Mothering Forums - Reply to Topic

Thread: Disadvantage of early reading when going to K ? Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

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.



  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
09-19-2012 07:38 PM
meemee
Quote:
Originally Posted by squimp View Post

 

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.  

09-19-2012 07:16 PM
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??

09-13-2012 08:19 AM
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.
09-12-2012 09:40 PM
squimp
Quote:
Originally Posted by meemee View Post

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.  

09-12-2012 04:29 AM
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. :) 

Quote:
Originally Posted by meemee View Post

 

 

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.....

09-11-2012 11:06 PM
meemee
Quote:
Originally Posted by mariee View Post

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? 

09-11-2012 07:58 PM
SweetSilver
Quote:

Originally Posted by mariee View Post

 

  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.

09-11-2012 07:25 PM
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.  

09-11-2012 06:48 AM
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 :(

09-11-2012 05:42 AM
KCMichigan
Quote:
Originally Posted by SweetSilver View Post

 

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. 

 

 

 

 

 

09-11-2012 05:02 AM
transylvania_mom
Quote:
Originally Posted by meemee View Post

 

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.  

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by SweetSilver View Post

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.

09-10-2012 08:17 PM
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!

09-10-2012 07:56 PM
SweetSilver
Quote:
Originally Posted by meemee View Post

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. orngtongue.gif)

 

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

09-10-2012 04:37 PM
meemee
Quote:
Originally Posted by pranava View Post

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.  

09-10-2012 09:52 AM
pranava
Quote:
Originally Posted by meemee View Post

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? 

09-10-2012 06:42 AM
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. 

09-10-2012 06:39 AM
pek64
Quote:
Originally Posted by ollyoxenfree View Post

Have you or your children attended a school that engages in tracking? 

My children did and I have concerns about how such a system is implemented when tracking into classes is based on achievement of grades in early years. Grades aren't necessarily a good assessment of learning ability, so there's a problem with accurate identification. Then there are also real problems with early pigeon-holing children into a rigid classifications as successful students or hopeless cases.  It can be difficult to alter a prejudice about a child and move them out of their designated class. It also tends to become a self-fulfilling prophecy - the successful students believe that they are smart so they work harder and the students in the "dumb" classes give up because after all, what's the point? it's already been decided that they aren't "top class" material. There is also more stereotyping and bullying between students. 

This is separate from systems that offer programs for intellectually gifted learners who have been identified using psycho-educational assessments (IQ testing etc.) to determine learning ability, as opposed to achievement. My children have attended these kinds of programs too. I believe that they are valuable. They are different from old-fashioned tracking systems where there are the "smart classes" and the "dumb classes" and a range of classes in between for each grade. 

The 'gifted' classes are the 'smart' classes, and those not 'gifted' are 'dumb'.
09-10-2012 06:30 AM
ollyoxenfree
Quote:
Originally Posted by MamaPrincess View Post

this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tracking_(education)

 

Have you or your children attended a school that engages in tracking? 

 

My children did and I have concerns about how such a system is implemented when tracking into classes is based on achievement of grades in early years. Grades aren't necessarily a good assessment of learning ability, so there's a problem with accurate identification. Then there are also real problems with early pigeon-holing children into a rigid classifications as successful students or hopeless cases.  It can be difficult to alter a prejudice about a child and move them out of their designated class. It also tends to become a self-fulfilling prophecy - the successful students believe that they are smart so they work harder and the students in the "dumb" classes give up because after all, what's the point? it's already been decided that they aren't "top class" material. There is also more stereotyping and bullying between students. 

 

This is separate from systems that offer programs for intellectually gifted learners who have been identified using psycho-educational assessments (IQ testing etc.) to determine learning ability, as opposed to achievement. My children have attended these kinds of programs too. I believe that they are valuable. They are different from old-fashioned tracking systems where there are the "smart classes" and the "dumb classes" and a range of classes in between for each grade. 

09-10-2012 05:42 AM
mamazee My older daughter started Kindergarten reading very very well, and writing quite a bit too. She didn't have any problems as her school provided tons of differentiation. I don't think it's a disadvantage, but I don't think it's an advantage either. I don't think it matters whether kids start reading at 3 or 6. Learning to read earlier doesn't necessarily mean learning to read better, and it certainlly doesn't mean enjoying reading more. I think adults should follow their lead and neither push them nor hold them back, so long as they don't wait so long to learn to read that it's really holding them back in school.
09-10-2012 05:30 AM
KCMichigan
Quote:
Originally Posted by meemee View Post

 what about free school bfasts and lunches? in the school district next to us which has a huge migrant and homeless population children suffering due to hunger is not an issue. worry about their family yes. but hunger?

