many positive experiences of taking control of their own learning as possible. If there is one thing I want my kids to be able to do, its to know how to learn.


Raising Geek_Generation_2.0 :LET ds= 10 ; LET dd1= ds - 2; LET dd2=dd-2; IF month=0.67 THEN LET ds = ds+1; 
Fillyjonk is offline  
#10 of 64 Old 10-07-2011, 01:42 PM - Thread Starter
 
purslaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,937
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Fillyjonk View Post

hahaha, ok. 



Hope you do not mind the spin-off.  I had heard the USing idea that kids can  teach themselves to read, but as someone who did help my children learn to read (help included small amounts of direct instruction), I find the idea intriguing.  

purslaine is offline  
#11 of 64 Old 10-07-2011, 01:43 PM
 
Luckiestgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 393
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Fillyjonk View Post

hahaha, ok. I should say, I don't know if its a correct belief or not, that kids don't need to be taught reading. Its interesting to hear the opinions of others. I have absolutely no data or evidence to back it up and to be fair I have also known unschooled teenagers who literally do not know their alphabets, who reached 18 completely unable to read or spell. Dunno if this is a problem or not really.

 

 

Fillyjonk, I'm really interested in this.  I personally don't know any people like this, and I'm curious if you have any thoughts as to why these 18-year-olds were unable to read.  Do you attribute this to lack of interest, to the fact that their parents didn't value reading, to unrecognized learning problems, or what?  In fact, I'm interested in anyone who knows illiterate 18-year-olds whose parents considered themselves unschoolers, and what kind of take you have on that.

Luckiestgirl is offline  
#12 of 64 Old 10-07-2011, 01:51 PM
 
onatightrope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 305
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

My experience is that some kids need little or no formal instruction to read, and others do need instruction.  My oldest and youngest children taught themselves to read after having received some fun basic phonics instruction from me, mostly through games that we played primarily for fun-- they liked the games because they were interested in reading, I believe in retrospect. Reading is harder for my middle child, and the same kind of basic phonics instruction was not enough to help her make the leap to reading. First I assumed she was just a later bloomer in this regard, and then I did some research on reading related learning disabilities, and none of them fit.  When it became clear that "I can't read" was solidifying as a part of her self-identity, I started looking for formal reading programs and we began working together on a regular basis (we used Progressive Phonics-- I love it, and its free).  Within a few months she was reading.  Now she reads above grade level.  I think she needed regular practice with a grownup to make the leap to really reading, and she didn't know she needed that, so she didn't ask.  The whole experience has taught me that I need to pay careful attention to where my kids are with important skills, because some kids work doggedly or ask for help if they have trouble learning something that would be useful for them, and other kids find a work-around or avoid anything that needs the skill, without any idea that with just a little help they could master this thing that seems impossible.

 

I apologize if I'm not expressing myself clearly.  

 

FWIW, I do think that my middle child was something of a later bloomer for reading, and I don't regret holding off on formal reading instruction, but I'm glad we did it when we did.

onatightrope is offline  
#13 of 64 Old 10-07-2011, 02:00 PM - Thread Starter
 
purslaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,937
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by onatightrope View Post

 

 

FWIW, I do think that my middle child was something of a later bloomer for reading, and I don't regret holding off on formal reading instruction, but I'm glad we did it when we did.


Ditto.  

 

My youngest, age 8, needed practice to become fluent (or it may simply be late blooming).

 

Long story short, I was starting to stress a little over her lack of progress so I did prioritise reading.  I did not want my stress carrying over to her and leaving her feeling that she could not read - nor did I want reading to develop into a power struggle.  I felt grabbing the bull by the horns in the gentlest way possible was the best course.

 

 

 

purslaine is offline  
#14 of 64 Old 10-07-2011, 05:22 PM
 
moominmamma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: In the middle of nowhere, at the centre of everything.
Posts: 5,692
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 66 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

That is why I put "help" in brackets in the title, lol.


Okay, define "help," lol! ROTFLMAO.gif

 

Seriously, though. If your kids asks "How do you spell 'birthday'?" there are two very different types of help you could offer.

 

You could say "Sound it out. What does it start with? ... Yes, B. Then the 'er' sound, that's I-R in this case. Now, what about the TH sound? Do you remember what combination of letters makes that sound? 'Th' like in 'tooth,' you wrote that last week to the tooth fairy. Do you remember what letters go together? ... Ah, close, but it's not s-h, it's actually T-h. Okay, so that's the BIRTH part. Now you need to think about DAY. What sound starts that?  .... Right, D, and then? ... Yes! A is next. And now you just need a Y to finish. Great job!"

