U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Education
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-13-2011, 12:31 PM
 
Location: Whoville....
25,393 posts, read 29,722,259 times
Reputation: 14499

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Osito View Post
People who say that must be out of their minds, unless they themselves are bad at teaching, in which case not everybody else is. I learned to read before I was in kindergarten and was also mildly introduced to a couple of other languages as well.

I think it would be a huge mistake to leave all education to teachers and the school system. That's like getting a child off on the wrong foot and they'll have a harder time hitting the ground running. They may not understand learning at that point. Besides, teaching one's kid is also a bonding experience.
No one said to leave teaching to the school. Just to leave it until kids are school aged. There is no added value in learning to read at 4 over learning to read at 6 in the long run. Yes, the child who started earlier will be ahead, for a while, because they've had more practice but it comes out in the wash by the end of elementary school.

I have no idea why we are into early teaching (except that parents seem to like bragging about what their child can do, as if their child is some kind of trained seal or they have anything to do with what they can do beyond the extremes...). Early teaching is not necessarily better teaching. IMO, there's something to be said for letting a kid be a kid. I'm sure I could have taught dd to read at 4, however, it, most likely, would have been at the expense of her great memory. She chose to memorize things rather than learn to read (books among them). She used to make lists of words and memorize them. I think she thought that's how we read. I'm sure that practice is part of the reason she has a great memory today. I might have taken that away from her if I'd taught her to decode words just because I could.

I think they know what they need to learn when they are young. There's plenty of time for formal learning after school starts both at school and at home.

As a teacher, I wish parents were as worried about their child's reading ability in 5th grade as they are before they turn 5. Proficiency levels in reading are dismal in middle school and beyond in spite of being good early on. One problem is many kids learn to read by rote. They memorize words but don't know how to decode them. By 5th grade, they're reaching their capacity for memorized words. They need the memory expansion that the ability to decode gives them.

Last edited by Ivorytickler; 11-13-2011 at 12:40 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-13-2011, 02:17 PM
 
12,455 posts, read 27,089,579 times
Reputation: 6946
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler View Post
I'm not talking about reading to them. The question, on the other board, was on how to "teach" reading. I'm opposed to "teaching" reading. I don't think 4 year olds need formal teaching. I think they're fine learning by exploring, and observing. I read to my kids before they were born (seems kind of silly now ). I did not, however, "teach" them to read. They picked it up on their own.

Dd#1 did need help with phonics because the school was teaching whole language but she was 8 when we did that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TX75007 View Post
My son is 3 and he can read. We work with him to the extent that we read to him for 15 min at night and has really taken to it. He was just assessed for all his school skills at a 3rd grade level. We are fortunate to have found a school that will allow him to work with his mental peers.
I was replying to this ^.

I learned to read by myself before kindergarten. My parents just read to my sister and me before bedtime and one morning my Mom noticed I was reading the cereal box. It really had zero effect on anything. I agree that its not "teaching" to read to a child, it's pretty much just what everyone I know does....
__________________
Please follow THESE rules.

Any Questions on how to use this site? See this.

Realtors, See This.

Moderator - Lehigh Valley, NEPA, Harrisburg, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Education and Colleges and Universities.

When I post in bold red, that is Moderator action and per the TOS can be discussed only via Direct Message.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2011, 03:48 PM
 
1,226 posts, read 1,981,835 times
Reputation: 1850
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler View Post
Are you saying that kids who don't start reading at 3 or 4 are reading on a 3rd grade level in high school? I have one who started reading at 6 1/2 who was on a 9th grade reading level by 3rd grade. We haven't tested her since then because we know she's well above grade level so there's no need. Dd#1 started reading at 5 and was on a 5th grade level in 3rd grade with a catch....Turns out she only memorized words. She didn't actually read them. We had to have her tutored in phonics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler View Post
BUT, there is NO advantage to teaching them early!!! NONE. They don't end up reading better and they don't like reading more and they just end up sitting there waiting for their peers to be taught to read once school starts!! It is not necessary or advantageous for a child to be reading before they start school, unless reading before starting school is the norm and it isn't. It's one thing if the child picks it up on their own but quite another to start "teaching" reading. Pre-school kids don't need to be formally taught. If they did, we'd start school a lot younger.

