What is the highest reading level in your kindergarten class?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a first grade teacher at a school that has an AAP program. The problem with the above poster is that they fail to see that reading words is not the only point of reading. They have difficulty understanding how a child like that can read "at x level" but in testing doesn't test the way the parent thinks the child should. Kids do not have the life experiences at a young age to be able to fully grasp certain concepts. A few years ago my highest reading group read a story about Africa. No one in the group had the life experience in order to understand the author's intent because no one in the group had seen Africa, seen poverty, etc. Could they all read the text? Yes. That was not sufficient though.

Parents come to me and explain that Sally is reading Harry Potter, as a reference as to where Sally should be placed. Sally, however, has difficulty retelling (in a testing setting: the setting of the story, the story in order, a lot of detail, using connecting words) a non-fiction story, or difficulty making inferences, or difficulty explaining the author's intent, or difficulty making connections, etc.

This isn't about jealousy. It is clearly about touting her own kid's horn. Now if the question was: what was the highest level your child was reading in kindergarten and explain all the details you can surrounding it, the answer was appropriate. (I will say that of all my years of teaching, there was one child in all my high groups who ever was truly, truly beyond her peers. That isn't to say that many weren't bright and beyond the first grade level. This one child, however, stuck out in language arts with an amazing ability, which was not just decoding words as nearly all of the top tier readers can do).

This is the point of reading a book about Africa, no? And, that was maybe the author's intent. This is first grade. I find it hard to believe that you teach first grade in fairfax public schools and "in all your years" you have only come across one child who could read beyond "just decoding words." Methinks you have an axe to grind.

Besides your terrible grammar it is clear that you *still* have reading comprehension problems. The teacher poster's intent in discussing the single gifted child was to say that while she has seen many in first grade that are advanced at decoding words (ie can read aloud all the words in a 6th grade level text), she has seen only 1 who could both decode and understand the words at a 6th grade level.

[Anonymous]

Not the pp, but why she had to mention one kid reads at the 6th grade level. There must have been dozens coming in at the 2nd grade level, no? Did all of those have comprehension issues?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've posted this in other threads (mostly MD Public Schools) but my child's kindergarten class had a group of 5 students reading at Level N by the end of the school year. As for the haters - this post was titled "What is the highest reading level in your kindergarten class" so yes, people are going to post the highest level being taught to their child/in their school even if it sounds like bragging to you.

My DCPS child finished kindergarten reading at Level M. I've no idea about others in her class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

My child was not reading at all, 2 of her friends were reading full novels more typical for 4th/5th/6th grade. Now in middle school she reading fluently and her comprehension is as good or better than the early reading peers. Some kids struggle more with comprehension, she might not be typical, but in any of the early years classes there is a wide span of reading level. Many bright kids who become academically successful might not be the most advanced reader in the first couple of years. Some advanced readers seem to be aided by reading below their level to work on some things. (how to decipher totally unfamiliar words they'll encounter in more complex material, especially technical nonfiction, reading slightly simpler books to work on comprehension, plot, character, etc. Some of those issues seem easier to grasp taking a step down in level.)

As a K and first grade teacher, I observed that the really early readers often struggled with comprehension. I think it was a result of being pushed to decipher letters.

FOrmer teacher, too: It's also because at 6 years old they are not developmentally ready to read for understanding 10 year old situations. They may be able to read higher level vocabulary, but they have no clue of the meaning.

Unless it is nonfiction. Nonfiction is the saving grace for early voracious readers. Content is very real problem for parents of early readers. These kids are rare enough that fiction books aren't written that challenge their vocabulary, yet meet them at their life experience level. Nonfiction can feed that appetite quite well (particularly science). As for fiction - - just read the more advanced material with them. Never stop reading with them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

My child was not reading at all, 2 of her friends were reading full novels more typical for 4th/5th/6th grade. Now in middle school she reading fluently and her comprehension is as good or better than the early reading peers. Some kids struggle more with comprehension, she might not be typical, but in any of the early years classes there is a wide span of reading level. Many bright kids who become academically successful might not be the most advanced reader in the first couple of years. Some advanced readers seem to be aided by reading below their level to work on some things. (how to decipher totally unfamiliar words they'll encounter in more complex material, especially technical nonfiction, reading slightly simpler books to work on comprehension, plot, character, etc. Some of those issues seem easier to grasp taking a step down in level.)

As a K and first grade teacher, I observed that the really early readers often struggled with comprehension. I think it was a result of being pushed to decipher letters.

FOrmer teacher, too: It's also because at 6 years old they are not developmentally ready to read for understanding 10 year old situations. They may be able to read higher level vocabulary, but they have no clue of the meaning.

