I thought the children at the "top" private schools were...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our daughter could have been an early reader had I been inclined to steer her in that direction, but my take was that her own direction was taking her to more interesting places and places she wouldn't necessarily go in school, whereas if I taught her to read, she'd most likely end up being re-taught. And I realized that independent reading at that stage would actually significantly diminish the quality and quantity of the literature she was being exposed to by being read to and listening to audiobooks.

I agree that early reading is not that important, but you seem to be going further and emphasizing the disadvantages. Early reading need not diminish the quality of what's read. Many early readers move quickly through the "easy reader" stage and on to real books (E.B. White, e.g.), and you should, of course, continue to read to your early reader for many reasons.

Also, I think you overemphasize the amount of parental choice involved. Many early readers are not "steered" in the sense of being subjected to lots of phonics drills; they just emerge. Their parents probably do a lot of reading but not necessarily more than parents of later readers.

Some kids teach themselves to read; others are taught. Even the ones who teach themselves are responding to and making use of resources within their environment. I used steering rather than teaching wrt my DC because she would (in fact, did) respond to environment. I created one in which it was easy for her to consume massive quantities of high quality literary texts without having to read them herself.

And, as I fairly clearly indicated twice in my post (before and after the passage you quoted), I don't think there's some inherent advantage or disadvantage to early reading. It's always a "compared to what?" decision. If your kid has something better to do in the preschool years than learn to read, by all means let him or her do it. If not (or if what s/he most wants to do is learn to read), encourage them to read.

[Anonymous]

The issue here isn't whether it's good or not to be an early reader. The issue is why parents of early readers think that their children are somehow at a disadvantage by being in a class with children who are not reading as well. If you spend any time in an early childhood classroom, however, you will know that early readers do not have the market on love of learning, intelligence, or interest in their surroundings. Again and again there are complaints by parents of early readers that their kids are somehow being held back by their classmates; as if reading was the only thing being taught in the early grades!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Again and again there are complaints by parents of early readers that their kids are somehow being held back by their classmates; as if reading was the only thing being taught in the early grades!

Are you referring to other threads? I don't see that here at all. And even elsewhere, I don't think the concern is that kids are generally being held back by their classmates; it's more than teachers are not providing appropriate/engaging instruction for some kids in certain areas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The issue here isn't whether it's good or not to be an early reader. The issue is why parents of early readers think that their children are somehow at a disadvantage by being in a class with children who are not reading as well. If you spend any time in an early childhood classroom, however, you will know that early readers do not have the market on love of learning, intelligence, or interest in their surroundings. Again and again there are complaints by parents of early readers that their kids are somehow being held back by their classmates; as if reading was the only thing being taught in the early grades!

Well said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The issue here isn't whether it's good or not to be an early reader. The issue is why parents of early readers think that their children are somehow at a disadvantage by being in a class with children who are not reading as well. If you spend any time in an early childhood classroom, however, you will know that early readers do not have the market on love of learning, intelligence, or interest in their surroundings. Again and again there are complaints by parents of early readers that their kids are somehow being held back by their classmates; as if reading was the only thing being taught in the early grades!

I actually think that they complain merely so they can tell you that their child is already so advanced. It's just a veiled brag.

-signed, mom whose son did NOT score 99% on WPPSI but who taught himself to read at age 3.5 and is now reading at a 4th grade level. Please note, I do not share that information with the other parents, nor have I ever complained that their children are holding him back - which is a ridiculous notion. Kids develop at their own pace.

[Anonymous]

Hysterical PP -- I agree that it is a "veiled brag" as you said. My daughter did really badly on those tests when she was little. But, she went to a Montessori School and every kid learned to read between ages 2.5 and 3.5. No one bragged about it because every single kid -- including the so-called "slow learners" read at an early age too. If OP wants other readers in her kids class -- she should switch to Montessori...but then again...she wont be able to brag then. Maybe her kid will even be behind "reading levels" there.

[Anonymous]

There are more important things for young children to do for their development than read. Play skills are far more important down the road because through them children learn problem solving and creativity.

My son taught himself to read when he was 3. My daughter learned to read at the end of 1st grade. She is by far the more successful student now. I've never thought that early reading was significant for anything. I do think that if a child isn't reading by 2nd grade they should be evaluated for LD issues, but other than that I don't think the age at which a child reads means anything. They all eventually read, right? By third or fourth grade you would have no idea who learned when.

