# Disadvantage of early reading when going to K ?



## Jessica1501 (Feb 11, 2009)

Everybody already knows the advantages of early reading, but I am always thinking about how my child will be when she goes to K.

I have a friend whose kid just started his school last week, the kid gets bored and loses concentration because he is taught phonics while he already can read books.

On the other hands, my kid is eager to learn to read and of course early reading has many benefits.

Could you moms tell me some experience about this? How do you and the K teacher help the child to like class?

(Just a side information: my kid's home school has a high ranking in the city so perhaps the teachers have lots of experience about this? )

Thanks moms.


----------



## rubidoux (Aug 22, 2003)

Am I the only one that didn't know that early reading has advantages?







What sorts of things are we talking about?


----------



## Jessica1501 (Feb 11, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rubidoux*
> 
> Am I the only one that didn't know that early reading has advantages?
> 
> ...


Improving cognition, memory, love of reading, love of learning other things, curiosity, boosting the brain system, etc.

I don't mean to focus on reading and reduce playing time because at this age playing is more important.

I just read your other post, you mentioned that your child is going to Montessori. By the end of PreK, your child will do maths and read well anyway.

This happens to my kid because she learns from school, it's a good school so I don't want to change just because I want to stop her from learning to read.


----------



## rubidoux (Aug 22, 2003)

I am surprised that there are benefits, I guess, because my older one started preschool (same montessori) two weeks before he turned 5. At that point he had no recognition of written letters at all, had almost no idea about phonics, no writing, I think maybe he could count to ten. But by the end of that school year he was totally reading, like fairly advanced stuff. Like, we would read novels to him, but for the first 15 minutes (so 3 or pages) he read to us. So, it wasn't "age appropriate" stuff. When we went through that, I was surprised at how fast and easily he caught up. But I guess because of it, I imagined that kids who learned to read (or whatever skill) late would probably catch up to an age appropriate level pretty quick. Like, whether they learned at 3 or at 6, at 8 they'd end up in a similar position.

My little guy is only 3 1/2, so I'm not worried about where he is or where he'll go. I am really interested, though, to see how different it will be given that he's starting so much earlier. He also doesn't seem nearly as opposed to learning about letters and numbers as my older one was. He would tune me out immediately if he thought I was going there. Just hated it! lol Now, at 9, you'd never know he was that way though.


----------



## meemee (Mar 30, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jessica1501*
> 
> Improving cognition, memory, love of reading, love of learning other things, curiosity, boosting the brain system, etc.


are you saying if a child reads at 4 they have this advantage, but if they are a late starter like say first grade they dont have that advantage? i am sorry but your list is v. triggering. a child who reads at 3 is no better than a child who reads at 6 or 7.

boosting the brain system - i just dont get that. i would think everything else but reading would be more important. all you can do with reading is amass a bunch of knowledge. so yeah maybe a 4 year old would know all say the 200+ bones of the body. so what? what does that do to the brain?

boost the brain seems to be a line from those teach baby how to read advertisements. i would say boosting brain would come more with hitting and fights and trying to find things as brains make connections and you have to figure things out.

to me early reading in a regular school setting has far more negatives than positives. the only positive in my mind is the parent can show off that their child can read.

knowing their letters before care - sadly yes is advantagous. at least you wont be labeled the dumb guy and have to deal with self esteem issues.


----------



## ollyoxenfree (Jun 11, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jessica1501*
> 
> This happens to my kid because she learns from school, it's a good school so I don't want to change just because I want to stop her from learning to read.


I'm struggling a little with your question because I'm trying to figure out HOW one would stop a child from learning to read. IME, true early readers seem to acquire the skill naturally and there's not much you can do about it even if you wanted - and I'm not sure why you would want to.