 

Or alternatively you could say "B-I-R-T-H-D-A-Y." Just answer the question.

 

Both are help. One type of help includes a lot of context-based teaching, while the other is simply face-value answering of the child's question. Some kids prefer one sort. Some parents naturally gravitate to one style. It's a spectrum, isn't it? Everything lies along a spectrum.

 

Miranda

 


Mountain mama to three great kids and one great grown-up

moominmamma is online now  
#15 of 64 Old 10-07-2011, 05:42 PM
 
SweetSilver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Westfarthing
Posts: 5,124
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 68 Post(s)

I have assisted my budding readers when they ask for help.  Referring to the quote below, I am more the parent that answers the question outright.  When my daughter is reading to me if there is a question about how to sound out a word I will say, "Read along while I say the word" and will follow the word with my finger (something I usually don't do).  Only rarely will I attempt to follow the first example, but it happens.  I tend to find that approach annoying, and I assume that others will be put off by it as much as I was.  My 6.5yo is reading with some confidence, while my 5yo can sound out words very nicely.  It just happened in the normal course of story time.  So, not formal instruction but informal instruction?  Casual?  Relaxed?  Whatever....

 

I was a precocious child verbally and had two big sisters who loved playing school so I learned to read by the time I was 4.  I have no idea how it happened, I just remember not reading then I remember reading.  
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by moominmamma View Post

Okay, define "help," lol! ROTFLMAO.gif

 

Seriously, though. If your kids asks "How do you spell 'birthday'?" there are two very different types of help you could offer.

 

You could say "Sound it out. What does it start with? ... Yes, B. Then the 'er' sound, that's I-R in this case. Now, what about the TH sound? Do you remember what combination of letters makes that sound? 'Th' like in 'tooth,' you wrote that last week to the tooth fairy. Do you remember what letters go together? ... Ah, close, but it's not s-h, it's actually T-h. Okay, so that's the BIRTH part. Now you need to think about DAY. What sound starts that?  .... Right, D, and then? ... Yes! A is next. And now you just need a Y to finish. Great job!"

 

Or alternatively you could say "B-I-R-T-H-D-A-Y." Just answer the question.

 

Both are help. One type of help includes a lot of context-based teaching, while the other is simply face-value answering of the child's question. Some kids prefer one sort. Some parents naturally gravitate to one style. It's a spectrum, isn't it? Everything lies along a spectrum.

 

Miranda

 



 


Give me a few minutes while I caffeinate.
SweetSilver is online now  
#16 of 64 Old 10-07-2011, 06:34 PM
 
unruly3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Minneapolis MN
Posts: 23
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Funny, we unschool because we are mostly people who don't do well with tons of structure, and the idea of sitting down with my kids everyday at 9 and going through desk work sounds awkward and forced.  We sort of fell into unschooling organically.  And our son demands it.  He will not be taught anything until he is ready, and even then it can be touchy.  That having been said, I have been nervous about him learning to read and math and writing.  But he is learning it, and enjoying it, and self directed.  he has just started reading sentences.  His favorite thing is when I write him notes.  Now, there are things he has picked up along the way, rules, like silent E etc. lots of these he has learned from Electric Company, honestly, and other things just from practice.  SO I never set out to teach, but I can't say that I haven't taught him at all.

 

An aside, the other night a family member decided to try a little reverse psychology on him.  I said to my ds while reading a book to my dd " hey, I bet you can read this."  he was looking over my shoulder at the words, silently sounding them out, doing his thing, when said family member said to him.  "Can you read that?  I bet you can't, let me see if you can."  He rolled his eyes and walked away from the book.  Her response to him was "See I knew you couldn't read that!"  That interaction could now keep him from reading for weeks.  :(  grrrr.

unruly3 is offline  
#17 of 64 Old 10-08-2011, 10:58 AM
 
Attila the Honey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: swimming with sharks
Posts: 2,663
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

When I think of "teach" I imagine sitting down with a phonics book or "100 Easy Lessons..." or a workbook.  I am sure "helping" is also "teaching" but all I can think is that I "teach" my dd in a very different manner than my MIL "teaches" things. (for example - she would sit down with dd and make her sound out "Dick and Jane" books whether dd wanted to or not. Theoretically!  She never was given the chance to do that.)  OTOH I would just answer her questions like Moominmama alluded to. It was always a pet peeve of mine to make kids figure out the answers to their own questions so if dd asked how to spell something I didn't make her sound it out (and still don't) but rather I just tell her. So I make the distinction.  I don't really have anything against the term or idea that I teach my child or that she learns from me - not at all!  I am taught so many things in so many ways and so is she.  Formal lessons are only one of the ways that we use and only rarely.  I don't even really have anything against formal lessons - for some people they work wonderfully.  We just don't like them much.

