Can a young child really teach him/herself to read?

[Anonymous]

Absolutely. My oldest and youngest taught themselves. The middle two were taught by older siblings.

[Anonymous]

At that age you follow the child and put things in their path that you notice will catch their interest. Then they discover for themselves. You don't teach them, you let them learn based on their individual attention.

The children whose brains are designed to pick up early reading will bring you books to read all day long. It is where their attention is naturally focused at that time. They "learn" simply by looking at the book when you read to them. You don't teach this kind of kid to read, the seek it and absorb it like a sponge.

Can you force teach a kid? Yes. However, you are forcing their brain to miss out on whatever the child would naturally have chosen to learn during that precious brain development time. If your child is not into reading at 3, that is fine and normal. If they are, that is also fine.

[Anonymous]

I think some kids figure it out based on having been read to a lot. I did - My first book was Hop on Pop - and I figured it out from there. Since becoming a teacher, though I have realized that a lot of kids need to be taught much more explicitly. But at three years old - I definitely don't think you need to teach to read. With my 4.5 year old - he is learning letters and sounds and I have bought easy readers. He is learning in English and Spanish and asked to read some Level A books I had up for school and read them great and wanted to! I have tried a bit with some easy Spanish readers (more phonetics based is required) and he tells me to read it to him. So anyway I am kind of letting him lead the way. He will be a young kindergartener, but I have already seen so much growth and interest since PreK 3, I dont want to force anything till he is ready.

[jsmith123]

Anonymous wrote:

jsmith123 wrote:Every time you teach something to a child, you deprive them of ability to figure it out for themselves.

The point isn't the knowledge itself. The point is the discovery of the knowledge.

So why ever send a child to school?

I should have clarified that I don't believe that statement fits 100%. I just feel like parents are in such a rush for their children to hit these milestones, that they push them too hard.
For young children, the joy is truly in the discovery.

Also, I think a good school fosters how to learn and how to think.

[Anonymous]

jsmith123 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsmith123 wrote:Every time you teach something to a child, you deprive them of ability to figure it out for themselves.

The point isn't the knowledge itself. The point is the discovery of the knowledge.

So why ever send a child to school?

I should have clarified that I don't believe that statement fits 100%. I just feel like parents are in such a rush for their children to hit these milestones, that they push them too hard.
For young children, the joy is truly in the discovery.

Also, I think a good school fosters how to learn and how to think.

But the play-based way OP seems to be teaching her kid still results in the joy of discovery. The first time you decode a word is magical.

[Anonymous]

My theory is to put everything in front of them: explain, teach, play. When the child’s brain is ready to decode, they will. That much you can’t teach. But teaching phonics, rhyming, and playing with letters - of course you teach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I learned to read at age three from watching Sesame Street and Electric Company, and without any other formal or informal instruction. My kid learned to read at three without formal instruction. I wouldn't do formal instruction for a three-year-old, though -- if a kid is going to learn to read really early, it tends to happen without a ton of interference. Just keep reading to and with him, and keep it fun. If he's going to pick it up early, he will.

Same here. I had uninvolved/uneducated parents and watched Sesame Street as a toddler. I also had a handful of read-a-long books with a record player. I recall reading the “Little House on the Prairie” series of books the summer before Kindergarten. Not usual for children in this area now, but I lived in a rural farming community of 600 people—so I was very unusual in my environment.

[Anonymous]

We did not teach our oldest to read, but we did read to them every day before bed, and throughout the day (books were in every area of the house that also had toys). They were reading on their own at age 3. As in reading what the teacher wrote down, not having a book memorized.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I learned to read at age three from watching Sesame Street and Electric Company, and without any other formal or informal instruction. My kid learned to read at three without formal instruction. I wouldn't do formal instruction for a three-year-old, though -- if a kid is going to learn to read really early, it tends to happen without a ton of interference. Just keep reading to and with him, and keep it fun. If he's going to pick it up early, he will.

Same here. I had uninvolved/uneducated parents and watched Sesame Street as a toddler. I also had a handful of read-a-long books with a record player. I recall reading the “Little House on the Prairie” series of books the summer before Kindergarten. Not usual for children in this area now, but I lived in a rural farming community of 600 people—so I was very unusual in my environment.

I also remember my mom bought an old set of encyclopedias at a garage sale. I recall spending hours reading them. When my mom drove into “town” to buy groceries, she would drop me at the library— age 5 or 6. You obviously cannot do that in today’s age. If your child is a sponge, just give them as much exposure to a variety of reading material and model good reading habits. Neither of my parents read (I found out later my father was basically illiterate), but I wish I would have been able to talk about books with them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsmith123 wrote:Every time you teach something to a child, you deprive them of ability to figure it out for themselves.

The point isn't the knowledge itself. The point is the discovery of the knowledge.

So why ever send a child to school?

I'm not the PP, although I share some of that belief.

In my opinion, there are two different aspects of learning. One is learning a specific set of skills or knowledge, and one is learning how to learn and how to be self directs and how to follow rabbit trails and discover things for yourself. I value both of these things. There is a long list of specific skills and knowledge I want my kids to have. I want them to be adults who can read, and multiply, and swim, and cross the street safely, and keep a budget, and cook meals, and use the toilet . . . But I also want them to be adults who know themselves well, an explore their own passions, and don't need to be spoonfed to learn. I'm constantly balancing those two things.