I think the disadvantages flow when the adults don't accept and adjust to a child's individual natural pace of learning wherever it falls on the spectrum of normal development. Most kindergartens have students who span the spectrum from non-readers to fluent and advanced readers. Good kindergarten teachers are able to accommodate them. If a child is bored because s/he can already read, then it's incumbent on the teacher to provide appropriate work for the child. If a child isn't ready yet, then it's incumbent on the teacher to provide good pre-reading support. Parents should do likewise.


----------



## transylvania_mom (Oct 8, 2006)

I'd say, if your dk wants to read, let her. There are so many new and fun things to do in kindergarten besides reading that she won't be bored.

Ds also learned to read at 4, mostly by himself. On the other hand he never liked to colour or draw; he refused to let me show him how, but they did a lot of colouring in kindergarten and he liked it. Go figure.







He is a self-proclaimed artist right now.


----------



## Jessica1501 (Feb 11, 2009)

Meemee and robidoux totally misunderstood my points.

If you say the kids can read or do math later on anyway, you're totally right.

Scientist proves that the brain will grow to about 80 percent of the adult size by the age of 3 and 90 percent by the age of 5.

I don't mean reading is the only way to get this number, no way! But learning to read at this age is fun, like games (puzzles or something, at least with my kid), not like academic, so it still benefits like many other games. Also, while preschools teach reading and your kids love to learn, they naturally know how to read, why refusing?

Are you gonna switch school just because they teach reading? I believe the answer is no. I like my kid's school because of many things else, but since she can read from playing, not from studying like adults, I like that. I am just concerned about later on in K, and this is my main question. I don't want to discuss or argue about benefits of reading because everybody has different opinions. In my area, there are a lot of learning centers for preschoolers, they teach only math and reading, no way am I going to take my DD there.


----------



## JudiAU (Jun 29, 2008)

A good school will address the reading or pre-reading level of all of its students. Many schools groups K-1 together for reading. Some children who are taught to read via a phonics method before school will just leap up a grade level for reading group. However, many children who teach themselves to read don't know any phonics at all and still need to learn them or their reading level is inhibited. A good friend of ours with a self-taught strong reader was really surprised when their very expensive private school made no accomodation for her. But she had no phonics at all and her daughter actually found it useful and interesting. By the end of K, her reading level was up three grades.


----------



## puddle (Aug 30, 2007)

My daughter just started kindergarten and has been reading for over 2 years. It's too soon to say for sure how the year will go, but so far she's really enjoying it. This week they're learning the letters E and F, which she's known since before she turned 2, but it doesn't seem to phase her. There are so many other exciting things going on, and DD's school is teaching in a really kinesthetic way so far too, so she likes it so far. She's known F for years, but never jumped up and drawn one with her whole body, so that's super fun. If your child is interested in reading, don't hold her back. If kindergarten really becomes too boring due to her advancedness, you can usually find accommodations to challenge your child. Besides, some kids are interested in letters and reading years before it all actually clicks into place for them.


----------



## NiteNicole (May 19, 2003)

My daughter was an early reader and continues to read above grade level. Her teachers have helped her pick books more on her reading level in the library and classroom and recommended books for us at home. It has not been a DISadvantage in any way at all.

mee mee, you're taking this far too personally. Some things are an advantage, there's just no getting around it. It's not a quality judgement of THE PERSON.


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

You could always consider a grade skip.

www.nationdeceived.org


----------



## rubidoux (Aug 22, 2003)

I'm sorry! I did understand you, I just wasn't being terribly responsive to your actual concern.

I also agree that your dd will likely have plenty to do in K even if she already knows how to read. Maybe you should talk to her teacher about making sure that she's got stuff to read at her own level while the other kids are doing their thing.


----------



## MamaPrincess (Aug 1, 2012)

That is kind of interesting question because in my area all kids know how to read and pretty well at that entering K.

Phonics though are not a waste of time in my opinion at all as it is an intro to writing, it helps your child to

reverse the process and try to actually build the world from scratch when he decomposes it and sounds the sounds..

the more a child does it the better with writing.


