Anonymous wrote:Reading specialist here:

No need to do anything to support your advanced reader besides continuing to give them plenty the highest-level fiction and non-fiction books, magazines, comics that have a subject matter that is still appropriate for their developmental age.

They will not "stall out". on their reading or miss some golden opportunity to become a reading genius. Lots and lots of wide exposure of appropriate subject matter will give all the background knowledge and vocabulary they need to become an academic super star later on.

Please remember to continue to read out loud to your child--maybe from books like The Hobbit or The Earthsea cycle by Ursula LeGuine or The Chronicles of Narnia. Just because they theoretically *could* decode these books independently doesn't mean that *should*. They still need to hear you read out loud so they can engage their imagination, hear the rhythm and syntax of the language and practice those higher level reading skills like prediction, character analysis, understanding theme and plotting. Plus, just assiociation of the joy and closeness that these shared readings will bring. This is an antidote to the HUGE drop off in reading for pleasure that I see by about 5th grade, even by our highest readers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aren’t most UMC kids 5-6 grade levels ahead in reading?

Teacher here. Not even close.

NP. Agree! There is a lot of mediocrity in the UMC children. Their parents are raising a fantasy.

As opposed to what? Where do you think all the brilliant children are hiding?

There just aren’t many brilliant children. Or brilliant people in general. Every other parent in DC thinks their child is “advanced”. By the end of my kids school journey in DC , nearly every one in their social academic cohort was on the same level. Pure fantasy.

Academic differences get more pronounced as kids get older. Maybe if your "social academic cohort" was all kids whose parents have graduate degrees and you're defining "same level" extremely broadly, this is the case. But my kids are at a title 1, and it's unfortunately not the case that the kids struggling when they're younger catch up.

Sometimes, but this thread is about super-early readers. In my experience, there's a wide range of age when kids learn to read, and the first half of that range doesn't correlate closely with academic results in upper elementary. My DD, who learned to read at 3, is a bright child, but her friends who learned at 5 or 6 are doing equally as well as she is now that they are all 10 years old. What seemed like a big gap has closed. Kids who are still struggling to read at 7 or 8 are a different thing. Super-early fluency just doesn't predict that much compared to early fluency.

Sure. But if the kid is actually 5-6 grade levels ahead at, say, 6, they're ahead of most middle schoolers in DC and more than a few high school students. Unless you're in one of a handful of schools, there are not many kids who are closing that gap over time.

Right, but most kids who test that high on fluency are not actually fully reading at a grade level 5-6 levels ahead. Even if their parents think they are. They don't have the attention span, comprehension, ability to draw inferences, appreciation of context, etc. Nor do they have the ability to formulate a response, especially a well-organized written response. They may get a high MAP or iReady score on fluency, but they are not meeting the overall ELA grade level standard. And middle schoolers, even if they're below grade level on testing, often do have the ability to interpret a text (even if they need an audio version) that exceeds a bright preschooler's ability, because they are older and more mature and experienced.

Here's an example. A 5-year-old who can read a page of Harry Potter aloud with some mispronunciations is very bright, yes. But they probably understand it on the level of Dumbledore = good and Snape = bad. An on-grade middle school reader would be thinking about things like how Harry isn't a very good boyfriend to Cho, about how Petunia Dursley is nasty but she's also really afraid and grieving, the socioeconomic differences between the Weasleys and the Malfoys, how profoundly sad what happened to Neville's family is, and things like that. Same book, same words, but different thoughts in the kid's head. And the ability to read the words at a young age doesn't match up that closely with the ability to do a thoughtful and nuanced reading later. My DD1 was a super-super-early reader but I know it doesn't mean that much. My DD2 read at the typical age of 6, but she is a FAR more thoughtful and attentive reader than DD1 ever was. And that's what really matters.

Most kids in DCPS are like neither of your kids, so if you chill out and wait for the other kids to catch up, it will not happen.

You're missing the point. Some of them will catch up. Enough of them, at most schools, to form a peer group. Some of them won't. But OP's child will not always be as much of an outlier, because early fluency just doesn't mean that much. And OP's child has plenty to learn in DCPS despite early fluency.

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Any strategies you can suggest to make sure my child doesn’t get too bored at school? Like if the lesson is too easy- do they have to do the busy work? Can they opt out? Can they work on independent projects as long as it is not disruptive? Or just read on their own?

Anonymous wrote:What suggestions do you have to support a child who is testing at 5-6 gradeins ahead in reading? & a few grades ahead in math?

We are not going to move out of the District & are not going private.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aren’t most UMC kids 5-6 grade levels ahead in reading?

Teacher here. Not even close.

NP. Agree! There is a lot of mediocrity in the UMC children. Their parents are raising a fantasy.

As opposed to what? Where do you think all the brilliant children are hiding?

There just aren’t many brilliant children. Or brilliant people in general. Every other parent in DC thinks their child is “advanced”. By the end of my kids school journey in DC , nearly every one in their social academic cohort was on the same level. Pure fantasy.

Academic differences get more pronounced as kids get older. Maybe if your "social academic cohort" was all kids whose parents have graduate degrees and you're defining "same level" extremely broadly, this is the case. But my kids are at a title 1, and it's unfortunately not the case that the kids struggling when they're younger catch up.

