Is it on parents to teach kids to read?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There isn't evidence that early reading has any long term benefits, and some signs that it may for some kids actually promote bad reading habits, like memorizing whole words and not learning to sound them out.

Clarification. There is very very little SCIENTIFIC data of ANY kind - EITHER good OR bad - about early reading. There are no reproducible trends or signs either.

What little data exists in this area largely focuses on the question of Head Start effectiveness. To qualify for Head Start, students must be from families in deprived circumstances. So that data does NOT apply to students living in ordinary circumstances.

For my part, I have never seen a 3 year old or 4 year old who could be "pushed". They are natural sponges for learning almost anything at those ages - including letters, Phonics, and reading - but they nearly always have short attention spans at those ages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There isn't evidence that early reading has any long term benefits, and some signs that it may for some kids actually promote bad reading habits, like memorizing whole words and not learning to sound them out.

Clarification. There is very very little SCIENTIFIC data of ANY kind - EITHER good OR bad - about early reading. There are no reproducible trends or signs either.

What little data exists in this area largely focuses on the question of Head Start effectiveness. To qualify for Head Start, students must be from families in deprived circumstances. So that data does NOT apply to students living in ordinary circumstances.

For my part, I have never seen a 3 year old or 4 year old who could be "pushed". They are natural sponges for learning almost anything at those ages - including letters, Phonics, and reading - but they nearly always have short attention spans at those ages.

We predicted that early reading would be associated with better academic performance and better psychological adjustment, whereas early school entry would be associated with worse long-term outcomes. These hypotheses were partially supported. Early reading was associated with early educational success, but was also associated with worse long-term outcomes including less overall educational attainment, worse teenage and adult adjustment, and increased alcohol use. As predicted, early school entry was generally associated with worse outcomes including lower math performance, less overall education, some maladjustment at midlife, increased alcohol use, and a higher mortality risk.

Early reading and early school entry were moderately related and were generally associated with positive baseline characteristics such as higher IQ and SES level. Background home characteristics are important to consider (DeBaryshe, Binder, & Buell, 2000; Fitzgerald, Spiegel, & Cunningham, 1991; Greenberg et. al., 1999), as are parental attitudes regarding when to enroll the child and how much to push the child to progress through school.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2713445/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There isn't evidence that early reading has any long term benefits, and some signs that it may for some kids actually promote bad reading habits, like memorizing whole words and not learning to sound them out.

Clarification. There is very very little SCIENTIFIC data of ANY kind - EITHER good OR bad - about early reading. There are no reproducible trends or signs either.

What little data exists in this area largely focuses on the question of Head Start effectiveness. To qualify for Head Start, students must be from families in deprived circumstances. So that data does NOT apply to students living in ordinary circumstances.

For my part, I have never seen a 3 year old or 4 year old who could be "pushed". They are natural sponges for learning almost anything at those ages - including letters, Phonics, and reading - but they nearly always have short attention spans at those ages.

We predicted that early reading would be associated with better academic performance and better psychological adjustment, whereas early school entry would be associated with worse long-term outcomes. These hypotheses were partially supported. Early reading was associated with early educational success, but was also associated with worse long-term outcomes including less overall educational attainment, worse teenage and adult adjustment, and increased alcohol use. As predicted, early school entry was generally associated with worse outcomes including lower math performance, less overall education, some maladjustment at midlife, increased alcohol use, and a higher mortality risk.

Early reading and early school entry were moderately related and were generally associated with positive baseline characteristics such as higher IQ and SES level. Background home characteristics are important to consider (DeBaryshe, Binder, & Buell, 2000; Fitzgerald, Spiegel, & Cunningham, 1991; Greenberg et. al., 1999), as are parental attitudes regarding when to enroll the child and how much to push the child to progress through school.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2713445/

My kids all read CVC words and BOB book type books at 3 or 4. They're doing well in later grades now. They also played a ton and we didn't do preschool until 4. Reading was just part of the things I did with them.

Early school-led reading might be an issue, but I wouldn't dissuade parents from noting signs of literacy and following them. That's just silly.

[Anonymous]

The quality of education research is about what you would expect it to be. You are much better off using your common sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There isn't evidence that early reading has any long term benefits, and some signs that it may for some kids actually promote bad reading habits, like memorizing whole words and not learning to sound them out.

Clarification. There is very very little SCIENTIFIC data of ANY kind - EITHER good OR bad - about early reading. There are no reproducible trends or signs either.