----------



## ~adorkable~ (Nov 7, 2007)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *puddle*
> There are so many other exciting things going on, and DD's school is teaching in a really kinesthetic way so far too, so she likes it so far. She's known F for years, but never jumped up and drawn one with her whole body, so that's super fun.


ok i want to go to your school, that is great!!! i am super kinesthetic and although i tested at the very top of most my grades or ever far above it , i struggled thru every grade of school because the just didn't get how kinesthetic kids learn or dont learn. one of my twin is showing strong tendencies towards kinesthetic interactions with his world, it will be a top priority to find a school that fosters him with that.


----------



## MamaPrincess (Aug 1, 2012)

also..

I would think that nowdays a child would need to try reaaaaaaaaaaaaly hard not to read before going to K if

a child watches any tv. EAch and every program teaches a kid to read, a child is exposed to written

text all the time so it would be highly unnatural process actually protecting a child from reading

prior to going to K.

Children in K and first are on very different levels, one is great at math other great at reading

another at spelling another is great writer.. and that all levels out..

the trick is for each child to develop social and attention skills to sit through what a child

already knows.. it will be happening through the whole school life.

sometimes we all got easy grade as we knew something and other times we had to

hit the books.


----------



## ~adorkable~ (Nov 7, 2007)

you would be surpassed at the lengths some folks do in fact goto to not expose their pre k kids to the written word. i dont understand it but have been around a handful of parents that are in that category, including a family member with her child.


----------



## SweetSilver (Apr 12, 2011)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ollyoxenfree*
> 
> *I think the disadvantages flow when the adults don't accept and adjust to a child's individual natural pace of learning wherever it falls on the spectrum of normal development.* Most kindergartens have students who span the spectrum from non-readers to fluent and advanced readers. Good kindergarten teachers are able to accommodate them. If a child is bored because s/he can already read, then it's incumbent on the teacher to provide appropriate work for the child. If a child isn't ready yet, then it's incumbent on the teacher to provide good pre-reading support. Parents should do likewise.


My girls are homeschooled, so I answer not as a parent of a kindergartener, but as a former kindergartener myself. The statement I bolded above hit it right on the nail. I knew how to read at 4 and knew how to read quite well in kindy, but back then (1974) it was pretty basic pre-reading skills done in a circle: pointing out the window that had a sign saying "window", a lot of singing alphabet songs (and other singing--my teacher played guitar) and lots of storytime. Kindy was filled with other activities, so the gap in reading skills was not troublesome, though it was baffling. I think kindy then is more like preschool now.

First grade was a different story. Sitting at desks instead of in circles, I was so far past all the other kids in reading (even though I was the youngest in the class) that I was sent, lonely and confused, to the library, and I did my best. I definitely had that teacher who didn't know how to accommodate me.

I think that that is the only real drawback. And considering this disparity mostly disappeared by 3rd grade or so, I can't really say it had a particular advantage, either. I don't think there is an inherent, biological advantage to reading early. (Waldorf philosophy addresses "crystallization" and "expansiveness" of children's brains in respect to what the schools teach and do not teach at certain ages. I point this out simply to show that it is not just my personal opinion.) Reading for children is fairly recent in human history, so if there are any advantages to reading early it is because in the past few years we have placed great importance for it, thinking that it confers real advantages.


----------



## LynnS6 (Mar 30, 2005)

Read Einstein Never Used Flashcards.

If your child wants to learn to read early and does so organically, I don't think there's much downside. However, if YOU want your child to learn to read early, then there can be. Preschoolers need lots of play time. They do not need to be learning phonics or sight words. There's good research to show that kids who are pushed hard academically in preschool (having to do worksheets, sit and read, etc.) end up not liking school as much as they're older (2nd-3rd grade). In addition, kids who weren't pushed as hard usually catch up by 2nd or 3rd grade. AND the kids who had a more play based preschool experience are more curious and have a greater set of experiences to apply their knowledge to.