Sometimes, but this thread is about super-early readers. In my experience, there's a wide range of age when kids learn to read, and the first half of that range doesn't correlate closely with academic results in upper elementary. My DD, who learned to read at 3, is a bright child, but her friends who learned at 5 or 6 are doing equally as well as she is now that they are all 10 years old. What seemed like a big gap has closed. Kids who are still struggling to read at 7 or 8 are a different thing. Super-early fluency just doesn't predict that much compared to early fluency.

Sure. But if the kid is actually 5-6 grade levels ahead at, say, 6, they're ahead of most middle schoolers in DC and more than a few high school students. Unless you're in one of a handful of schools, there are not many kids who are closing that gap over time.

Right, but most kids who test that high on fluency are not actually fully reading at a grade level 5-6 levels ahead. Even if their parents think they are. They don't have the attention span, comprehension, ability to draw inferences, appreciation of context, etc. Nor do they have the ability to formulate a response, especially a well-organized written response. They may get a high MAP or iReady score on fluency, but they are not meeting the overall ELA grade level standard. And middle schoolers, even if they're below grade level on testing, often do have the ability to interpret a text (even if they need an audio version) that exceeds a bright preschooler's ability, because they are older and more mature and experienced.

Here's an example. A 5-year-old who can read a page of Harry Potter aloud with some mispronunciations is very bright, yes. But they probably understand it on the level of Dumbledore = good and Snape = bad. An on-grade middle school reader would be thinking about things like how Harry isn't a very good boyfriend to Cho, about how Petunia Dursley is nasty but she's also really afraid and grieving, the socioeconomic differences between the Weasleys and the Malfoys, how profoundly sad what happened to Neville's family is, and things like that. Same book, same words, but different thoughts in the kid's head. And the ability to read the words at a young age doesn't match up that closely with the ability to do a thoughtful and nuanced reading later. My DD1 was a super-super-early reader but I know it doesn't mean that much. My DD2 read at the typical age of 6, but she is a FAR more thoughtful and attentive reader than DD1 ever was. And that's what really matters.

Most kids in DCPS are like neither of your kids, so if you chill out and wait for the other kids to catch up, it will not happen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aren’t most UMC kids 5-6 grade levels ahead in reading?

Teacher here. Not even close.

NP. Agree! There is a lot of mediocrity in the UMC children. Their parents are raising a fantasy.

As opposed to what? Where do you think all the brilliant children are hiding?

There just aren’t many brilliant children. Or brilliant people in general. Every other parent in DC thinks their child is “advanced”. By the end of my kids school journey in DC , nearly every one in their social academic cohort was on the same level. Pure fantasy.

Academic differences get more pronounced as kids get older. Maybe if your "social academic cohort" was all kids whose parents have graduate degrees and you're defining "same level" extremely broadly, this is the case. But my kids are at a title 1, and it's unfortunately not the case that the kids struggling when they're younger catch up.

Sometimes, but this thread is about super-early readers. In my experience, there's a wide range of age when kids learn to read, and the first half of that range doesn't correlate closely with academic results in upper elementary. My DD, who learned to read at 3, is a bright child, but her friends who learned at 5 or 6 are doing equally as well as she is now that they are all 10 years old. What seemed like a big gap has closed. Kids who are still struggling to read at 7 or 8 are a different thing. Super-early fluency just doesn't predict that much compared to early fluency.

Sure. But if the kid is actually 5-6 grade levels ahead at, say, 6, they're ahead of most middle schoolers in DC and more than a few high school students. Unless you're in one of a handful of schools, there are not many kids who are closing that gap over time.

Right, but most kids who test that high on fluency are not actually fully reading at a grade level 5-6 levels ahead. Even if their parents think they are. They don't have the attention span, comprehension, ability to draw inferences, appreciation of context, etc. Nor do they have the ability to formulate a response, especially a well-organized written response. They may get a high MAP or iReady score on fluency, but they are not meeting the overall ELA grade level standard. And middle schoolers, even if they're below grade level on testing, often do have the ability to interpret a text (even if they need an audio version) that exceeds a bright preschooler's ability, because they are older and more mature and experienced.

Here's an example. A 5-year-old who can read a page of Harry Potter aloud with some mispronunciations is very bright, yes. But they probably understand it on the level of Dumbledore = good and Snape = bad. An on-grade middle school reader would be thinking about things like how Harry isn't a very good boyfriend to Cho, about how Petunia Dursley is nasty but she's also really afraid and grieving, the socioeconomic differences between the Weasleys and the Malfoys, how profoundly sad what happened to Neville's family is, and things like that. Same book, same words, but different thoughts in the kid's head. And the ability to read the words at a young age doesn't match up that closely with the ability to do a thoughtful and nuanced reading later. My DD1 was a super-super-early reader but I know it doesn't mean that much. My DD2 read at the typical age of 6, but she is a FAR more thoughtful and attentive reader than DD1 ever was. And that's what really matters.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aren’t most UMC kids 5-6 grade levels ahead in reading?