 

So basically what I am trying to say is that dd learned to read by being read to and observing how I read.  Was that teaching her?  Yes I think so.  She also learned by trial and error using a video game that required written answers.  She would write "vampyr" and the program would ask "Did you mean 'vampire'?".  Eventually she learned to spell this way and now - between "cracking the code" and that game she is an excellent speller.  She's in 2nd grade and according to a reading and spelling test she took she's doing both at a 4th grade level.

 

Did it take longer to learn this way?  Yes and no.  From the time she first showed interest in "cracking the code" and reading and then reading EZ chapter books on her own took a couple of months.  OTOH - she had been being read to and asking questions about letters and sounds for years.  


flowersforyou.gif

Attila the Honey is offline  
#18 of 64 Old 10-08-2011, 12:46 PM
 
moominmamma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: In the middle of nowhere, at the centre of everything.
Posts: 5,692
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 66 Post(s)

I think that the difficulty we're having in this thread deciding what "teaching" means stems from something really fundamental and wonderful about human beings: just as learning is natural and occurs everywhere, not just in school-like situations, so teaching is natural and occurs everywhere and not just in school-like situations. Human beings are hard-wired to learn, and to teach.

 

Miranda


Mountain mama to three great kids and one great grown-up

moominmamma is online now  
#19 of 64 Old 10-08-2011, 09:57 PM
 
SundayCrepes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,759
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Luckiestgirl View Post

 I understand worrying, and how scary it can be to have a child at the extreme end of some "normal" range.  But early intervention can sometimes do harm.  Scores of two-year-olds are now recommended for speech therapy, under the argument that it's better to be on the safe side.  But what might be the harmful effects of sitting a two-year-old down and correcting his/her speech?  Might the child not lose confidence?

 

 

 



I started my daughter in speech therapy at a year. She LOVES her therapist. Speech therapy at this age is about playing and making sounds and having fun. Right now we randomly introduce the "F" sound. She is so pleased with herself when she can say FFFFFFennel. If she resists, we back down. She sounds like an 18 month old even though she's 3. And we're quite pleased with how far she's come. Is it because of therapy or would she have gotten here on her own? Who knows. But given how excited she is when I tell her that her therapist is coming over to play, I'm not worried about any negative effects because I have seen none.

 

And I think it's bad parenting to do nothing when there are red flags that a child might need help. It is a parents job to watch, guide, support, and HELP. Allowing a child to flounder is so not okay. Especially when you know little to nothing about the problem or the interventions. I'm not saying that every child has to be on the same timeframe, but sometimes a child of 16 months isn't walking because they're not ready to walk and other times they're not walking because they have a neuromuscular disorder that hasn't been diagnosed yet.

 

 

ETA: And I do know unschooled high school aged kids that can't read. I just don't understand what the parents are thinking. It's one thing to wait until a 6 or 7 year old expresses interest towards reading. It's another thing to allow your child to practically reach adulthood without the ability to read a job application, read the forms for opening a checking account, read the ingredients on foods or recipes in cookbooks. These kids are pretty much unemployable. How has this helped these near-adults?


Created an instant family (7/89 and 5/91) in 1997. Made a baby boy 12/05 adopted a baby girl 8/08. Ask me about tandem adoptive nursing. Now living as gluten, dairy, cane sugar, and tomato free vegetarians. Homeschooling and loving it.

SundayCrepes is offline  
#20 of 64 Old 10-09-2011, 04:09 AM
2xy
 
2xy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,162
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by SundayCrepes View Post

I started my daughter in speech therapy at a year. She LOVES her therapist. Speech therapy at this age is about playing and making sounds and having fun. Right now we randomly introduce the "F" sound. She is so pleased with herself when she can say FFFFFFennel. If she resists, we back down. She sounds like an 18 month old even though she's 3. And we're quite pleased with how far she's come. Is it because of therapy or would she have gotten here on her own? Who knows. But given how excited she is when I tell her that her therapist is coming over to play, I'm not worried about any negative effects because I have seen none.