There's a big difference between an child who is gifted and is driven to learn skills early and a child, however bright, who is pushed to them.

My daughter said she wanted to learn to read when she was 3 (because her big brother was in 1st grade and had to read out loud as homework). We got a few Bob books from the library, and she tried a few and lost interest. She expressed interest again at age 4, and started to memorize books to pretend she could read. Sometime before her 5th birthday, she could read. By the end of the summer before she started K, she was reading short chapter books. I still sent her to a largely play based kindergarten. It was hands down the best experience for her because there was so much more to the day than phonics. And she was still reading Harry Potter by the end of first grade.

My other child was not an early reader. He is a different kind of learner. For him, having the experience of a play based kindergarten was crucial for his social development and for giving him a range of experiences. He actively refused to learn to read until 1st grade. Once he started reading, he took off really quickly. At 11, he's got dynamite language skills (he's really good with puns, for example), and well above average reading skills.

Really in terms of my children, I don't see a huge advantage for the early reader vs. the averaged age reader.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jessica1501*
> 
> Meemee and robidoux totally misunderstood my points.
> 
> ...


Yep. So? Bigger does not mean better for human brains. Really. It's all about the connections that are formed.

Just because that's the brain grows doesn't mean that it won't grow if you didn't teach your child to read. It will grow in many areas. You know what one of the most important predictors of academic success is? Understanding the concepts. It's not early reading. It's not early math. It's being able to understand what people are talking about. Since most children are physical learners, being engaged in DOING something is much more important than learning to read. As my kids get older, the experiences we have together are leading to that understanding.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jessica1501*
> 
> I don't mean reading is the only way to get this number, no way! But learning to read at this age is fun, like games (puzzles or something, at least with my kid), not like academic, so it still benefits like many other games. Also, while preschools teach reading and your kids love to learn, they naturally know how to read, why refusing?
> 
> *Are you gonna switch school just because they teach reading?* I believe the answer is no. I like my kid's school because of many things else, but since she can read from playing, not from studying like adults, I like that. I am just concerned about later on in K, and this is my main question. I don't want to discuss or argue about benefits of reading because everybody has different opinions. In my area, there are a lot of learning centers for preschoolers, they teach only math and reading, no way am I going to take my DD there.


Yes, I would have. Because if they're teaching reading, what other experiences is your child missing out on? Because they're missing out on something in that time that's devoted to reading in preschool. That's not time I want my children to miss.


----------



## dovey (May 23, 2005)

Quote:


> you would be surpassed at the lengths some folks do in fact goto to not expose their pre k kids to the written word. i dont understand it but have been around a handful of parents that are in that category, including a family member with her child.


I can understand their point of view, although my 6 year old non-reader and I do a little reading practice together. (She is homeschooled.) She has an older brother who learned to read at age 6. I did specifically teach him. He did not really teach himself. When he learned to read, it was a huge developmental turning point in his life. He stopped most imaginative play and began a process of constantly reading books - learning lots of interesting ideas, experiencing literature for himself, figuring out how to write sentences based on the cadences of what he had read, learning math from books - basically, he took off into an intellectual mode of thought and never looked back to early childhood.

The developmental period of creative and imaginative play is not a phase to be hurried through. It is important in its own right as well as helping the child develop his/her motor skills, social skills, and the ability to imagine and create detailed ideas. It makes sense to help a child work through this phase without a lot distractions from screens or the written word. I sometimes feel that I rushed my son through this phase, and I regret it.


