Would you want a teacher trying to make your 3 yr. old read?

[Anonymous]

Big campaign in Britain about this called Too Much Too Soon based on results coming out of Europe. They are pushing for formal education to not start until 6 or 7.

[Anonymous]

More and more evidence about how premature academic training of little children is doing unintended harm.

[Anonymous]

I'd love to know the programs that have strong academics. My child is reading by 4 and enjoys it. His program did small academic sessions and I think its great for starting them out for school but he could have benefitted from a lot more. Some kids pick it up easier than others. Mine was one of those kids but I see the benefit in exposure for all kids and would encourage it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Depends on what you mean by "make."

flashcards, phonics, worksheets-NO

books, stories, games that incorporate letters and words-great

Agree. I am a teacher for this age, fwiw.

[Anonymous]

Many children pick up reading on their own. At age 3and 4, it makes no difference as far as future success in school. The research clearly shows that it is the social and independent skills that are an indicator of success later on. Let the children play!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. By "make", I mean it's a top priority for the school. If the children are reading at age three, they feel like they're "successful".

Ugh. No way. This is really ill-advised. I believe early academics stunt later critical thinking ability.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Big campaign in Britain about this called Too Much Too Soon based on results coming out of Europe. They are pushing for formal education to not start until 6 or 7.

Over here, we've got Defending the Early Years:

https://deyproject.org/early-childhood-activist-toolkit/

[Anonymous]

How do I know if my 3 almost 4 year old is getting drilled on letters and numbers too much and not getting enough time to play? In his day care class they have a couple of circle times a day in which they work on identifying letters and their sounds and talk about their shapes. They work on writing their names. How much of this instruction is too much?

He is there for an 8 hour day. For two of those hours he is napping. He loves the free play, outdoor time, story time, looking at books on his own, art projects, music. But I am always worried circle time is a drag.... Not so inspiring.

I think some of it is fine. Our center has circle time, and one of the things they talk about is the letter of the week and the number of the week. They come up with words that start with that letter. They do crafts based on that letter (so, for "K" they decorate paper kites). They might choose the week's theme to coordinate with the letter--so, if "K" is the letter, they might do "Springtime" and talk about kites, and baby kittens, and whatever. But it's all very laid-back, and no one is getting "drilled." It's worked in with reading stories, and singing songs, and drawing and painting and gluing. And it's not relentless--"K" might be the letter of the week, but everything doesn't involve it.

Circle time is really normal, and it shouldn't interfere with play. And good circle time itself helps develop useful social skills--listening, taking turns speaking, etc. At our center, circle time for the fours room is about ten minutes in the morning (and much of that is singing their good-morning song, talking about what day of the week it is, reviewing the plans for the day), and about 30 minutes before lunch. Much of it is spent reading stories, singing songs, etc. If every circle time is focused on learning letters and writing their names, I'd be concerned. But if it's just one piece, I wouldn't be worried.

[Anonymous]

No way! At three, my daughter is learning letters and numbers. That is age appropriate. Let little kids play, that's how they learn!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Big campaign in Britain about this called Too Much Too Soon based on results coming out of Europe. They are pushing for formal education to not start until 6 or 7.

Over here, we've got Defending the Early Years:

https://deyproject.org/early-childhood-activist-toolkit/

This is excellent. Thank you. All concerned parents of young children should see this research.

[Anonymous]

Teaching to read is a "harmful practice"? You sound so dreadfully ignorant, OP.

Teaching phonics is never harmful. There are specific guidelines for teachers to guide young children through the pre-reading steps in an age-appropriate fashion.

First, no child can ever be forced to learn how to read. It either clicks or it doesn't. Usually it clicks at 5 or 6 and all the work prior to that is preparation.

Second, it's never too early to expose children to phonics, which is the base of any good reading program.

[Anonymous]

9:06-you are the one that is ignorant. Preschool aged children should be playing and developing social skills, not "learning" phonics. Do some research to see what early childhood experts say, before calling someone ignorant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. By "make", I mean it's a top priority for the school. If the children are reading at age three, they feel like they're "successful".

There are precious few 3 year olds who can read.

I don't think their idea of reading and yours are aligned at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:9:06-you are the one that is ignorant. Preschool aged children should be playing and developing social skills, not "learning" phonics. Do some research to see what early childhood experts say, before calling someone ignorant.

I've been there and done that.

Most preschools encourage phonics awareness and some teach it more rigorously than others. An emphasis on academic skills does not mean there isn't play and socializing!
Why should it be one or the other? That's not how it works, PP.
Again, no one can make a child read if the child is not ready to do so.
Again, there is no school in this area that restricts the kids from socializing and play.

It's all a question of degrees, and every parent can find his or her dream preschool with just the right balance of rigor and tra-la-la.

My point is that it is ignorant and wrong to criticize a school behind its back without knowing the teacher's true intentions and pedagogy, relying on OP's distorted viewpoint (distorted because it is not possible to make most 3 year olds "read"). You're all jumping on the "too much pressure is wrong, let them play", but believe me - there is a lot more to teaching preschoolers than that.

[Anonymous]

Omg, this early education is so complicated here in US with so many choices, but at the end of the day the kids still are shortchanged with no good middle and high school curricula.