The point is, there is NO advantage to teaching children to read early. It's just done for parental bragging rights and that does not sit right with me. Let them learn when they decide to learn. There is plenty of other stuff for them to learn in the meantime. I'm in the choose enrichment camp. I see no reason to teach my child what they will learn in school before they start school when I can teach my child things they will not learn in school. It's very likely that the early piano lessons I gave my girls are the reason they didn't read until kindergarten/first grade, however, that imparted a lifetime advantage in logical thinking skills, math ability and science ability, not to mention musical ability while starting to read at 6 and 6 1/2 made no difference at all. Both of my girls are good readers and both of them read well above grade level. Only one is an avid reader but that has to do with personality and, I suspect, the fact I was just too busy to read myself when she was a preschooler. I think if she'd seen me read more she might read more herself. I set a poor example here because I was too busy to read for pleasure.

I am not saying don't teach your kids. I'm saying teach your kids something that matters. Teaching them to read early just doesn't. It doesn't insure they will be good readers or that they will like to read. Most likely, all that will happen is by 5th grade, their peers will catch up with them.

While I'm in the no academics before school camp, I'm not as bad as my SIL who didn't even teach her kids the alphabet. Guess what? They're both avid readers and working on their PhD's. One in psychology and the other in history. The fact my SIL didn't teach them their alphabet before they started kindergarten (they did not attend preschool either) is irrelevant. They're probably smarter for having been allowed to explore and learn sans formal teaching. My SIL provided an enriched environment that included reading to her kids but there was no formal education before school. It has worked very well for her kids. They both LOVED school and they're both very bright and good students.
Some parents like to teach their kids so they don't have to "catch up" or be tutored because they are not getting it. Most schools teach whole word reading, and teachers don't have the one on one time that parents have in teaching phonics. You seem unusually confrontational about this subject, insisting children shouldn't be taught by parents, but instead at school, yet it was obviously not enough for your child, as they had to be tutored, which by the way could have caused a lack of confidence, which is why she doesn't enjoy reading. Why would you want to be reactive instead of proactive?

Any advantage you can give your child is worth the effort. They might excel DESPITE an effort, like your children and your SIL, but that hardly qualifies as a standard to follow.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2011, 04:26 PM
 
Location: Whoville....
25,393 posts, read 29,722,259 times
Reputation: 14499
Quote:
Originally Posted by cc0789 View Post
Some parents like to teach their kids so they don't have to "catch up" or be tutored because they are not getting it. Most schools teach whole word reading, and teachers don't have the one on one time that parents have in teaching phonics. You seem unusually confrontational about this subject, insisting children shouldn't be taught by parents, but instead at school, yet it was obviously not enough for your child, as they had to be tutored, which by the way could have caused a lack of confidence, which is why she doesn't enjoy reading. Why would you want to be reactive instead of proactive?

Any advantage you can give your child is worth the effort. They might excel DESPITE an effort, like your children and your SIL, but that hardly qualifies as a standard to follow.
There is still not point in teaching them early. There aren't just too choices here, being early or late. There's also on time. My issue is that if a child starts school ahead of the other kids, they just sit and wait for the other kids to catch up. From their perspective, school isn't about learning new things, it's about reviewing what you already know. Sooner or later, they are going to face something they don't know and they may not know what to do because that's a new situation for them.

The problem here is you are NOT giving your child an advantage to teach them to read early. There is NO correlation with better reading or even liking reading and early reading. It doesn't seem to matter when a child learns to read. (the correlations for reading are to how fast a child progresses once they start reading not when they start reading.)