----------



## meemee (Mar 30, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jessica1501*
> 
> Meemee and robidoux totally misunderstood my points.
> 
> Are you gonna switch school just because they teach reading? I believe the answer is no.


actually yes i did. i did not want dd's ps/dc experience in any form to be about academics. her ps DID do some starting after easter to prepare those who were going to go to K. just alphabets. however those who were early readers they did keep their level books so they could enjoy them. instead they had such great art and science experience curriculum that school has never lived upto what a great ps/dc dd had.

trying to get kids to 'read' as fun i still find work. not fun. just the same as i dislike educational toys. trying to introduce 'unfun' things in a fun way. in my books - rather like bribing. perhaps i am a bit radical here. no. no. no. didnt want that. dd was interested in the human body. i got her all she wanted. i did not introduce the human body through toys hoping she would be interested. she had enough on her plate that she was curious about. i didnt need to introduce anything to totally overwhelm her. that's how i see educational toys or fun reading as.

however what is the definition of reading. if introducing alphabets - yeah i can understand. at 4 to get kids ready for K.

like i pointed out in my previous post - yes there is an advantage to kids knowing the alphabet and writing their name - even if it is in the form of drawing and not in teh form of writing their name as a connection of alphabets.

i was. VERY involved with volunteering in dd's K class. we tried lots of fun ways to teach kids who dont know the alphabet. did they suffer? no. however they could if they are still struggling in 2nd grade.

however under no circumstances will regular public K or 1st be a great experience for a child who knows how to read and is grades ahead. all the trouble makers or the dreamers in her class fit that category.

nite nicole i am so glad K was a great experience for your dd. it wasnt for mine. she wasnt reading when she went in. but she took off and went grade levels ahead by before the winter break and the constant repetition has made school academically not a v. pleasant experience. like she told her K teacher 'i come to school to party, but i go home to study.' its still true to this day in fifth grade. but really it isnt about my dd that makes early reading a sore spot for me. she is the lucky one in society. the smart one.

what is sore are the kids who were NOT ahead, but behind. it breaks my heart. they were so fantastic in other ways. yet the focus was always on reading. no one talked about the sculpture genius who was turning out sculptures of high school quality. THAT still makes me mad.


----------



## NiteNicole (May 19, 2003)

Quote:


> however under no circumstances will regular public K or 1st be a great experience for a child who knows how to read and is grades ahead. all the trouble makers or the dreamers in her class fit that category.


That makes no sense. My daughter is grade levels ahead and she's fine. Lots of kids are. It does not necessarily follow that a child who learns to read early is going to struggle in school, nor does it mean they will be "trouble makers."


----------



## transylvania_mom (Oct 8, 2006)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *meemee*
> 
> however under no circumstances will regular public K or 1st be a great experience for a child who knows how to read and is grades ahead. all the trouble makers or the dreamers in her class fit that category.


Agree with NiteNicole. Ds also read above grade level, his K teacher had him tested by a specialist who confirmed he was reading at 3rd grade level at that time. He had a great experience both in K and 1st grade, socially and academically.


----------



## KCMichigan (Jul 21, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dovey*
> 
> He did not really teach himself. When he learned to read, it was a huge developmental turning point in his life. He stopped most imaginative play and began a process of constantly reading books - learning lots of interesting ideas, experiencing literature for himself, figuring out how to write sentences based on the cadences of what he had read, learning math from books - basically, he took off into an intellectual mode of thought and never looked back to early childhood.
> 
> The developmental period of creative and imaginative play is not a phase to be hurried through. It is important in its own right as well as helping the child develop his/her motor skills, social skills, and the ability to imagine and create detailed ideas. It makes sense to help a child work through this phase without a lot distractions from screens or the written word.


Both my DDs were early readers (one more than the other) and it has been many years since my DDs have been reading. They were reading in preschool. But they were self-taught I did not seek out teaching them to read in any organized format.

In no way has there creativity been diminished. They constantly do imaginative play and they will be 7 next month. So their ability to read has not in anyway made them less creative or immerse themselves less in dramatic play. In fact, as they have gotten older their play has become more complicated and complex. It is really fun to watch their imaginary 'world' grow larger as their vocabulary and attention span lengthen.

Yes, they act out story lines from books. But they also act out scenes from things they have experienced, events from school, oral stories they have heard, and things they just make up. Yes, they add written portions to their play- but it is more of an enrichment rather than a detractor from what they are doing. It simply is added.

