Saw this on my FB. This is the direct quote

"Some children don't read until they're 10. Others, 13. And then they pick up and are reading at the same level as their been-reading-since-kindergarten peers. Without intervention."

At this point, my 7 yo learns all sorts of things by reading. In the past year she has dramatically expanded her knowledge and vocabulart by reading fiction and non-fiction. I'm sure a kid who can't read could do the same if there was someone who was willing to read aloud to the kid for hours per day, but in reality I don't think that's ever going to happen.

A kid who reads regularly will be miles ahead of a non-reading peer by age 10.

I have a five year old - with delays - and I cannot imagine any parent of a neuro typical child would be on board with this. Even at five, I am seeing how my child knowing how to read would be beneficial and open up a lot of things for him in terms of just navigating his world. This sounds rather fringe OP.

I think there's a ton of benefit in reminding parents right now that it's OK to to chill out a little and not stress about "being behind" by a few months of virtual school.
But taken to that extreme isn't healthy at all.

A 10 year old who can't read needs serious intervention and help

I'm sure there is evidence that people in developing countries or people without access to education who learn how to read at 13 can grow into substantially intellectual adults.

But there is absolutely no doubt that reading fluently by 7 or 8 is possible for the vast majority of people, and it is best re: brain development, and that beginning to understand/analyze by 8 is appropriate and beneficial.

I haven't seen it, but I've seen sort of this idea in wings of the homeschooling community. That's not supposed to be a knock against homeschooling - the homeschoolers I know are great and this is the kind of scary niche thing that gives homeschooling a bad name.

I can sort of get the idea that read-alouds and audiobooks will help kids up to a point even if they can't read well, but moms patting each other on the back saying, "it's OK if your fourth grader listens to audio books and just follows along in the printed text, it will click eventually" isn't helping any one. Plus neuroscience shows there is so much more that goes on in reading silently to oneself than listening to a text. Yes, reading aloud is important and great, but not the be-all end-all.

I think it has less to do with not being bothered to educate their kids (though those scary parents exist too) and more to do with not being willing to seek outside help when it's truly needed.

I don't believe for one second that majority of children who don't read until age 10 catch up to their peers. I am sure someone somewhere has, but that doesn't mean that is the norm.

I saw this post as well ,and unfortunately the people who were sharing were using it to prove that their teacher was wrong in suggesting their child had a delay or hold them back. 1st grader who still doesnt know any letters or sounds, mom doesnt think that is behind.

I have not seen that post. I've heard that kids often don't read until about 6/7, and that is perfectly normal and not a sign of a delay. Indeed, many countries' school systems don't start formal reading instruction until kids are 6/7, at which point most learn quickly. But by third grade, when most kids are 7/8, not being able to read at or near grade level will be a serious handicap. In third grade, kids are no longer receiving formal reading instruction, but are instead learning grammar and spelling, and working on writing sentences with capital letters and appropriate punctuation, plus learning about different kinds of writing (narrative, opinion, factual reports) and doing social studies and science based, in part, on reading from various kinds of texts. They are doing word problems in math. A kid who can't read by third grade is really going to struggle.

I saw it as well on Facebook.

It's coming from a ultra conservative group. Their agenda is religion back in public schools and homeschooling with a strong religious bent.

Where is this alleged post? Weird.

That’s ridiculous. A child won’t be able to do his schoolwork and keep up with lessons, let alone take tests, if he can’t read until that late.

Yikes. Maybe they’ll technically catch up in reading, but what have they lost in terms of education in the meantime? Do they not need to read for various subjects in school?

Does this go hand in hand with anti vax homeschoolers- people who don’t trust mainstream society but can’t be bothered to teach their kids?

I have not seen the post. I am also not an expert in education or child development. But 10-13 seems late to me. There is kernel of truth there, however, that kids without developmental delays will learn how to read eventually. Pushing a kid to lean to read at age 4 does not make him gifted and does not put him academically ahead someone who learned to read at age 6.

There’s a post going around that’s purpose to relax parents about virtual learning. One of the main points is not care if your child can read, because all kids will learn eventually, and then catch up to their peers. Sure, if your kid isn’t reading in K or 1st, no need to worry, but to act like not reading by age 10 isn’t a flag for concern is not true.

Even worse in the comments is tons of parents saying “8yr old is struggling to sound words, thank you so much for this post, I’ll relax knowing they will read when they are ready” and “yes! My teachers keeps telling me my 3rd grader needs intervention because they aren’t reading yet....I’m going to show them this post, they just want to label our kids.”