 

The last school I worked in had plenty of kiddos on free br/lunch. It had a very mobile population with kids coming in/out of the system everyday. There were plenty of hungry kids.

 

1. The portion is the same for a kindergartener as a 5th grader.....nutritional needs are much different for a 5 yr old and an 11 year old!   2. They are not terribly good (not taste, but from a balanced meal point of view). Our area has made an effort to make them more nutritious, but still breakfast is often a sugary cereal,  juice, and a chocolate milk. Not really a good high protein food available. Lots of carbs,salt, and preservatives/syrups.   3. Those kiddos often would not eat much at home for dinner-- so school food was the main source of meals.   4. sometimes the kids came late and did not get a chance to get breakfast, etc. 5. Sometimes the kids would hoard food in pockets or backpacks to 'save for later' or a sibling at home that was not school age.

 

So YES there are plenty of hungry kids out there. What about weekends or holidays?? 

 

there are plenty of kids who are really just tolerate school.

 

I agree that some kids just tolerate school. But there is a difference between toleration and torture. 

 

It is unfortunate that some kids just tolerate school. A good school and positive school culture will make school interesting and should be engaging to most students (not every student will enjoy every subject, everyday). I work with kiddos that have unique learning needs and most of them dislike the portions that are difficult (reading, writing, etc) or struggle with being different from their peers-- but the classrooms I have taught and/worked in have all worked hard to make the kids feel engaged and learning at a level that is appropriate for them- they learn a lot more and retain it by being an active participant in their schooling.

 

A good teacher can make a big big big difference in  year for a child being bored, tolerating school, and enjoying it. Honestly, yes- there are a some teachers out there that (like any profession) are burnt out and really dont try to adjust for each child. But the vast majority of the teachers I know work hard to try to meet all the kids needs in their classroom-- they show support, care, encouragement, and compassion to their students.

 

09-09-2012 10:54 PM
meemee

KC i dont know how to quote you. 

 

so here goes on self control. i was replying to NiteNichols reference to self-control. of course everyone is expected to have self control. THAT is a given. but self-control under difficult circumstances. NO!!! when kids are bored and overwhelmed and you expect them to show self control and not act out - nope i dont expect them to have self control to that degree. we even had a boy in ps who acted out and had to be taken out because the teachers wouldnt allow any accomodation just for him. perhaps your kids did not view school as torture but there are many who do. and to expect those kids to have self control when they are trying really hard to cope is unfair. 

 

and yes trouble kids could mean a lot of things. including unsafe or abusive family background. hungry kids? what about free school bfasts and lunches? in the school district next to us which has a huge migrant and homeless population children suffering due to hunger is not an issue. worry about their family yes. but hunger?

 

there are plenty of kids who are really just tolerate school.

09-09-2012 08:42 PM
KCMichigan
Quote:
Originally Posted by meemee View Post

 

 

and no no no. i absolutely DO NOT expect k and first graders to learn self-control. for that matter even 2nd and 3rd graders. perhaps when they are a little older. 6 hours of torture can be pretty hard on the kids. 

 

Wow-- I taught Preschool (and public school) and expected age-approriate levels of self-control. That was in kids as young as 3. Would I expect the same self-control in a 3 year old as a 7 year old-- no. But in order to prevent chaos and function in a group setting, children must learn some self-control.

 

Preschoolers learn a lot of self-control through practice, gentle modeling, and repetition. As well as role play or book explorations. It would be a mess if they all rushed to the snack table and grabbed food. They learn to be patient until it is served (however the facility deems appropriate for the group size and food being served) and/or to help serve themselves and wait their turn. Is it easy? No. But they do learn. Same with hitting/shoving/biting/screaming-- all are developmentally appropriate for a 3/4 year old, but as a teacher part of the learning process is helping children learn more socially appropriate ways to express their emotions or how to recognize the emotions that lead to those behaviors. They also start to learn empathy and compassion. Understanding ones own feelings help children learn to not only regulate their own emotions/behavior, but to help their peers do so also. Preschools should be active places that encourage children to explore the world around them in a supportive and structured (not academically- but routine) way.Preschools can also learn to clean up after themselves in an age-appropriate way (both play messes and meal/snacks) that is a form of self-control. They have to learn to not just walk away from a mess and/or the impulse that says ' I dont want to pick that up!". Will they need adult guidance at that age, yes- but it does take some form of self-control to do those tasks instead of just doing whatever they want.