We do and always have limited screen but never ever have we limited printed word. I have read to them (and still do) since they were infants. We share books. Books are listed as one of their favorite things in any list they write.

I dont see the use of creativity and free open-ended play as something that can not coexist with reading. They are two separate things and sometimes they will occur in the same child and sometimes they wont. Some of it may be inherent personality or interest driven (for early reader and non-early readers).

I also do not think a kiddo that is not an early reader means anything negative either. Lots of preschoolers love books but have no drive or interest in learning to read before school. Some preschoolers have a low interaction with written words. It has no reflection on intelligence. In fact, some gifted individuals may also have learning disabilities and struggle to read as adults-- it does not mean they are any less intelligent.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *meemee*
> 
> trying to get kids to 'read' as fun i still find work. not fun. just the same as i dislike educational toys. trying to introduce 'unfun' things in a fun way. in my books - rather like bribing. perhaps i am a bit radical here. no. no. no. didnt want that. dd was interested in the human body. i got her all she wanted. i did not introduce the human body through toys hoping she would be interested. she had enough on her plate that she was curious about. i didnt need to introduce anything to totally overwhelm her. that's how i see educational toys or fun reading as.
> 
> ...


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NiteNicole*
> 
> That makes no sense. My daughter is grade levels ahead and she's fine. Lots of kids are. It does not necessarily follow that a child who learns to read early is going to struggle in school, nor does it mean they will be "trouble makers."


Same here.


----------



## NiteNicole (May 19, 2003)

As far as creative play, my daughter was relieved when she could write down her own ideas, stories, dreams, lists, etc. She liked writing letters - which we mailed. I never proofed or changed them so people got some pretty random stuff from her for a while  She is HIGHLY imaginative and is very much a story teller and into imaginative play. It's endless.

As far as educational toys...I've never been really hardcore about toys. The toys that held her interest were usually toys that coincided with whatever developmental thing she had going on - pouring, stacking, sorting, building. As with reading, I'm not going to keep her back from trying new things and discovering/practicing new skills - but I'm not going to force them on her either. In that way I think we'd be pretty good unschoolers. She's pretty motivated to explore her own interests and I'd say it's served her well in school.


----------



## bec (Dec 13, 2002)

I have had 2 that taught themselves to read in preschool, and one who didn't break the code until halfway through first grade. They are all great little readers. With my "late" (put in quotes, because, I don't think she was all that late) reader, she made a huge leap from a pre-k level of phonics to above grade level in a matter of about a month once she figured it out. The others had big leaps of comprehension and decoding skills, but not quite that dramatic.

As far as how this all impacted them in school, it was totally teacher dependent. My later reader had a horrible 1st grade experience, but had an awesome reading teacher (she was in a pullout to help get her up to speed) that got how she learned, and made adjustments for her learning style. My middle had a tough time in K because the teacher would not accept that she was bored and disengaged with the class. The teacher promised her over and over that she was going to bring challenging work in for her, but never did (didn't even try), and, instead set her up to help the kids that needed extra help as their tutor. It was hard for her to comprehend that these kids were having such a hard time when it was so easy for her. It put her in an unfair position, and set up a bad dynamic with the other kids. There wasn't enough other things to keep her occupied and happy. We got the brunt of that at home. My youngest, however (very different personality, for all that her reading ability was actually more advanced in K than my middle), had a wonderful, wonderful K year. Her teacher was phenomenal. She gave a lot of open ended assignments, which naturally create a differentiated environment that met all the kids where they were at. She seamlessly provided meaningful instruction to all the kids. Children that needed phonics work got it. She didn't work with Abby on learning to read because she already knew how. She worked with Abby on her writing skills, and focusing on the written word as a means to gain information (reading to learn).

I will make a note, though, that the thought of preventing my two early readers from learning to read is laughable. It's like trying to stop a runaway train. I'm just trying to make sure it stays on the rails!


