Reading at a certain grade level

[Anonymous]

I often read comments here like “my junior is in K but he reads at the 4th grade level” and I always wonder “so?” what’s the point?” I mean if junior is 5 and can read books meant for 4th graders one can extrapolate than in a few years he will read books meant for adults and then pretty much where do you think he is going to go with that? I mean If you can read and comprehend adult material –that’s great but its not like there is some category above that for them to aspire so I guess I am wondering why this is relevant. I mean your child is still going to be in elementary school regardless of their reading level and when he is an adult his adult friends will read at the adult level so I guess I am missing why this is such a marker of “genius”.

[Anonymous]

It's not a marker of "genius". It does, however, mean that the child in K really has no need to sit through the daily lessons in K on letter sound relationships, nor the first grade lessons on decoding simple words, and so on.

Just as a child in K who can do fourth grade math doesn't need to have those basic lessons, either.

[Anonymous]

You know what I find weird? The collective DCUM obsession with reading levels as the ONLY benchmark for intelligence.

Ask yourself - how many dozens of times have you seen this post: "My K/1st grade child is gifted/bored/in need of being challenged and accelerated because she is so advanced in reading." Or, "My child entered K reading and I worry that her (always a "her") MCPS will not differentiate and challenge her ...."

Why does no one ever brag, obsess or worry that their K-age kid is not being challenged enough in science? Or social studies? Does anyone even care or know? Because my K age son, who reads only at grade level, can understand and discuss 7th grade level history and civics, and fine arts for that matter. But it wouldn't occur to me to get all up in arms that he is "bored" and "not being challenged" because his K class is learning about "Myself and Others" instead of the Civil War.

I'm sure we're not the only family in this situation. Where is our collective fury? Why are we never quite as indignant and demanding of custom, individualized lesson plans like the "My K daughter can read at a 4th grade level" contingent??

[Anonymous]

I don't know. Why aren't you concerned?

[Anonymous]

Because science and social studies aren't such a large part of the early elementary school curriculum, in the same way that reading and math are. Reading and math take up a very large percentage of the time in the early grades. I only WISH science and socials studies, and music and art for that matter, and sports, were taught more often in my child's elementary school day!

In addition, those other subjects aren't based on teaching an ascending set of skills -- first you master one thing, then you go on to the next. There's not really a grade level for science and social studies, in the same way that there is for math and reading.

[Anonymous]

A;so, PP -- if you child is only reading on grade level in K, but can TRULY understand and discuss civics and history AND fine arts meaningfully with kids in 7th grade -- (really? How is getting all that information?) ...anyhow -- I would say he is quite gifted. He might even be "Twice exceptoinal" -- gifted and learning disabled. His reading in no way is on par with his abilities in other areas. It's great that he isn't bored in kindergarten, though. Probably because they are teaching him a lot of reading, which is what he needs to learn.

[Anonymous]

No one ever said the elementary math and science curriculum isn't bogus, it's just that so much of early elementary is all about developing reading "strategies" (bleh) and learning how to read, so that's what parents latch onto.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You know what I find weird? The collective DCUM obsession with reading levels as the ONLY benchmark for intelligence.

Ask yourself - how many dozens of times have you seen this post: "My K/1st grade child is gifted/bored/in need of being challenged and accelerated because she is so advanced in reading." Or, "My child entered K reading and I worry that her (always a "her") MCPS will not differentiate and challenge her ...."

Why does no one ever brag, obsess or worry that their K-age kid is not being challenged enough in science? Or social studies? Does anyone even care or know? Because my K age son, who reads only at grade level, can understand and discuss 7th grade level history and civics, and fine arts for that matter. But it wouldn't occur to me to get all up in arms that he is "bored" and "not being challenged" because his K class is learning about "Myself and Others" instead of the Civil War.

I'm sure we're not the only family in this situation. Where is our collective fury? Why are we never quite as indignant and demanding of custom, individualized lesson plans like the "My K daughter can read at a 4th grade level" contingent??

Don't you know that public schools barely teach science and social studies anymore? They teach what is tested and it isn't science or social studies.

[Anonymous]

Also, because often math and reading ability are innate--i.e., our child started reading at a very early age without being taught and also doing advanced math at an early age without being taught (DC is now in 2nd grade doing 5th-grade math). Yet in DC's independent school, DC is still challenged in science, for example, because that is a topic that is inherently less innate--for example, DC still needed like everyone else to learn about what a hypothesis is, etc. Likewise with art, music, etc. A more content-driven subject is different than an often-innate ability in something like math. Not that skills in reading and math aren't taught, but much differently than in reading and math.

[Anonymous]

PP again--I meant, much differently than in science and social studies.

[Anonymous]

I wouldn't assume that a 5 y.o. pre-reader who could discuss art and history at a level typical of a 7th grade class was learning disabled. I'd assume that his parents read and talked to him a lot, took him to museums, let him watch documentaries and/or listen to audiobooks and that he was more interested in all of those activities than decoding pre-primers where, let's face it, the immediate intellectual rewards aren't that great.

I had just such a kid who is now a voracious reader but who had no particular desire to learn to read as a preschooler precisely because the content she was interested in wasn't accessible to her through reading at that stage. I knew she'd read in school, so saw no need to push the issue at home and just continued to support her other interests.

As to why parents don't get outraged, it's because most really don't care about intellectual development -- they're more concerned with establishing a pecking order or assuring themselves that their kid is ahead of the pack. So they prefer easily attained and measurable accomplishments that give them bragging rights (at least till about 3rd or 4th grade, at which point the ability to read or the knowledge of math facts is the rule rather than the exception). At least that's what I've seen.

It leaves me wondering whether lots of K'ers could discuss history, art, and politics if they had more exposure earlier. I'm sure K'ers could/would happily do more and better science at an early age.

[Anonymous]

Self-taught and innate are two different things. And what you teach yourself depends on what you're exposed to or have access to. Text and quantities are everywhere in our environment. Art and history may not be.

[Anonymous]

If there is a prediction of success in school etc. being able to read starts the ball rolling. Wasn't the old saying that K-3 kids learn to read and after that they read to learn? I also think that science and social studies aren't that emphasized in elementary school.

I do hope social studies has changed from when I was a kid - I remember it as memorizing facts and making maps. I think it was a Simpson's episode where someone asked what caused the civil war. A character gave a very in-depth complex answer and everyone looked like the person was crazy. I laughed because I completely identified - we learned the very simple answer in school to a complex situation and it wasn't really encouraged to analyze any further.

[Anonymous]

If the basics are lacking, reading and mathematics, how can anyone take on social studies or science. One needs to walk before you run.

[Anonymous]

Kids are natural scientists before they read or learn math facts. They experiment all the time. It's one way of learning. In fact, when you think about it, some of their linguistic, sociological, and psychological experiments are pretty sophisticated, LOL! The fact that a kid doesn't know that her hypothesis is called a hypothesis doesn't mean that she isn't capable of developing and testing a hypothesis.