 

And I think it's bad parenting to do nothing when there are red flags that a child might need help. It is a parents job to watch, guide, support, and HELP. Allowing a child to flounder is so not okay. Especially when you know little to nothing about the problem or the interventions. I'm not saying that every child has to be on the same timeframe, but sometimes a child of 16 months isn't walking because they're not ready to walk and other times they're not walking because they have a neuromuscular disorder that hasn't been diagnosed yet.

 

 

ETA: And I do know unschooled high school aged kids that can't read. I just don't understand what the parents are thinking. It's one thing to wait until a 6 or 7 year old expresses interest towards reading. It's another thing to allow your child to practically reach adulthood without the ability to read a job application, read the forms for opening a checking account, read the ingredients on foods or recipes in cookbooks. These kids are pretty much unemployable. How has this helped these near-adults?



I agree with your line of thinking......I'm just curious as to what sorts of "red flags" lead someone to seek speech therapy for a 12-month old...? My DS1 wasn't speaking at 12 months and nobody seemed to think anything of it. At age two, when he only said about 5 words, they sent him for a hearing test, which was normal. At 2.5 he started speaking in paragraphs.

 

I don't know any unschooled teens who can't read, but I personally know few unschooled teens.

2xy is offline  
#21 of 64 Old 10-09-2011, 06:24 AM - Thread Starter
 
purslaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,937
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by SundayCrepes View Post

 

 

And I think it's bad parenting to do nothing when there are red flags that a child might need help. It is a parents job to watch, guide, support, and HELP. Allowing a child to flounder is so not okay. Especially when you know little to nothing about the problem or the interventions. I'm not saying that every child has to be on the same timeframe, but sometimes a child of 16 months isn't walking because they're not ready to walk and other times they're not walking because they have a neuromuscular disorder that hasn't been diagnosed yet.

 

Most of the time when a 16 month old isn't walking it is because they are not ready.

 

Most of the time when a 6 year old is not reading it is because they are 6 years old

 

Most one year olds who do not talk will learn to on their own.

 

There is a tendancy in our society to see any child who does not hit developmental milestones on the early side as "having problems that require intervention."  I do not agree with this. Most children do not need intervention to achieve.  I do not think parents should ignore red flags - but I do not think "not hitting a milestone early on" is a redflag.

 

As per whether or not interventions are harmful - well, that depends on the intervention, the way the parent communicates such things, and how the particular child internalises such things.  At a minimum there is a cost to interventions - both of money and of time.  I am not anti-intervention, but I sure as heck would not seek one without real red flags.

 

FWIW, I am not judging your decision to seek early intervention if you felt called to do so, as I do not judge those who decide not to go the early intervention route.  Parents get to make the decision.

 

 

ETA: And I do know unschooled high school aged kids that can't read. I just don't understand what the parents are thinking. It's one thing to wait until a 6 or 7 year old expresses interest towards reading. It's another thing to allow your child to practically reach adulthood without the ability to read a job application, read the forms for opening a checking account, read the ingredients on foods or recipes in cookbooks. These kids are pretty much unemployable. How has this helped these near-adults?

 

Interesting.  I do not know any teens who cannot read.  None.  Maybe I am lucky?  I do think a parent should intervene with a non-reading teen in whatever way helps the teen to learn to read.  

 

I do wonder how correct you are that they "can't read" though.  I don't really feel able to judge the reading levels of people who live outside my house, yk?  Some people do not like to read, will not read in public - that does not mean they can't read.  I wouldn't put too much stock in a parents musings either - they often come with their own baggage about their children's achievements.  Their have been numerous times where I thought my kids might be behind in something, only to talk to parents of schooled friends and realise that they were not.  Lastly (and i am not saying you are doing this) I think USing has a bit of a bad rap in some corners.  I have seen people online blow-up statement of concern into "Johnny can't read!!!!  How is he to get a job??" without fully fleshing out the situation.  There is a knee jerk reaction on the part of non-USers to jump to the worst conclusion when it comes to USing.  



 

purslaine is offline  
#22 of 64 Old 10-09-2011, 08:27 AM
 
SweetSilver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Westfarthing
Posts: 5,124
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 68 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by 2xy View Post

I agree with your line of thinking......I'm just curious as to what sorts of "red flags" lead someone to seek speech therapy for a 12-month old...? My DS1 wasn't speaking at 12 months and nobody seemed to think anything of it. At age two, when he only said about 5 words, they sent him for a hearing test, which was normal. At 2.5 he started speaking in paragraphs.