What little data exists in this area largely focuses on the question of Head Start effectiveness. To qualify for Head Start, students must be from families in deprived circumstances. So that data does NOT apply to students living in ordinary circumstances.

For my part, I have never seen a 3 year old or 4 year old who could be "pushed". They are natural sponges for learning almost anything at those ages - including letters, Phonics, and reading - but they nearly always have short attention spans at those ages.

We predicted that early reading would be associated with better academic performance and better psychological adjustment, whereas early school entry would be associated with worse long-term outcomes. These hypotheses were partially supported. Early reading was associated with early educational success, but was also associated with worse long-term outcomes including less overall educational attainment, worse teenage and adult adjustment, and increased alcohol use. As predicted, early school entry was generally associated with worse outcomes including lower math performance, less overall education, some maladjustment at midlife, increased alcohol use, and a higher mortality risk.

Early reading and early school entry were moderately related and were generally associated with positive baseline characteristics such as higher IQ and SES level. Background home characteristics are important to consider (DeBaryshe, Binder, & Buell, 2000; Fitzgerald, Spiegel, & Cunningham, 1991; Greenberg et. al., 1999), as are parental attitudes regarding when to enroll the child and how much to push the child to progress through school.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2713445/

My kids all read CVC words and BOB book type books at 3 or 4. They're doing well in later grades now. They also played a ton and we didn't do preschool until 4. Reading was just part of the things I did with them.

Early school-led reading might be an issue, but I wouldn't dissuade parents from noting signs of literacy and following them. That's just silly.

This is a thread about literacy education, and in this particular conversation we are discussing research relevant to the question about whether schools should be aggressively pushing phonics in kindergarten and earlier. But I'm glad it gave you a chance to feel good about your parenting!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The quality of education research is about what you would expect it to be. You are much better off using your common sense.

For decades, school districts ignored robust research on how people learn to read. They should have paid attention to it instead of falling for marketing gimmicks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There isn't evidence that early reading has any long term benefits, and some signs that it may for some kids actually promote bad reading habits, like memorizing whole words and not learning to sound them out.

Clarification. There is very very little SCIENTIFIC data of ANY kind - EITHER good OR bad - about early reading. There are no reproducible trends or signs either.

What little data exists in this area largely focuses on the question of Head Start effectiveness. To qualify for Head Start, students must be from families in deprived circumstances. So that data does NOT apply to students living in ordinary circumstances.

For my part, I have never seen a 3 year old or 4 year old who could be "pushed". They are natural sponges for learning almost anything at those ages - including letters, Phonics, and reading - but they nearly always have short attention spans at those ages.

We predicted that early reading would be associated with better academic performance and better psychological adjustment, whereas early school entry would be associated with worse long-term outcomes. These hypotheses were partially supported. Early reading was associated with early educational success, but was also associated with worse long-term outcomes including less overall educational attainment, worse teenage and adult adjustment, and increased alcohol use. As predicted, early school entry was generally associated with worse outcomes including lower math performance, less overall education, some maladjustment at midlife, increased alcohol use, and a higher mortality risk.

Early reading and early school entry were moderately related and were generally associated with positive baseline characteristics such as higher IQ and SES level. Background home characteristics are important to consider (DeBaryshe, Binder, & Buell, 2000; Fitzgerald, Spiegel, & Cunningham, 1991; Greenberg et. al., 1999), as are parental attitudes regarding when to enroll the child and how much to push the child to progress through school.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2713445/

Sample size stated was N=1024 which is too small.

Quoting from the intro to that paper:

"...the sample is limited in some respects and care should be taken in generalizing the results..."

That quoted phrase is scientific speak for 'our sample was too small and so the results are not generally applicable'.

Thank you for confirming the literature is sparse and does not support any general conclusions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There isn't evidence that early reading has any long term benefits, and some signs that it may for some kids actually promote bad reading habits, like memorizing whole words and not learning to sound them out.

Clarification. There is very very little SCIENTIFIC data of ANY kind - EITHER good OR bad - about early reading. There are no reproducible trends or signs either.

What little data exists in this area largely focuses on the question of Head Start effectiveness. To qualify for Head Start, students must be from families in deprived circumstances. So that data does NOT apply to students living in ordinary circumstances.

For my part, I have never seen a 3 year old or 4 year old who could be "pushed". They are natural sponges for learning almost anything at those ages - including letters, Phonics, and reading - but they nearly always have short attention spans at those ages.

