Do you depend on your school to teach your child how to read?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wasn't a poster who posted links to reports on children who were poor readers less likely to finish school. However, what I do find interesting is that people are such ideologues on this issue. The idea that every child who reads early is destined to crash and burn, have poor reading comprehension, hate reading, etc etc I think is way overblown. My experience is that my early reader still loves reading, and guess what? She does in fact understand what she reads.

I'm not saying that early readers will crash and burn. I simply said it wasn't a predictor of anything. When we went on private school tours, parents would get really worked up if their DC applicant was going to sit in a class of other K'gers who weren't reading. Only some of them listened to when the teachers talked about how even early readers benefit from learning fundamentals with pre-readers.

I don't think this is being ideological. I bet if you asked a bunch of third grade teachers to identify which of their students read early (before 5) and which learned to read at ages 5 or 6, they wouldn't be able to do it. I'm fairly certain there is on discernible difference. So if there is no difference, then why push a child to read before s/he is ready? Or why not understand that an early reader may not have yet mastered the fundamentals of reading?

[Anonymous]

People keep posting that early readers don't understand the "fundamentals of reading". What do you base your statement on? What studies are you referring to? I see anecdotal evidence on the thread but I haven't had anybody post a reference to a study that we can all go read. One of my children started reading at age 3. She was decoding and at age 4 was able to discuss what was happening to the characters in the stories that she'd read independently. We never, ever pushed her to read. That was her choice. I guess what I don't understand is why people are so certain that early readers are either pushed by over zealous parents, or have Asperger's, or are learning in a way that will cause them to actually be BEHIND their peers in the future. If my friends' children show aptitude in dance, or gymnastics, or team sports (where talented kids are heroes), I would never imply that the parents are pushy, or that early dancing will actually lead to poor dancing technique in the future. What is the problem with my child having aptitude in reading? Why is it so impossible to believe that some kids just have a gift for reading?

[Anonymous]

There are some research on early readers,


A Comparison of Intellectually Superior Preschool Accelerated Readers and Nonreaders: Four Years Later
Jeanne M. Burns

Southeastern Louisiana University

Martha D. Collins

University of Akron

J. Christine Paulsell

St. Tammany Parish School Board Mandeville, LA

This study examined the reading/written language abilities of a group of intellectually superior eight- and nine-year-old students who had been identified as Accelerated Readers and Nonreaders at the age of four years. All subjects had previously participated in a study that examined specific factors in a supportive home environment related to the early development of accelerated reading abilities. During the origmaistudy, all Accelerated Readers read at a mid-first- to fifth-grade level; verbally produced vowel and consonant sounds when shown corresponding letters, and performed well when involved in inventive spelling activities. Nonreaders read no words and exhibited limited knowledge of letter-sound correspondences. When retested at the age of eight and nine years, the Accelerated Readers scored significantly higher than the Nonreaders on subtests measuring word attack and dictation: However, no significant differences were found on subtests measuring word recognition or comprehension. A review of school-based data indicated that the majority of the subjects in the two groups had been provided the same type of basal reading instruction upon entry into elementary school despite significant differences in their reading capabilities at the age of four years.

http://gcq.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/35/3/118

[Anonymous]

The next research is more interesting. Basically, it says that 1st grade reading achievement is a predictor of 11th grade academic performance. Moreover, the progress in reading from grade 1 to 3 or 5 is also very important predictor on later reading achievement.

https://gse.soe.berkeley.edu/faculty/AECunningham/Earlyreadingacquisitionanditsrelationtoreadingexperienceandabilitytenyearslater.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wasn't a poster who posted links to reports on children who were poor readers less likely to finish school. However, what I do find interesting is that people are such ideologues on this issue. The idea that every child who reads early is destined to crash and burn, have poor reading comprehension, hate reading, etc etc I think is way overblown. My experience is that my early reader still loves reading, and guess what? She does in fact understand what she reads.

I'm not saying that early readers will crash and burn. I simply said it wasn't a predictor of anything. When we went on private school tours, parents would get really worked up if their DC applicant was going to sit in a class of other K'gers who weren't reading. Only some of them listened to when the teachers talked about how even early readers benefit from learning fundamentals with pre-readers.