That said, I do believe in giving children advantages. That's why my girls were in piano classes at three. Children who start keyboard before the age of five have a lifetime advantage in logical thinking skills, math ability and science ability. Starting keyboard later imparts a temporary benefit that ends when the lessons (or perhaps regular practice as practice usually ends when lessons end) end.

I do believe parents should teach their kids. I just don't see the point in teaching them what they're going to be taught in school. All that teaches them is they should already know the material before they see it in school. If you're going to do that, you need to keep up with it year after year because you are teaching them that school isn't about learning new things. It's about reviewing what you already know. While they won't learn how to learn in school, hopefully, they'll take the lesson to heart at home and still learn how to learn. They'll just be at a loss as to how to do that in a classroom.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2011, 04:38 PM
 
Location: Whoville....
25,393 posts, read 29,722,259 times
Reputation: 14499
Quote:
Originally Posted by toobusytoday View Post
I was replying to this ^.

I learned to read by myself before kindergarten. My parents just read to my sister and me before bedtime and one morning my Mom noticed I was reading the cereal box. It really had zero effect on anything. I agree that its not "teaching" to read to a child, it's pretty much just what everyone I know does....
Young children actually learn best by imitating. Reading to kids is good. Kids seeing you read for enjoyment is good. I just see no need to, formally, "teach" reading to preschoolers. If they read on their own, fine. That's what they were meant to do. If they do other things instead, fine, that's what they were meant to do.

At four, what my dd was busy doing was building her ability to memorize and her logical thinking skills. She memorized lists and did puzzles. I have a feeling this would have been curtailed if I'd pushed reading. I think they can only do so many things at one time. Piano was worth it because of the link to math/science ability and logical thinking skills. Reading is neither here nor there.

From what I can see, most parents who teach their young children to read do so for parental back patting. My child could read at 3 is said with great pride, as if it's some kind of reflection on the parents.

It's funny that this is what parents get stuck on because reading was ignored when dd was evaluated for giftedness. I asked why and they told me that when a child reads is not an indicator of intelligence. Reading, apparently, is developmental like walking, talking or potty training. It happens when it happens and it doesn't mean anything as long is it happens within the normal range, which, in this case is 3-7. They told me what the would look at was how fast dd progressed once she started to read but she was too young to do that. A child who starts reading at 3 and reads on a 3rd grade level going into first grade is probably not gifted, whereas, a child who starts reading in kindergarten and is on a 3rd grade level going into first grade probably is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2011, 04:39 PM
 
1,226 posts, read 1,981,835 times
Reputation: 1850
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler View Post
There is still not point in teaching them early. There aren't just too choices here, being early or late. There's also on time. My issue is that if a child starts school ahead of the other kids, they just sit and wait for the other kids to catch up. From their perspective, school isn't about learning new things, it's about reviewing what you already know. Sooner or later, they are going to face something they don't know and they may not know what to do because that's a new situation for them.

The problem here is you are NOT giving your child an advantage to teach them to read early. There is NO correlation with better reading or even liking reading and early reading. It doesn't seem to matter when a child learns to read. (the correlations for reading are to how fast a child progresses once they start reading not when they start reading.)

That said, I do believe in giving children advantages. That's why my girls were in piano classes at three. Children who start keyboard before the age of five have a lifetime advantage in logical thinking skills, math ability and science ability. Starting keyboard later imparts a temporary benefit that ends when the lessons (or perhaps regular practice as practice usually ends when lessons end) end.

I do believe parents should teach their kids. I just don't see the point in teaching them what they're going to be taught in school. All that teaches them is they should already know the material before they see it in school. If you're going to do that, you need to keep up with it year after year because you are teaching them that school isn't about learning new things. It's about reviewing what you already know. While they won't learn how to learn in school, hopefully, they'll take the lesson to heart at home and still learn how to learn. They'll just be at a loss as to how to do that in a classroom.
And I just don't see the point in not teaching them prior to being formally taught in school, only to have them tutored when they fall behind. Whatever works for you.