----------



## meemee (Mar 30, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NiteNicole*
> 
> That makes no sense. My daughter is grade levels ahead and she's fine. Lots of kids are. It does not necessarily follow that a child who learns to read early is going to struggle in school, nor does it mean they will be "trouble makers."


i think you are right. because in this thread i am discovering how different all the states are with what they have available for the teachers. school life can be so different for an early reader depending on which state they live in. and no it does not necessarily follow.

i am curious about the moms' with early readers. did they get any differentiation in school? Differentiation made a huge difference in two of the worst behaved kids in dd's school.

in the state i am there if there is no pullout or GATE programs or volunteer parents, the teachers hands are tied. they are overworked with a LOT on their plate. they can barely make it each day. ESP. in the lower grades.

of course i am talking about regular public schools.

i probably should have said a child who is ahead of the class struggle if they get no differentiation - in a public school which is academically focused.


----------



## Neera (Jul 15, 2007)

Mine is reading and has started K. We'll see how it goes. There are so many words like 'One' that she doesn't understand the phonics of. So I think she will be ok. But since she hasn't gone yet as she was sick and it is really the start of school, we'll find out soon.


----------



## NiteNicole (May 19, 2003)

I had a lot typed out but I don't want to give too much identifying information or get too far off topic. I don't think I'm going to be successful.

We are in a state in the deep south not known for it's good schools. It's a regular public school in a suburb of a larger city. When the school was started in the 90s, the parents had a lot of input. Their biggest goal is to mainstream as many students as possible. For pre K, which has limited spots, half the spaces are reserved for children with special needs and the rest need to qualify for free lunch so the families who most need those spots get them.

There is extra help in kindergarten for reading and math. There isn't any official pull out program for early readers, but my daughter's teacher was very good at keeping her challenged. Pull out gifted starts in first at ninety minutes a day and is a full day class starting in second. There is also a grade between kinder and first for kids who are a little young, have discipline issues related to maturity, or just need more hands-on time with the concepts. Some parents opt in just because, some kids are recommended and their parents opt out. There's no stigma among the children because it's grouped with kindergarten. Due to the smaller class size, they get to do some really neat stuff and they are the "leaders" of the kindergarten hall.

The parents and PTA make our school possible. Every special extra thing we have is a direct result of PTA fundraising and parent volunteers who keep costs down.

I volunteer a lot in the classroom and am the product of many gifted programs, from pull out to public residential. I have known some profoundly, crazy, gifted wonder kids (I'm NOT one of them!). I don't believe this myth that every kid with a discipline problem is just so gifted he/she is bored. To me, it's just like any other discipline/impulse control issue. Yes, we are all bored sometimes. That doesn't mean we get to act out. Sometimes you just have to learn self-control. I think kids can have difficult impulse/discipline issues AND be profoundly gifted, but I don't think giftedness excuses or necessarily causes issues in the vast majority of kids.


----------



## Mommykendra (Jul 1, 2012)

DD1 was reading at age 3. There is nothing I could have done to stop her--short of taking away anything that had letters on it. Kindergarten was great for her (as was preschool). She had great teachers that catered to her strengths and weakness (so during reading time--she'd either work on writing a story, or the teacher would ask if she wanted to read stories to some other kids). We did have a problem in first grade with her being bored (so didn't like school as much, but we just talked to the teacher and worked out things she can do at school and at home to keep her challenged and learning), but never was a trouble maker and has always been near the top of her class.

DS1 was reading at age 4. I'm not even sure when he started reading because it just seemed to slowly emerge and where DD1 would prefer to read herself, DS1 prefers to be read to. One day, we were at the library and I asked him what book he wanted and he told me by reading the title. He is very good at phonetics, but struggles with sight words and words that don't follow the rules. He's been in Kindergarten for 3 weeks and I'm certain his teacher has no idea he knows how to read. He's loving school even though it's very much things he already knows.