Teacher here. Not even close.

NP. Agree! There is a lot of mediocrity in the UMC children. Their parents are raising a fantasy.

As opposed to what? Where do you think all the brilliant children are hiding?

There just aren’t many brilliant children. Or brilliant people in general. Every other parent in DC thinks their child is “advanced”. By the end of my kids school journey in DC , nearly every one in their social academic cohort was on the same level. Pure fantasy.

Academic differences get more pronounced as kids get older. Maybe if your "social academic cohort" was all kids whose parents have graduate degrees and you're defining "same level" extremely broadly, this is the case. But my kids are at a title 1, and it's unfortunately not the case that the kids struggling when they're younger catch up.

Sometimes, but this thread is about super-early readers. In my experience, there's a wide range of age when kids learn to read, and the first half of that range doesn't correlate closely with academic results in upper elementary. My DD, who learned to read at 3, is a bright child, but her friends who learned at 5 or 6 are doing equally as well as she is now that they are all 10 years old. What seemed like a big gap has closed. Kids who are still struggling to read at 7 or 8 are a different thing. Super-early fluency just doesn't predict that much compared to early fluency.

Sure. But if the kid is actually 5-6 grade levels ahead at, say, 6, they're ahead of most middle schoolers in DC and more than a few high school students. Unless you're in one of a handful of schools, there are not many kids who are closing that gap over time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aren’t most UMC kids 5-6 grade levels ahead in reading?

Teacher here. Not even close.

NP. Agree! There is a lot of mediocrity in the UMC children. Their parents are raising a fantasy.

As opposed to what? Where do you think all the brilliant children are hiding?

There just aren’t many brilliant children. Or brilliant people in general. Every other parent in DC thinks their child is “advanced”. By the end of my kids school journey in DC , nearly every one in their social academic cohort was on the same level. Pure fantasy.

Academic differences get more pronounced as kids get older. Maybe if your "social academic cohort" was all kids whose parents have graduate degrees and you're defining "same level" extremely broadly, this is the case. But my kids are at a title 1, and it's unfortunately not the case that the kids struggling when they're younger catch up.

Sometimes, but this thread is about super-early readers. In my experience, there's a wide range of age when kids learn to read, and the first half of that range doesn't correlate closely with academic results in upper elementary. My DD, who learned to read at 3, is a bright child, but her friends who learned at 5 or 6 are doing equally as well as she is now that they are all 10 years old. What seemed like a big gap has closed. Kids who are still struggling to read at 7 or 8 are a different thing. Super-early fluency just doesn't predict that much compared to early fluency.

I agree with this completely. This squares with what I've seen. Some super early readers do end up being advanced, but some age 6 readers will get to the same level as them by the end of upper elementary, and some will leapfrog over earlier readers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aren’t most UMC kids 5-6 grade levels ahead in reading?

Teacher here. Not even close.

NP. Agree! There is a lot of mediocrity in the UMC children. Their parents are raising a fantasy.

As opposed to what? Where do you think all the brilliant children are hiding?

There just aren’t many brilliant children. Or brilliant people in general. Every other parent in DC thinks their child is “advanced”. By the end of my kids school journey in DC , nearly every one in their social academic cohort was on the same level. Pure fantasy.

Academic differences get more pronounced as kids get older. Maybe if your "social academic cohort" was all kids whose parents have graduate degrees and you're defining "same level" extremely broadly, this is the case. But my kids are at a title 1, and it's unfortunately not the case that the kids struggling when they're younger catch up.

Sometimes, but this thread is about super-early readers. In my experience, there's a wide range of age when kids learn to read, and the first half of that range doesn't correlate closely with academic results in upper elementary. My DD, who learned to read at 3, is a bright child, but her friends who learned at 5 or 6 are doing equally as well as she is now that they are all 10 years old. What seemed like a big gap has closed. Kids who are still struggling to read at 7 or 8 are a different thing. Super-early fluency just doesn't predict that much compared to early fluency.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aren’t most UMC kids 5-6 grade levels ahead in reading?

Teacher here. Not even close.

NP. Agree! There is a lot of mediocrity in the UMC children. Their parents are raising a fantasy.

As opposed to what? Where do you think all the brilliant children are hiding?

There just aren’t many brilliant children. Or brilliant people in general. Every other parent in DC thinks their child is “advanced”. By the end of my kids school journey in DC , nearly every one in their social academic cohort was on the same level. Pure fantasy.

Academic differences get more pronounced as kids get older. Maybe if your "social academic cohort" was all kids whose parents have graduate degrees and you're defining "same level" extremely broadly, this is the case. But my kids are at a title 1, and it's unfortunately not the case that the kids struggling when they're younger catch up.

Sometimes, but this thread is about super-early readers. In my experience, there's a wide range of age when kids learn to read, and the first half of that range doesn't correlate closely with academic results in upper elementary. My DD, who learned to read at 3, is a bright child, but her friends who learned at 5 or 6 are doing equally as well as she is now that they are all 10 years old. What seemed like a big gap has closed. Kids who are still struggling to read at 7 or 8 are a different thing. Super-early fluency just doesn't predict that much compared to early fluency.