We predicted that early reading would be associated with better academic performance and better psychological adjustment, whereas early school entry would be associated with worse long-term outcomes. These hypotheses were partially supported. Early reading was associated with early educational success, but was also associated with worse long-term outcomes including less overall educational attainment, worse teenage and adult adjustment, and increased alcohol use. As predicted, early school entry was generally associated with worse outcomes including lower math performance, less overall education, some maladjustment at midlife, increased alcohol use, and a higher mortality risk.

Early reading and early school entry were moderately related and were generally associated with positive baseline characteristics such as higher IQ and SES level. Background home characteristics are important to consider (DeBaryshe, Binder, & Buell, 2000; Fitzgerald, Spiegel, & Cunningham, 1991; Greenberg et. al., 1999), as are parental attitudes regarding when to enroll the child and how much to push the child to progress through school.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2713445/

My kids all read CVC words and BOB book type books at 3 or 4. They're doing well in later grades now. They also played a ton and we didn't do preschool until 4. Reading was just part of the things I did with them.

Early school-led reading might be an issue, but I wouldn't dissuade parents from noting signs of literacy and following them. That's just silly.

This is a thread about literacy education, and in this particular conversation we are discussing research relevant to the question about whether schools should be aggressively pushing phonics in kindergarten and earlier. But I'm glad it gave you a chance to feel good about your parenting!

Actually, no, we are discussing the lack of any scientific research supporting Lucy Calkins' Readers Workshop AND the lack of reproducible research with large sample sizes and good controls saying early reading is harmful....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The quality of education research is about what you would expect it to be. You are much better off using your common sense.

For decades, school districts ignored robust research on how people learn to read. They should have paid attention to it instead of falling for marketing gimmicks.

Yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There isn't evidence that early reading has any long term benefits, and some signs that it may for some kids actually promote bad reading habits, like memorizing whole words and not learning to sound them out.

Clarification. There is very very little SCIENTIFIC data of ANY kind - EITHER good OR bad - about early reading. There are no reproducible trends or signs either.

What little data exists in this area largely focuses on the question of Head Start effectiveness. To qualify for Head Start, students must be from families in deprived circumstances. So that data does NOT apply to students living in ordinary circumstances.

For my part, I have never seen a 3 year old or 4 year old who could be "pushed". They are natural sponges for learning almost anything at those ages - including letters, Phonics, and reading - but they nearly always have short attention spans at those ages.

We predicted that early reading would be associated with better academic performance and better psychological adjustment, whereas early school entry would be associated with worse long-term outcomes. These hypotheses were partially supported. Early reading was associated with early educational success, but was also associated with worse long-term outcomes including less overall educational attainment, worse teenage and adult adjustment, and increased alcohol use. As predicted, early school entry was generally associated with worse outcomes including lower math performance, less overall education, some maladjustment at midlife, increased alcohol use, and a higher mortality risk.

Early reading and early school entry were moderately related and were generally associated with positive baseline characteristics such as higher IQ and SES level. Background home characteristics are important to consider (DeBaryshe, Binder, & Buell, 2000; Fitzgerald, Spiegel, & Cunningham, 1991; Greenberg et. al., 1999), as are parental attitudes regarding when to enroll the child and how much to push the child to progress through school.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2713445/

Sample size stated was N=1024 which is too small.

Quoting from the intro to that paper:

"...the sample is limited in some respects and care should be taken in generalizing the results..."

That quoted phrase is scientific speak for 'our sample was too small and so the results are not generally applicable'.

Thank you for confirming the literature is sparse and does not support any general conclusions.

That statement is true of any observational study. 1024 is not a small sample size at all, the problem is that it is not a random sample.

Anyway, you suggested the ONLY research is based on Head Start, which is not true. I found the above study after about 5 minutes of Googling. I'm sure there's more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There isn't evidence that early reading has any long term benefits, and some signs that it may for some kids actually promote bad reading habits, like memorizing whole words and not learning to sound them out.

Clarification. There is very very little SCIENTIFIC data of ANY kind - EITHER good OR bad - about early reading. There are no reproducible trends or signs either.

What little data exists in this area largely focuses on the question of Head Start effectiveness. To qualify for Head Start, students must be from families in deprived circumstances. So that data does NOT apply to students living in ordinary circumstances.