Intresting opinion, dumb down your kid so they can be amongst the lower common denominator. When our country is falling behind in academics. Nope, I won't have my children stifled to match low standards, I'd rather focus on increasing the standards to meet my child's academic needs. Granted ... not as easy as your method.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2011, 08:13 PM
 
Location: Houston
471 posts, read 1,298,283 times
Reputation: 337
Quote:
I'm not sure why America has a love affair with early academics. The only thing I can think of is parental bragging rights.
+1

Saw this happen when I was subbing and heard it from full time teachers. Some of the teachers told me that quite a few of those kids just barely made it into those GT and AP classes & were stressed out trying to "keep up appearances".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2011, 08:47 PM
 
Location: Houston
471 posts, read 1,298,283 times
Reputation: 337
And btw, this obviously varies depending on the kid and the others around them, but I think if he/she is way ahead of their classmates, that might end up being the source for teasing and general unpleasantness from some of the other kids. Because of that I have planned that if one of my kids was gifted intellectually, I would have them learn the basics of some type of martial art, probably jiu-jitsu or join the wrestling team for a year. Then make sure to have them wear their team shirt to school every couple of weeks or do a book report on their chosen tail-kicking art to um....."advertise".....their ability. Brains and brawn, which I think is pretty cool all by itself, but would also help keep the jerks from bothering them.

Yep I'm sure some may think such a plan is barbaric, but until we make it to the world depicted in Star Trek and its people-centered Federation government, got to deal with the realities of today. Plus sports like those can teach a person things about themselves that no classroom can, very important and fundamental aspects that can help a person immensely during the course of their life (which is why I wince when seeing another school cancel or make an elective of their P.E. classes).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2011, 10:36 PM
 
Location: St. Louis
9,457 posts, read 16,424,092 times
Reputation: 13154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave5150 View Post
In another forum it was brought up about teaching a child to read. He is 4 and the consensus is that he is too young and should just let the school teach him when he gets to K. One person said that learning to read early has no value. How could reading ever have no value? How old were you when you learned to read? Or taught your children?
Can you point me to that original thread? I've been looking for it and can't find it.

I'm one of those who believes that he should be taught to read. He wants to learn and he's interested and in my mind that's ready enough. I don't agree that he's not ready if he has to be taught--most kids have to be taught, whether at school or at home. If he's not ready to read, he will zone out and wiggle around a lot while mom or dad are teaching him, in which case they can put it away until he is ready--it's not that hard to figure out if he's interested in learning to read or not. As I mentioned in the other thread, I used a book called Teach Your Child to Read in 100 Easy Lessons. It was fantastic and we stopped at lesson 74 I believe b/c she had moved into books and was into chapter books in another month after that. We only worked the program for a little over a month, so she learned so fast it took our breath away and it had nothing to do with bragging rights and everything to do with her being able to entertain herself with books, which she has done prodigiously since learning to read. The book is about $20 and worth every penny.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-14-2011, 07:49 AM
 
1,226 posts, read 1,981,835 times
Reputation: 1850
Quote:
Originally Posted by stepka View Post
Can you point me to that original thread? I've been looking for it and can't find it.

I'm one of those who believes that he should be taught to read. He wants to learn and he's interested and in my mind that's ready enough. I don't agree that he's not ready if he has to be taught--most kids have to be taught, whether at school or at home. If he's not ready to read, he will zone out and wiggle around a lot while mom or dad are teaching him, in which case they can put it away until he is ready--it's not that hard to figure out if he's interested in learning to read or not. As I mentioned in the other thread, I used a book called Teach Your Child to Read in 100 Easy Lessons. It was fantastic and we stopped at lesson 74 I believe b/c she had moved into books and was into chapter books in another month after that. We only worked the program for a little over a month, so she learned so fast it took our breath away and it had nothing to do with bragging rights and everything to do with her being able to entertain herself with books, which she has done prodigiously since learning to read. The book is about $20 and worth every penny.
it's in parenting: Teaching a child to read

have fun... it certainly has cleared up a lot for me!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Education
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top