 


This was my experience as well.  My daughter had 6 words at 12 months, including "mama" and "dada" and 2 other words (for moss and mask) that were just "ma".  Even at 18 months she had hardly improved, though she had lots of signs.  By 2 she was talking a blue streak and by 2.5 she was well ahead of most kids.  (I, too am curious about these red flags as well).  

 

Being behind in one year or even two or more is not an alarm bell by itself.  This kind of proactive worrying reminds me of Wall Street, where performance is judged and decisions are made on a quarterly basis.  Fortunes are won and lost based merely on people's hopes and worries for the future, but that future is divined on that quarterly performance.  By that, supposedly, investors can judge long-term worth.  But, IMO, long term success does not coincide neatly with quarterly (or even yearly) milestones of success.  

 

So, back to reading.  How can you know for sure that you are seeing red flags and not just developmentally appropriate hesitation?  Because, I know from experience on little issues that sometimes stepping in creates a bigger, more stubborn problem.  And, if I can be patient enough, success will come in its own time.

 

 


Give me a few minutes while I caffeinate.
SweetSilver is online now  
#23 of 64 Old 10-09-2011, 10:40 AM
 
moominmamma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: In the middle of nowhere, at the centre of everything.
Posts: 5,692
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 66 Post(s)

I don't know any unschooled teens who can't read, and I've known quite a lot over the almost-14 years that I've been a part of unschooling support groups, both on-line and in real life. I know one young man (now 25) who didn't really start reading until 12, who struggled to the point of becoming barely but functionally literate by about age 15. He is profoundly dyslexic and also has Irlen's Syndrome. He can read but it's difficult for him. I do know two truly illiterate people, but both of them went through conventional schooling.

 

Like 2xy I also had kids with only half a dozen words by their 2nd birthdays and who suddenly blossomed into speaking in full paragraphs at age 2.5. My eldest had been wait-listed for a speech-language evaluation when she was 27 months and still had only a half-dozen words, and by the time she got it at 33 months she was 18 months ahead of average in expressive language, and off the charts (>5 years) in receptive. If we'd had her in speech therapy from 18 months, I'm sure we would have all been patting ourselves on our backs, thinking "How well she has responded to intervention!" In the case of my kids there were no red flags. They were way behind on milestones, but as others have said, I don't think that in itself is a "red flag."

 

Miranda


Mountain mama to three great kids and one great grown-up

moominmamma is online now  
#24 of 64 Old 10-09-2011, 10:48 AM
 
Delicateflower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,319
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Fillyjonk View PostBascially, reading, once you are fluent, is not something that you get much better at, and so IMO there isn't much advantage in reading at 4 over reading at 13. A lot of reading ability is actually maturity, growing familiarity with language, etc, and these aren't skills you gain by doing a lot of reading. IMHO. Reading is a composite of skills, which is why, IMO, it is SO incredibly common to see late reading kids catch and and surpass their peers who have been reading for ages-late readers have been working on other skills that ultimately serve them as well or better as readers than simply perfecting phonic knowledge.


I think you have it entirely upside down. Learning how to read is a process that doesn't take long, but that's just the precursor to reading to learn, which is a lifelong process.

Delicateflower is offline  
#25 of 64 Old 10-09-2011, 11:19 AM - Thread Starter
 
purslaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,937
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Delicateflower View Post

I think you have it entirely upside down. Learning how to read is a process that doesn't take long, but that's just the precursor to reading to learn, which is a lifelong process.



I think that depends on the child and how they learn.

 

I have 2 kids that learned to read quickly, and one that did not.  I do not believe she has any LD.   I did take me a while to clue in that what she lacked was practice to gain fluency and make the jump from being able to read individual words, to being able to read words-strung-together quickly enough to enjoy and understand what she was reading. I don't know why she took longer than my other kids - but it does not really matter.  She is there, and with a love of books intact, so all is good.  I would say it took her 2 years to go from simple CVC words to being able to read a book at grade level.  This might have been an issue for some kids, but she seemed fine with the slow train she was on.  I occasionally stressed a bit about it, but that was my issue, not hers.  Sometimes we just hurry kids - and this is a societal issue, IMHO.  