For my part, I have never seen a 3 year old or 4 year old who could be "pushed". They are natural sponges for learning almost anything at those ages - including letters, Phonics, and reading - but they nearly always have short attention spans at those ages.

We predicted that early reading would be associated with better academic performance and better psychological adjustment, whereas early school entry would be associated with worse long-term outcomes. These hypotheses were partially supported. Early reading was associated with early educational success, but was also associated with worse long-term outcomes including less overall educational attainment, worse teenage and adult adjustment, and increased alcohol use. As predicted, early school entry was generally associated with worse outcomes including lower math performance, less overall education, some maladjustment at midlife, increased alcohol use, and a higher mortality risk.

Early reading and early school entry were moderately related and were generally associated with positive baseline characteristics such as higher IQ and SES level. Background home characteristics are important to consider (DeBaryshe, Binder, & Buell, 2000; Fitzgerald, Spiegel, & Cunningham, 1991; Greenberg et. al., 1999), as are parental attitudes regarding when to enroll the child and how much to push the child to progress through school.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2713445/

My kids all read CVC words and BOB book type books at 3 or 4. They're doing well in later grades now. They also played a ton and we didn't do preschool until 4. Reading was just part of the things I did with them.

Early school-led reading might be an issue, but I wouldn't dissuade parents from noting signs of literacy and following them. That's just silly.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There isn't evidence that early reading has any long term benefits, and some signs that it may for some kids actually promote bad reading habits, like memorizing whole words and not learning to sound them out.

Clarification. There is very very little SCIENTIFIC data of ANY kind - EITHER good OR bad - about early reading. There are no reproducible trends or signs either.

What little data exists in this area largely focuses on the question of Head Start effectiveness. To qualify for Head Start, students must be from families in deprived circumstances. So that data does NOT apply to students living in ordinary circumstances.

For my part, I have never seen a 3 year old or 4 year old who could be "pushed". They are natural sponges for learning almost anything at those ages - including letters, Phonics, and reading - but they nearly always have short attention spans at those ages.

We predicted that early reading would be associated with better academic performance and better psychological adjustment, whereas early school entry would be associated with worse long-term outcomes. These hypotheses were partially supported. Early reading was associated with early educational success, but was also associated with worse long-term outcomes including less overall educational attainment, worse teenage and adult adjustment, and increased alcohol use. As predicted, early school entry was generally associated with worse outcomes including lower math performance, less overall education, some maladjustment at midlife, increased alcohol use, and a higher mortality risk.

Early reading and early school entry were moderately related and were generally associated with positive baseline characteristics such as higher IQ and SES level. Background home characteristics are important to consider (DeBaryshe, Binder, & Buell, 2000; Fitzgerald, Spiegel, & Cunningham, 1991; Greenberg et. al., 1999), as are parental attitudes regarding when to enroll the child and how much to push the child to progress through school.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2713445/

My kids all read CVC words and BOB book type books at 3 or 4. They're doing well in later grades now. They also played a ton and we didn't do preschool until 4. Reading was just part of the things I did with them.

Early school-led reading might be an issue, but I wouldn't dissuade parents from noting signs of literacy and following them. That's just silly.

This is a thread about literacy education, and in this particular conversation we are discussing research relevant to the question about whether schools should be aggressively pushing phonics in kindergarten and earlier. But I'm glad it gave you a chance to feel good about your parenting!

Actually, no, we are discussing the lack of any scientific research supporting Lucy Calkins' Readers Workshop AND the lack of reproducible research with large sample sizes and good controls saying early reading is harmful....

Here is the full quote that the first person above was responding to. They conveniently deleted most of my post.

"Thanks for sharing this really interesting blog post.

What I have observed is that in an attempt to address low literacy rates, some school systems are pushing phonics at very early ages (e.g. DCPS expecting kids in prek4 to be able to read by the end of the year). There isn't evidence that early reading has any long term benefits, and some signs that it may for some kids actually promote bad reading habits, like memorizing whole words and not learning to sound them out. I don't think phonics is the issue here. I think it's the notion that 5 year olds SHOULD have skills that not all 5 year olds do. It's trying to make up for the failings of balanced literacy in an aggressive way but not a thoughtful way."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There isn't evidence that early reading has any long term benefits, and some signs that it may for some kids actually promote bad reading habits, like memorizing whole words and not learning to sound them out.

Clarification. There is very very little SCIENTIFIC data of ANY kind - EITHER good OR bad - about early reading. There are no reproducible trends or signs either.