[Anonymous]

OK, now I am confused. I don't think you all know what you are talking about or are being willfully delusional. First, I am willing to bet that there aren't that many 99.9 kids as people think there are. At least not ones that are well-rounded, and are at that percentile across subtests. That is statistically rare. Second, if a child truly scores at the 99.9th percentile across subtests, that kid is pretty damn smart. I think those children do stand out in. If those children have been exposed to letters and sounds at all, they tend to read early. They ask deeper questions. They also do math computations earlier. It does not mean they'll all go on to be academic superstars in middle school because many different things go into becoming an academic superstar. IQ is just one of them. But these kids look different at 4 and 5, and they learn faster than average. For goodness sake, thats what it MEANS to be at the 99.9th percentile in IQ. Its astonishing that there are people on this board who would pretend that that IQ is meaningless. Your insecurity has no bounds.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Given the proclivity on this board and in the D.C. area for shopping for the right educational "tester" it is abundantly clear that not all WPPSI 99.9 percentiles are the same. Therefore, not all D.C. 99.9 percentile children are smart, readers or dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought the selection process of "elite" independent schools produced well-behaved and very bright children. Only a couple of children in the K class are reading well; some do not even understand simple math - like counting. Didn't all these children score 99.9% on the WPPSI? At least the effort is made at placing them into different reading and math levels. Apparently, my expectations of what these high priced schools were much too high. The teachers compliment how DC's manners stand out. My goodness, how well do you progress in this kind of environment? Am I missing something? Perhaps DC is better off in a GT center (public school) later.

Everyone has been focusing on and, IMO, unfairly criticizing OP's question re academics, but what about the other question about the children's behavior? If I were paying $30K a year to send my DC to private school, I'd be very disappointed if he was spending his day with a bunch of ill-behaved kids.

[Anonymous]

11:30 She really focuses on academics in the original post. Reading, counting. This is kindergarten, children act like children everywhere! She is missing something: common sense! Private schools are not utopias.

[Anonymous]

11:30: Independents do not require the MPPSI - the Manners Performance Predictor Survey Insturment. Only administered for whole families, not just small children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
OK, now I am confused. I don't think you all know what you are talking about or are being willfully delusional. First, I am willing to bet that there aren't that many 99.9 kids as people think there are. At least not ones that are well-rounded, and are at that percentile across subtests. That is statistically rare. Second, if a child truly scores at the 99.9th percentile across subtests, that kid is pretty damn smart. I think those children do stand out in. If those children have been exposed to letters and sounds at all, they tend to read early. They ask deeper questions. They also do math computations earlier. It does not mean they'll all go on to be academic superstars in middle school because many different things go into becoming an academic superstar. IQ is just one of them. But these kids look different at 4 and 5, and they learn faster than average. For goodness sake, thats what it MEANS to be at the 99.9th percentile in IQ. Its astonishing that there are people on this board who would pretend that that IQ is meaningless. Your insecurity has no bounds.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Given the proclivity on this board and in the D.C. area for shopping for the right educational "tester" it is abundantly clear that not all WPPSI 99.9 percentiles are the same. Therefore, not all D.C. 99.9 percentile children are smart, readers or dumb.

I didn't realize there were "right testers." Good grief.

[Anonymous]

The point is not that non-readers are holding other children back. But much of the academic day in K and 1st is spent on teaching reading. So if your child is already a fluent reader, then what does the school do for them during that time? IMO this is a valid concern for parents. Some schools do a good job providing enriching opportunities during these times and others are more likely to let them coast.

[Anonymous]

I posted before - my K son reads at a 4th grade level. There are several fluent readers in his grade level. I do not get the impression at all that the spend "much" of the academic day on teaching reading per so. That said, the readers are pulled out of class separately for instruction by the reading specialist at levels more appropriate to their skills. I would expect that that is true of all the "top tier" privates mentioned on this board, although I have no direct experience with the Top 3, 4 or 5.

[Anonymous]

My son is at a private, 99% percentile WPPSI (not 99.9), in all subtests. He taught himself to read at 4.5 and reads three grade levels ahead. Whether this will translate to success down the road in academics certainly remains to be seen, but I am glad he is loving reading. He is in K.