I don't think this is being ideological. I bet if you asked a bunch of third grade teachers to identify which of their students read early (before 5) and which learned to read at ages 5 or 6, they wouldn't be able to do it. I'm fairly certain there is on discernible difference. So if there is no difference, then why push a child to read before s/he is ready? Or why not understand that an early reader may not have yet mastered the fundamentals of reading?

But you can probably say that poor readers in third grade were poor readers in K.(?)

[Anonymous]

The big mistake some parents make is deciding that all is well b/c dc is "reading". The child has to be pushed to the next level. My parents neglected to get me past the early reader stage. I was on track up until second grade, but for various reasons there was a lapse in my education, so by 5th grade I was at a 3rd grade level. That was a big issue, b/c it seemed to take forever to catch up to my peers. I plan to keep encouraging my dc to read even though she is reading "well" now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wasn't a poster who posted links to reports on children who were poor readers less likely to finish school. However, what I do find interesting is that people are such ideologues on this issue. The idea that every child who reads early is destined to crash and burn, have poor reading comprehension, hate reading, etc etc I think is way overblown. My experience is that my early reader still loves reading, and guess what? She does in fact understand what she reads.

I'm not saying that early readers will crash and burn. I simply said it wasn't a predictor of anything. When we went on private school tours, parents would get really worked up if their DC applicant was going to sit in a class of other K'gers who weren't reading. Only some of them listened to when the teachers talked about how even early readers benefit from learning fundamentals with pre-readers.

I don't think this is being ideological. I bet if you asked a bunch of third grade teachers to identify which of their students read early (before 5) and which learned to read at ages 5 or 6, they wouldn't be able to do it. I'm fairly certain there is on discernible difference. So if there is no difference, then why push a child to read before s/he is ready? Or why not understand that an early reader may not have yet mastered the fundamentals of reading?

But you can probably say that poor readers in third grade were poor readers in K.(?)

Why do you think you can say that? There is a difference between a non-reader and a poor reader. A non reader in K may be a fabulous reader in first. A poor reader in K may continue to be a poor reader in 3rd. And for the 23:42 poster, I think s/he is echoing the point that simply because a child reads early doesn't mean s/he is destined to be gifted and talented. I think it only reinforces the point that a child who reads early still needs to be exposed to all the elements that make up the fundamentals of reading, even when this may seem unnecessary to some parents (but probably not to the child's teacher).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:


But you can probably say that poor readers in third grade were poor readers in K.(?)

Not always. I read well in K, 1, 2, etc. It wasn't until 3rd grade they realized I could read easily, but wasn't comprehending anything. They later diagnosed me as dyslexic. But my ease at reciting the words in books had them fooled for a few years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People keep posting that early readers don't understand the "fundamentals of reading". What do you base your statement on? What studies are you referring to? I see anecdotal evidence on the thread but I haven't had anybody post a reference to a study that we can all go read. One of my children started reading at age 3. She was decoding and at age 4 was able to discuss what was happening to the characters in the stories that she'd read independently. We never, ever pushed her to read. That was her choice. I guess what I don't understand is why people are so certain that early readers are either pushed by over zealous parents, or have Asperger's, or are learning in a way that will cause them to actually be BEHIND their peers in the future. If my friends' children show aptitude in dance, or gymnastics, or team sports (where talented kids are heroes), I would never imply that the parents are pushy, or that early dancing will actually lead to poor dancing technique in the future. What is the problem with my child having aptitude in reading? Why is it so impossible to believe that some kids just have a gift for reading?

No one is saying that these kids don't have a gift for reading. No one is saying that s/he will fall "BEHIND their peers in the future." I think some posters are just suggesting that it may make sense for reading specialists and early ed teachers to weigh in on the child's development, not just the parents, unless the parents have backgrounds pediatric development and/or education. Look, if we're going to invoke DC stories as if that somehow represents an academic study, my DD read early as well. Her WPPSI's scores were in the top percentile. She was admitted nearly everywhere she applied, including the Big 3s. I did not, however, insist that she have a separate reading class for K, etc. We thought it was important that she be exposed to all aspects of reading in case she was missing something as she taught herself to read. She is still a bright and talented kid, but so is my DS and he learned to read 18 months after she did. They've had comparable intellects at the same age. Both love to read.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


But you can probably say that poor readers in third grade were poor readers in K.(?)