What little data exists in this area largely focuses on the question of Head Start effectiveness. To qualify for Head Start, students must be from families in deprived circumstances. So that data does NOT apply to students living in ordinary circumstances.

For my part, I have never seen a 3 year old or 4 year old who could be "pushed". They are natural sponges for learning almost anything at those ages - including letters, Phonics, and reading - but they nearly always have short attention spans at those ages.

We predicted that early reading would be associated with better academic performance and better psychological adjustment, whereas early school entry would be associated with worse long-term outcomes. These hypotheses were partially supported. Early reading was associated with early educational success, but was also associated with worse long-term outcomes including less overall educational attainment, worse teenage and adult adjustment, and increased alcohol use. As predicted, early school entry was generally associated with worse outcomes including lower math performance, less overall education, some maladjustment at midlife, increased alcohol use, and a higher mortality risk.

Early reading and early school entry were moderately related and were generally associated with positive baseline characteristics such as higher IQ and SES level. Background home characteristics are important to consider (DeBaryshe, Binder, & Buell, 2000; Fitzgerald, Spiegel, & Cunningham, 1991; Greenberg et. al., 1999), as are parental attitudes regarding when to enroll the child and how much to push the child to progress through school.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2713445/

Sample size stated was N=1024 which is too small.

Quoting from the intro to that paper:

"...the sample is limited in some respects and care should be taken in generalizing the results..."

That quoted phrase is scientific speak for 'our sample was too small and so the results are not generally applicable'.

Thank you for confirming the literature is sparse and does not support any general conclusions.

That statement is true of any observational study. 1024 is not a small sample size at all, the problem is that it is not a random sample.

Not a random sample means you agree it is not valid research, hence not relevany.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My kid is in K. The materials I'm seeing sent home from our public ES in the DMV don't seem to be too focused on phonics. At home my kid is doing well with Bob books and similar because they focus on sounds she has learned. At school it seems like it is about memorizing sight words rather than sounding out words and she doesn't seem do great with that. She gets stressed out when she can't sound things out. I am a little surprised because of all the talk about the science of reading.

I don’t teach my kid to read and I read to him a lot. Every night from a young age. I don’t know if that helped any.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There isn't evidence that early reading has any long term benefits, and some signs that it may for some kids actually promote bad reading habits, like memorizing whole words and not learning to sound them out.

Clarification. There is very very little SCIENTIFIC data of ANY kind - EITHER good OR bad - about early reading. There are no reproducible trends or signs either.

What little data exists in this area largely focuses on the question of Head Start effectiveness. To qualify for Head Start, students must be from families in deprived circumstances. So that data does NOT apply to students living in ordinary circumstances.

For my part, I have never seen a 3 year old or 4 year old who could be "pushed". They are natural sponges for learning almost anything at those ages - including letters, Phonics, and reading - but they nearly always have short attention spans at those ages.

We predicted that early reading would be associated with better academic performance and better psychological adjustment, whereas early school entry would be associated with worse long-term outcomes. These hypotheses were partially supported. Early reading was associated with early educational success, but was also associated with worse long-term outcomes including less overall educational attainment, worse teenage and adult adjustment, and increased alcohol use. As predicted, early school entry was generally associated with worse outcomes including lower math performance, less overall education, some maladjustment at midlife, increased alcohol use, and a higher mortality risk.

Early reading and early school entry were moderately related and were generally associated with positive baseline characteristics such as higher IQ and SES level. Background home characteristics are important to consider (DeBaryshe, Binder, & Buell, 2000; Fitzgerald, Spiegel, & Cunningham, 1991; Greenberg et. al., 1999), as are parental attitudes regarding when to enroll the child and how much to push the child to progress through school.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2713445/

Sample size stated was N=1024 which is too small.

Quoting from the intro to that paper:

"...the sample is limited in some respects and care should be taken in generalizing the results..."

That quoted phrase is scientific speak for 'our sample was too small and so the results are not generally applicable'.

Thank you for confirming the literature is sparse and does not support any general conclusions.

That statement is true of any observational study. 1024 is not a small sample size at all, the problem is that it is not a random sample.

Not a random sample means you agree it is not valid research, hence not relevany.

Ha ha ha I do think observational studies have significant limitations but I think that is pretty much what we are going get on this topic. But I imagine when an observational study comes out that supports your priors you'll be the first to tout it.