 

Even at home, young children have to learn self-control. Touching the oven (as pretty as it may be) is dangerous. STOP the impulse to chase a ball into the street, it is not safe. Eat a small bite at a time to help prevent choking. Grabbing people can make them upset and hurt. And on and on...

 

If my own childrens  2nd grade class had a room full of kids with no self-control all the time(kids all talking all the time, not following directions,no lines or waiting, pushing/grabbing, etc) I would be appalled. Kids that age can and should learn how take turns, wait, line-up, try to remember to raise their hand to speak, not make noise while teacher speaks, listen and follow directions, etc. Will they do it all the time- no. But it is a learning curve and each year self-control should improve. Also, the demands on self-control required should be fit to group of children and adjusted for children that may be younger or still working toward developmentally appropriate self-control. The kids this age also need freedom to move about in age-appropriate ways and participate in active, physical play daily.

 

Do some kids need more than time that others to develop self-control. Yes. Do some kids need modifications to a regular grade expectation to be successful, yes. But still a learning curve unique to each child should be there in goals of developing self-control.

 

My own kids never viewed school as '6 hours of torture' . Nor when they were 3/4/5 did they view preschool as a hardship, nor were the expectations unreasonable. The few times expectations expected for age were not met, they were adjusted for my children as individuals. But,even with the adjustments-- they were expected to grow and move forward in all areas, including self control. They have always loved school and the teachers we have worked with have been supportive and caring.

 

 

 

but yeah - trouble kids does not mean gifted kids. trouble kids mean usually kids whose educational needs are not being met. 

 

True but sometimes educational needs cant be meet until children have basic needs met such as shelter, safety (both physical and emotional), and hunger. Some kiddos (not all by any means) are troubled and have behavioral concerns due to other issues. Those concerns led them to not be able to attend to educational needs until they are directly addressed.

 

A hungry child or a child that is terrified they are in danger (emotionally or physically) or a tired child will not be able to focus on educational needs until their basic needs are fullfilled. I have worked with students that really were more focused on if they would have dinner that night and that led them to really have a hard time placing importance on letter sounds/ social studies lessons, or spelling words--- even if all the work was at the correct academic level.

09-09-2012 07:12 PM
meemee
Quote:
Originally Posted by NiteNicole View Post

I don't believe this myth that every kid with a discipline problem is just so gifted he/she is bored.  To me, it's just like any other discipline/impulse control issue.  Yes, we are all bored sometimes.  That doesn't mean we get to act out.  Sometimes you just have to learn self-control.  I think kids can have difficult impulse/discipline issues AND be profoundly gifted, but I don't think giftedness excuses or necessarily causes issues in the vast majority of kids. 

no not every. 

 

however every kid whose education needs are not being met (which is so in our public schools in our district) whether they are gifted or not (ones who need some help or services - not special needs) i have found have issues. issues in the form of trouble makers, or la di da dreamers or self esteem issues. many of those kids are thought of as lacking executive skill, when really it is a case of either being bored out of their mind OR totally overwhelmed.  

 

and no no no. i absolutely DO NOT expect k and first graders to learn self-control. for that matter even 2nd and 3rd graders. perhaps when they are a little older. 6 hours of torture can be pretty hard on the kids. 

 

but yeah - trouble kids does not mean gifted kids. trouble kids mean usually kids whose educational needs are not being met. 

09-09-2012 06:01 PM
pek64 It seems some posters fall into the 'they don't learn unless it's hard/work' group while others believe children learn best when they're enthusiastic or having fun.

I don't think there are advantages or disadvantages for early readers. Everyone is different, and the focus on math and reading, not to mention comparing children to each other, ... well we all do it from time to time, but it's our insecurities, not our children's abilities at the center.
09-09-2012 05:37 PM
Mummoth

There is so much more to being a reader than understanding what the strings of symbols on a page mean. In early years, I think it's much more important for a child to enjoy the storytelling, have that be a relaxing activity, than to actually do the reading themselves. My son was a late reader, he was in a special reading program in grade 1 and part of grade 2 that completely and utterly failed to teach him anything. I pulled him out of the program part way through grade 2. The only help he got with reading after that was a notepad in the bathroom, where I'd draw a picture with a caption and he'd fill it in (mostly stuff like a person saying "I hope no birds come and poop on my head" and of course that's exactly what he'd draw) He pretty much miraculously figured out how to read over the summer. I think 'teaching' a child to read before they're ready is very similar to trying to force a baby who isn't capable of it yet to crawl or walk. Going through the motions with the baby every day might make the pieces fall into place for them a week sooner than they would have otherwise... but not months. 