 

I think there is a lot of concern and awareness around LD's ability.  Much of this is a good thing - it enables kids who need help to get the help they need.  It also causes us to sometimes see or look for LD's where there are none.

purslaine is offline  
#26 of 64 Old 10-09-2011, 11:44 AM
Banned
 
stik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,942
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

One reason we work to "hurry" kids in conventional schools is that services are only funded until the kid turns 22.  Public schools are charged with teaching students a lot of skills for college and career readiness, and literacy is a prerequisite skill for a huge percentage of them.  If you're unschooling, you are freed from those constraints.  You can keep going for as long as it takes, and set, or not set, whatever goals you want.  A teacher in a school has good reason to be worried about a 7 yo who doesn't yet read - that student will be asked to write book reports throughout third grade to develop skills like reading more sophisticated narratives, summarizing, and writing paragraphs.  Those skills are crucial prerequisites to researching a topic and reporting on your findings, and to producing a longer piece of writing.  The stakeholders in the public education system (parents, employers, funding institutions, teachers, students) think those skills are really important.  A 7yo who can't read needs help to get caught up.

 

Unschoolers have a more flexible timeline and a smaller set of stakeholders.  

stik is offline  
#27 of 64 Old 10-09-2011, 12:15 PM - Thread Starter
 
purslaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,937
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by stik View Post

 A teacher in a school has good reason to be worried about a 7 yo who doesn't yet read - that student will be asked to write book reports throughout third grade to develop skills like reading more sophisticated narratives, summarizing, and writing paragraphs.  Those skills are crucial prerequisites to researching a topic and reporting on your findings, and to producing a longer piece of writing.  The stakeholders in the public education system (parents, employers, funding institutions, teachers, students) think those skills are really important.  A 7yo who can't read needs help to get caught up.

 

Unschoolers have a more flexible timeline and a smaller set of stakeholders.  


That is true.  Where things get tricky is when debate happens where non-USers apply school standards to USing; and perhaps likewise if USers are applying USing ideals to kids in school.

 

I disagree that employers are stakeholders in public education, at least with regards to 7 year olds.  I doubt they care if a child learns to read at 5, 7, or 9  (as they shouldn't)....as long as they can read and write when they enter the workforce.  

 

 

 

 

 

purslaine is offline  
#28 of 64 Old 10-09-2011, 01:55 PM
 
moominmamma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: In the middle of nowhere, at the centre of everything.
Posts: 5,692
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 66 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Delicateflower View Post

I think you have it entirely upside down. Learning how to read is a process that doesn't take long, but that's just the precursor to reading to learn, which is a lifelong process.


But "reading to learn" is only part of how we learn, and it is neither necessary nor ideal to do most of your learning this way, particularly not prior to adolescence. My eldest was precociously academic, a very early reader, and drawn to the private world of books to an almost obsessive degree from age 5 onwards. She has a long-time close friend, also unschooled (both girls are now 17) who did not learn to read until age 10. I would have to say that at age 10 both girls were equally knowledgeable and well-educated. That five years of "reading to learn" that my dd had done had been equalled by what her friend had done. The friend had not suffered from a lack of text-based learning -- not in an unschooled environment. Her learning had revolved around her strengths, and instead of looking things up in a book, she had gone out and asked questions, formed relationships, got her hands dirty, experimented, drawn conclusions, remembered, re-evaluated, formed new hypotheses, asked new questions. She was also read aloud to extensively, and so her appreciation and understanding of great literature was excellent.

 

Miranda


Mountain mama to three great kids and one great grown-up

moominmamma is online now  
#29 of 64 Old 10-09-2011, 02:07 PM
Banned
 
stik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,942
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

 

Quote:
I disagree that employers are stakeholders in public education, at least with regards to 7 year olds.  I doubt they care if a child learns to read at 5, 7, or 9  (as they shouldn't)....as long as they can read and write when they enter the workforce.  

 

We could have a long debate about whether they should or shouldn't be, but they certainly are.  They care pretty deeply about the skills students have when they leave school, and if schools don't meet those needs, it's hard for businesses to function in that community.  It's also hard for businesses to recruit workers to move to a community when schools are perceived as ineffective.  So while on many levels, businesses don't care if a kid learns to read at 5, or 7, or 9, they care a lot that students acquire a range of skills that depend on reading, and the more time schools have to teach those reading-dependent skills, the better students will be at them.  

stik is offline  
#30 of 64 Old 10-09-2011, 06:47 PM
2xy
 
2xy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,162
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

My sons attended both the New England Unschooling Conference and Not Back To School Camp this year. I asked my 16yo if he met any kids at either event who appeared to be unable to read.

 

He thought for a moment and said, "Well...there was this one girl....but she was like, four."

 

ROTFLMAO.gif

Greenmama2 likes this.
2xy is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off