Post going around saying kids don’t need to learn how to read until 10 or 13?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At this point, my 7 yo learns all sorts of things by reading. In the past year she has dramatically expanded her knowledge and vocabulart by reading fiction and non-fiction. I'm sure a kid who can't read could do the same if there was someone who was willing to read aloud to the kid for hours per day, but in reality I don't think that's ever going to happen.

A kid who reads regularly will be miles ahead of a non-reading peer by age 10.

I think part of the reason this comes out of a tiny corner of the homeschool community is that a lot of homeschool curriculum do stress hours of read-alouds or include lots of audiobook time. There's some more flexibility in homschooling to make up for these kind of deficits.

To me it sounds like a lot more work than finding outside help, but according to a friend currently searching desperately for a reading disabilities tutor that kind of help is surprisingly hard to find.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Saw this on my FB. This is the direct quote

"Some children don't read until they're 10. Others, 13. And then they pick up and are reading at the same level as their been-reading-since-kindergarten peers. Without intervention."

That’s potentially the stupidest thing I’ve read in weeks.

[Anonymous]

Why are you extending the reach of this misinformation?

The misinformation here is not reading age at 10, which we all know is false.

The misinformation is the implied agreement that DL is not working.

DL works for most children. There is reporting bias on internet message boards, I'm sure you understand. The immense majority of parents are not posting on DCUM complaining about DL, they're putting their efforts into making it work!

So ignore.

[Anonymous]

That sounds like, as others have said, some group with a specific agenda is pushing some bad science.

There is some evidence that kids can benefit by being allowed to work on reading skills at an older age (so like 6-7 versus 3-5). I know this school of thought is popular in a lot of European early education programs, and they don't do as much of the ABC drilling at an early age there as most US schools do. The idea is to let kids learn experientially through playing and teach reading skills when they start to express an interest, rather than at a set age.

In the US, you see this in private Waldorf schools in particular. Some other ECE programs have similar philosophies, but my experience is that they still teach reading skills earlier because it stresses parents out if their kids aren't learning at all by 1st grade.


Personally, I think as long as you don't take the joy out of reading, there are a lot of benefits to starting reading skills at 2-3 with the ABCs and building from there. A good ECE teacher will know how to keep it fun and make it into a game, and also know not to push kids who are getting bored or frustrated with it. I do think parents freaking out about their ECE kids "falling behind" by 6 months to a year could stand to have a little perspective -- that's really not a big deal at the ECE level and as long as you are still reading to your kids and talking to them so they continue to have an interest in books and learn new language, it probably will have no effect long-term. But that doesn't mean we should stop teaching reading in ECE, it means we all need to relax a little bit about the impact of the pandemic on kid's academic schedules. I'm far more concerned about mental health issues with families, and how the stress of the pandemic, distance learning, and lack of childcare is impacting families' abilities to function and maintain emotional stability. Homeschooling is not a longterm solution for the vast majority of those families and it's ridiculous to pitch it that way.

[Anonymous]

^it stresses parents out if their kids aren't learning TO READ at all by 1st grade. Typo

[Anonymous]

I keep seeing posts from parents about letting redshirting their Kindergarteners or letting their Kindergarteners just play during DL. And I’m not sure they realize that taking a year off a six has consequences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Why are you extending the reach of this misinformation?

The misinformation here is not reading age at 10, which we all know is false.

The misinformation is the implied agreement that DL is not working.

DL works for most children. There is reporting bias on internet message boards, I'm sure you understand. The immense majority of parents are not posting on DCUM complaining about DL, they're putting their efforts into making it work!

So ignore.

We’ll discuss it, thanks.

[Anonymous]

Lol imo third grade is where you need to be able read well for comprehension, otherwise you fall behind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Why are you extending the reach of this misinformation?

The misinformation here is not reading age at 10, which we all know is false.

The misinformation is the implied agreement that DL is not working.

DL works for most children. There is reporting bias on internet message boards, I'm sure you understand. The immense majority of parents are not posting on DCUM complaining about DL, they're putting their efforts into making it work!

So ignore.

I am complaining about the setup of DL and putting my efforts into making it work the best I can.

[Anonymous]

Well the best way to control the populace is to keep them uneducated...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I saw it as well on Facebook.

It's coming from a ultra conservative group. Their agenda is religion back in public schools and homeschooling with a strong religious bent.

+1

I mentioned in another thread that I saw a comment on FB saying children should not be taught history in school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I keep seeing posts from parents about letting redshirting their Kindergarteners or letting their Kindergarteners just play during DL. And I’m not sure they realize that taking a year off a six has consequences.

Do you have K'er who is distance learning? If you did, you would realize that it really isn't working for a lot of kids, especially kids on the younger end of K. We are sticking with it (at least for now) and probably won't have him do K again, but I can absolutely understand why someone would wait a year or not worry too much about what someone is doing in DL.

[Anonymous]

We start learning abc’s at 7 when we enter grade 1. The good thing about the late start is that most kids are ready and the whole class can move on together. Expectations are high since kids were able to play-all-day for over 7 years and are more than ready to start schooling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe for one second that majority of children who don't read until age 10 catch up to their peers. I am sure someone somewhere has, but that doesn't mean that is the norm.

My dad and brother have severe dyslexia and didn’t read until 11 and 12. They had a really, realy hard time in school. Both are brilliant, but really struggled in a traditional school setting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We start learning abc’s at 7 when we enter grade 1. The good thing about the late start is that most kids are ready and the whole class can move on together. Expectations are high since kids were able to play-all-day for over 7 years and are more than ready to start schooling.

Who is we?