09-09-2012 11:48 AM
MamaPrincess

this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tracking_(education)

09-09-2012 09:53 AM
Mommykendra

DD1 was reading at age 3. There is nothing I could have done to stop her--short of taking away anything that had letters on it.  Kindergarten was great for her (as was preschool).  She had great teachers that catered to her strengths and weakness (so during reading time--she'd either work on writing a story, or the teacher would ask if she wanted to read stories to some other kids).  We did have a problem in first grade with her being bored (so didn't like school as much, but we just talked to the teacher and worked out things she can do at school and at home to keep her challenged and learning), but never was a trouble maker and has always been near the top of her class.

DS1 was reading at age 4.  I'm not even sure when he started reading because it just seemed to slowly emerge and where DD1 would prefer to read herself, DS1 prefers to be read to.  One day, we were at the library and I asked him what book he wanted and he told me by reading the title.  He is very good at phonetics, but struggles with sight words and words that don't follow the rules.  He's been in Kindergarten for 3 weeks and I'm certain his teacher has no idea he knows how to read.  He's loving school even though it's very much things he already knows.

So to answer your question--I think it's only a disadvantage if you let it be and don't advocate for your child's academic needs

09-08-2012 10:47 AM
NiteNicole

I had a lot typed out but I don't want to give too much identifying information or get too far off topic.  I don't think I'm going to be successful. 

 

We are in a state in the deep south not known for it's good schools.  It's a regular public school in a suburb of a larger city.  When the school was started in the 90s, the parents had a lot of input.  Their biggest goal is to mainstream as many students as possible.  For pre K, which has limited spots, half the spaces are reserved for children with special needs and the rest need to qualify for free lunch so the families who most need those spots get them.

 

There is extra help in kindergarten for reading and math.  There isn't any official pull out program for early readers, but my daughter's teacher was very good at keeping her challenged.  Pull out gifted starts in first at ninety minutes a day and is a full day class starting in second.  There is also a grade between kinder and first for kids who are a little young, have discipline issues related to maturity, or just need more hands-on time with the concepts.  Some parents opt in just because, some kids are recommended and their parents opt out.  There's no stigma among the children because it's grouped with kindergarten. Due to the smaller class size, they get to do some really neat stuff and they are the "leaders" of the kindergarten hall.

 

The parents and PTA make our school possible.  Every special extra thing we have is a direct result of PTA fundraising and parent volunteers who keep costs down.

 

I volunteer a lot in the classroom and am the product of many gifted programs, from pull out to public residential.  I have known some profoundly, crazy, gifted wonder kids (I'm NOT one of them!).  I don't believe this myth that every kid with a discipline problem is just so gifted he/she is bored.  To me, it's just like any other discipline/impulse control issue.  Yes, we are all bored sometimes.  That doesn't mean we get to act out.  Sometimes you just have to learn self-control.  I think kids can have difficult impulse/discipline issues AND be profoundly gifted, but I don't think giftedness excuses or necessarily causes issues in the vast majority of kids. 

09-08-2012 10:10 AM
Neera

Mine is reading and has started K. We'll see how it goes. There are so many words like 'One' that she doesn't understand the phonics of. So I think she will be ok. But since she hasn't gone yet as she was sick and it is really the start of school, we'll find out soon.

09-08-2012 07:22 AM
meemee
Quote:
Originally Posted by NiteNicole View Post

 

That makes no sense.  My daughter is grade levels ahead and she's fine.  Lots of kids are.  It does not necessarily follow that a child who learns to read early is going to struggle in school, nor does it mean they will be "trouble makers."

i think you are right. because in this thread i am discovering how different all the states are with what they have available for the teachers. school life can be so different for an early reader depending on which state they live in. and no it does not necessarily follow. 

 

 

i am curious about the moms' with early readers. did they get any differentiation in school? Differentiation made a huge difference in two of the worst behaved kids in dd's school. 

 

in the state i am there if there is no pullout or GATE programs or volunteer parents, the teachers hands are tied. they are overworked with a LOT on their plate. they can barely make it each day. ESP. in the lower grades. 

 

of course i am talking about regular public schools.

 

i probably should have said a child who is ahead of the class struggle if they get no differentiation - in a public school which is academically focused. 

This thread has more than 30 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

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