Granted, I have not read this entire thread, but are you saying kids who learn to read at 6 are 'early readers?'

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What's the point of reading early if they don't understand? It doesn't encourage reading for pleasure. Better to wait until they learn because they are motivated.

IMHO that wouldn't be a true early reader. When I think of an early reader, it is a kid who basically figured out reading on his own and does comprehend the text -- the kind of kid you are constantly reminding to put the book down at the dinner table -- at age 4. No problem with comprehension or enjoyment and no learning by drilling or pushing. It just happens. That is a true early reader, and you can't turn any kid into that with flash cards, and I don't think you shouldn't try. My DC1's DCPS K class had 5 such kids in a class of 20. They were and are an astonishing group. Many kids joined them as the year and years progressed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's the point of reading early if they don't understand? It doesn't encourage reading for pleasure. Better to wait until they learn because they are motivated.

IMHO that wouldn't be a true early reader. When I think of an early reader, it is a kid who basically figured out reading on his own and does comprehend the text -- the kind of kid you are constantly reminding to put the book down at the dinner table -- at age 4. No problem with comprehension or enjoyment and no learning by drilling or pushing. It just happens. That is a true early reader, and you can't turn any kid into that with flash cards, and I don't think you shouldn't try. My DC1's DCPS K class had 5 such kids in a class of 20. They were and are an astonishing group. Many kids joined them as the year and years progressed.

ha! -- make that double negative a single (clearly I was not an early reader ; )).

[Anonymous]

I vividly recall at meet-the-teacher day before school started, a father was bragging that his 5- or 6-year-old was reading Harry Potter; my kid was just sounding out letters at that point. He ended kindergarten at or a little above expectations, then over the summer became a reading fiend. In first grade he jumped several levels and was placed in the top group with the Harry Potter reader.

[Anonymous]

I think it's hogwash that a kid would read all the way through some of the later Harry Potter books (400+ pages each) comprehending it.

My DS is so competitive he would swim the English Channel if provoked into a challenge (kidding, but half serious). He wouldn't sit through a 400 page book that he didn't understand. He would avoid it, talk about wanting to read it, and maybe carry it around to look flashy, but he wouldn't actually read it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it's hogwash that a kid would read all the way through some of the later Harry Potter books (400+ pages each) comprehending it.

My DS is so competitive he would swim the English Channel if provoked into a challenge (kidding, but half serious). He wouldn't sit through a 400 page book that he didn't understand. He would avoid it, talk about wanting to read it, and maybe carry it around to look flashy, but he wouldn't actually read it.

Should have said *without* comprehending it. That made absolutely no sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's hogwash that a kid would read all the way through some of the later Harry Potter books (400+ pages each) comprehending it.

My DS is so competitive he would swim the English Channel if provoked into a challenge (kidding, but half serious). He wouldn't sit through a 400 page book that he didn't understand. He would avoid it, talk about wanting to read it, and maybe carry it around to look flashy, but he wouldn't actually read it.

Should have said *without* comprehending it. That made absolutely no sense.

I agree. I remember reading adult level novels in early elementary. Surely I missed things, but I definitely understood the plot and major character development.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not the pp, but why she had to mention one kid reads at the 6th grade level. There must have been dozens coming in at the 2nd grade level, no? Did all of those have comprehension issues?

Part of comprehension is using ones background knowledge and life experience to interpret and understand more fully what one is reading. 5 years olds simply do not have the background knowledge nor life experience to understand fully.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not the pp, but why she had to mention one kid reads at the 6th grade level. There must have been dozens coming in at the 2nd grade level, no? Did all of those have comprehension issues?

Part of comprehension is using ones background knowledge and life experience to interpret and understand more fully what one is reading. 5 years olds simply do not have the background knowledge nor life experience to understand fully.

I think a great example of this is "The Phantom Tollbooth". I have read it several times, once in early elementary, once in HS and once as an adult to my early elementary school student. Every time I come away with a completely different experience. The same thing happened to me when I read the Little House books as an adult. I totally romanticized Laura and Mary's lives as a child- I simply did not have the life context with which to interpret what their experience actually was. It doesn't mean children shouldn't read books well above their age, but it means that their understanding will be limited.

There is so much more to many stories than knowing the basic character development and plot of a book.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Funny, the teacher didn't tell me how the other kids were doing.

Yeah, that's a more polite way of saying what I was thinking.

I have no idea how the other kids were doing, although I can tell you that most were reading better than mine (who couldn't read). Turns out, you can be very successful in school without reading early. And it also turns out that we don't put "age learned to read" on college applications.

[Anonymous]

Or-age potty-trained. Thank god.