Not always. I read well in K, 1, 2, etc. It wasn't until 3rd grade they realized I could read easily, but wasn't comprehending anything. They later diagnosed me as dyslexic. But my ease at reciting the words in books had them fooled for a few years.

PP, your personal story is illustrative of why someone who is an early reader (or accelerated reader or emergent reader -- whatever is your preference) MAY (not will, but may) encounter difficulties later. My DS is reading now and will start K at a Big 3 next year. We don't plan on insisting he read with the 2nd graders, etc. We want him to learn with his classmates and we will supplement at home. While we are very impressed, we realize it could (NOT will, but could) be a few years till he is a fluent reader. Or we may discover that he has learning challenges, such as dsylexia, and we will need to develop a plan.

A lot of folks on this thread seem to be touchy, so I want people to know I am making predictions, not pronouncements, on my son's progress, hence the periodic use of caps.

[Anonymous]

For our family, the important thing we try to teach at home is the LOVE of reading. We read independently for pleasure (modeling for our child that reading is fun), provide lots of kid friendly books, make regular fun trips to the library, read interesting/fun books together at bedtime, and so forth. We have one of those early readers who started decoding at about age 2 on his own. Comprehension came along a bit later but still early compared to peers. We trust his teachers to provide appropriate reading instruction at school -- fundamentals, practice w/ peers at different levels of ability, and so forth. Although his relative ability will probably go up and down over the years, we trust that as long as he continues to enjoy doing it, everything will be fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People keep posting that early readers don't understand the "fundamentals of reading". What do you base your statement on? What studies are you referring to? I see anecdotal evidence on the thread but I haven't had anybody post a reference to a study that we can all go read. One of my children started reading at age 3. She was decoding and at age 4 was able to discuss what was happening to the characters in the stories that she'd read independently. We never, ever pushed her to read. That was her choice. I guess what I don't understand is why people are so certain that early readers are either pushed by over zealous parents, or have Asperger's, or are learning in a way that will cause them to actually be BEHIND their peers in the future. If my friends' children show aptitude in dance, or gymnastics, or team sports (where talented kids are heroes), I would never imply that the parents are pushy, or that early dancing will actually lead to poor dancing technique in the future. What is the problem with my child having aptitude in reading? Why is it so impossible to believe that some kids just have a gift for reading?

ITA. Maybe if the child learns to decode early but then nobody follows up on it that's like a child who is graceful and/or athletic at 5 but nobody provides him/her with the instruction to capitalize on their natural gifts. To the extent that we're talking about not resting on laurels at age 5, I suppose I can agree. BUT, if the child has the natural capacity to decode language and the desire to read at a precocious age? Then I see every reason to teach, instruct, and encourage - the child is demonstrating a genuine talent that deserves to be nurtured.

[Anonymous]

If early reading is a talent, then we should held a World Early Reading Competition each year, with the youngest baby who can read Bible wining the gold prize.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If early reading is a talent, then we should held a World Early Reading Competition each year, with the youngest baby who can read Bible wining the gold prize.

No you're right, we should ignore it completely. The same way we ignore athletic children in T-ball, and pretty children in baby pageants, and musical children in recitals. Oh wait... as a society, we nurture and reward "excellence" in those areas, don't we? Okay, well then let's just go ahead and ignore children with an early aptitude for reading because... you said so.

[Anonymous]

Why do many posters on this thread interpret the suggestion that parents/teachers need to ensure that early/accelerated/emergent readers become fluent readers as the equivalent of ignoring or discouraging them? Sometimes I think this thread should subdivide into two more strands: one for parents who want to discuss if they are relying on their DC's school to teach their child to read and another for folks who want to talk about how all early reader require no additional assistance once they enter school. Even though I have one early reader, I am interested in the former.