For my kids, this looks like having in my mind an idea about the age when I think having a skill becomes important, and then delaying teaching the skill until the kid is close to that age. So, my kids have lots of opportunity to explore and discover and make something theirs, but if they're at an age when I feel they need a skill, then I'll teach it.

To use a less emotionally laden example, I took my kids to the pool, and did lots of water play, from the time they were very small, and both of my kids "self taught" how to swim by their fourth birthday. But if they hadn't, then I would have either changed from child led play to adult directed playful learning, at around 5 or 6, because that's when they'd need swimming as a skill for things like pool playdates or summer camps that went to the pool.

For reading, I had one kid who showed interest in reading really early. They asked a million questions, and tried to track the print in the books we read as a toddler, and wanted the captions on when they watched TV. That kid read at 3. I have one kid, who probably could have been taught to read at 3, but didn't ask those questions or seek out those things. At 5, when his kindergarten teacher was like "hey guess what, letters make sounds and you can blend those sounds like this?" he was like "really, all the letters? Hey mom what are the other sounds?" and was reading chapter books in a couple months. And I have a third kid who probably sits on the borderline of dyslexia, and needed lots of card games with letter sounds, and guided practice starting around 5 to figure out the process.

I think it's cool that my early reader learned at 3. He certainly enjoyed a lot of reading in his early years. But I think that pushing that second brother would have been a mistake. I was glad that reading was a thing he mostly discovered on his own. That he didn't see it as my agenda. And I don't think the fact that he learned at 5 hurt him. He's not "behind" now as a reader. He reads as well as the top kids in his class, including kids who were pushed to read at 3. I'm confident that he'll be an adult who reads as well as he'll need to read. And my third kid, I think the decision to wait till 5 to start made sense, because I think at 3 he was no where near ready, but I think that if we'd made the decision to wait for formal reading instruction till 8 it would have been a mistake, because we live in a country where 6 - 8 are expected to read, and if he hadn't been reading around grade level he would have experienced a lot of failure, and missed out on a lot of things that are taught through reading in the early grades. But I also recognize that that decision to make reading something that I controlled and taught to him, even though we did it gently through fun games with lots of cuddles and a mug of hot chocolate, came at a cost. He definitely sees reading as something that school and mom make you do. He doesn't see himself as a reader, and isn't as curious about it or as likely to initiate it as his brothers. I made the decision to start teaching him despite that cost, because at that point I think there were costs to waiting too, and those costs were greater. But for a 3 year old there is not cost to waiting, so sacrificing that internal drive and curiosity, even a little bit, isn't worth it.

[Anonymous]

I'm with the folks who say let your child lead. We didn't push my seven year old. His Montessori day care taught a bit of phonics in pre-K and K. In K, we got the Bob books and would pull them out on occasion and focus on them depending on his interest. We read books to him consistently and from a very young age as he'd sit still and listen for as long as we were willing to read.

Thus summer between K and 1st, things just clicked. He went from Bob books (Mat sat on cat.) to chapter books within a few months. And now as a second grader, he is pretty fearless, thinking he can read most anything. Harry Potter and Percy Jackson are within his comfort zone. I was annoyed he was reading too many smurf graphic novels during school reading time, so suggested he read the Call of the Wild - and he's loving it.

The bottom line here is that my kid is a confident reader and there was absolutely no push for him to read early. I can't imagine that he'd be reading better now if we pushed him to start earlier.

I'm curious about my second child, who is 2.5. He wasn't as interested in books as his brother as an infant, but now loves them. This one is more of a doer than an observer. But he wants to do what his brother does and started talking much earlier than big bro. I won't be surprised if he just starts reading one day. And that'll be fine, too.

[Anonymous]

I mostly taught myself at an early 4 back in the 80s. My mom read to me and mayyybeeeee daycare did a little bit? But it was definitely daycare and not a preschool.

Watching Alphablocks with my kid this morning and I’m pretty sure a kid could just watch this show and figure it out lol. My daughter went to a great preschool but didn’t learn to read till kindergarten. We read to her but definitely didn’t teach her anything and she’s doing more than fine 🤷🏼‍♀️

[Anonymous]

After you (or someone) teaches them phonics? Yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I had zero instruction and taught myself to read before I was three. Sometimes it happens that way.

Both my kids did this. I am so lucky. I do worry it will spoil us when the real learning/absorbing needs to happen eventually.

[Anonymous]

We have always had a lot of books in the house, read to our kids often, go to the library often, kids see us reading our own books. We never ever explicitly tried to teach our kids to read (never worked on phonics or had them try to sound out words or quizzed them on letters/sight words) but both kids started reading at age 4. With both kids at first we figured they had just memorized and were reciting from memory books we had read to them often but with each kid we learned they were actually reading when they started reading all kinds of things (road signs, billboards, mail, text messages, shopping lists, food labels, reading over our shoulders, etc). So yes it is possible. And it’s possible that if we had tried to actually teach them they would have been reading even earlier. But I’m glad they picked it up on their own without us actively teaching them as I think they are stronger readers as a result of being self motivated and are already used to sounding out words they don’t know rather than constantly asking us what a word is like I imagine they would if we had been the ones to teach them.