So to answer your question--I think it's only a disadvantage if you let it be and don't advocate for your child's academic needs


----------



## MamaPrincess (Aug 1, 2012)

this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tracking_(education)


----------



## Mummoth (Oct 30, 2003)

There is so much more to being a reader than understanding what the strings of symbols on a page mean. In early years, I think it's much more important for a child to enjoy the storytelling, have that be a relaxing activity, than to actually do the reading themselves. My son was a late reader, he was in a special reading program in grade 1 and part of grade 2 that completely and utterly failed to teach him anything. I pulled him out of the program part way through grade 2. The only help he got with reading after that was a notepad in the bathroom, where I'd draw a picture with a caption and he'd fill it in (mostly stuff like a person saying "I hope no birds come and poop on my head" and of course that's exactly what he'd draw) He pretty much miraculously figured out how to read over the summer. I think 'teaching' a child to read before they're ready is very similar to trying to force a baby who isn't capable of it yet to crawl or walk. Going through the motions with the baby every day might make the pieces fall into place for them a week sooner than they would have otherwise... but not months.


----------



## pek64 (Apr 8, 2012)

It seems some posters fall into the 'they don't learn unless it's hard/work' group while others believe children learn best when they're enthusiastic or having fun.

I don't think there are advantages or disadvantages for early readers. Everyone is different, and the focus on math and reading, not to mention comparing children to each other, ... well we all do it from time to time, but it's our insecurities, not our children's abilities at the center.


----------



## meemee (Mar 30, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NiteNicole*
> 
> I don't believe this myth that *every* kid with a discipline problem is just so gifted he/she is bored. To me, it's just like any other discipline/impulse control issue. Yes, we are all bored sometimes. That doesn't mean we get to act out. Sometimes you just have to learn self-control. I think kids can have difficult impulse/discipline issues AND be profoundly gifted, but I don't think giftedness excuses or necessarily causes issues in the vast majority of kids.


no not every.

however every kid whose education needs are not being met (which is so in our public schools in our district) whether they are gifted or not (ones who need some help or services - not special needs) i have found have issues. issues in the form of trouble makers, or la di da dreamers or self esteem issues. many of those kids are thought of as lacking executive skill, when really it is a case of either being bored out of their mind OR totally overwhelmed.

and no no no. i absolutely DO NOT expect k and first graders to learn self-control. for that matter even 2nd and 3rd graders. perhaps when they are a little older. 6 hours of torture can be pretty hard on the kids.

but yeah - trouble kids does not mean gifted kids. trouble kids mean usually kids whose educational needs are not being met.


----------



## KCMichigan (Jul 21, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *meemee*
> 
> and no no no. i absolutely DO NOT expect k and first graders to learn self-control. for that matter even 2nd and 3rd graders. perhaps when they are a little older. 6 hours of torture can be pretty hard on the kids.
> 
> ...


----------



## meemee (Mar 30, 2005)

KC i dont know how to quote you.

so here goes on self control. i was replying to NiteNichols reference to self-control. of course everyone is expected to have self control. THAT is a given. but self-control under difficult circumstances. NO!!! when kids are bored and overwhelmed and you expect them to show self control and not act out - nope i dont expect them to have self control to that degree. we even had a boy in ps who acted out and had to be taken out because the teachers wouldnt allow any accomodation just for him. perhaps your kids did not view school as torture but there are many who do. and to expect those kids to have self control when they are trying really hard to cope is unfair.

and yes trouble kids could mean a lot of things. including unsafe or abusive family background. hungry kids? what about free school bfasts and lunches? in the school district next to us which has a huge migrant and homeless population children suffering due to hunger is not an issue. worry about their family yes. but hunger?

there are plenty of kids who are really just tolerate school.


----------



## KCMichigan (Jul 21, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *meemee*
> 
> what about free school bfasts and lunches? in the school district next to us which has a huge migrant and homeless population children suffering due to hunger is not an issue. worry about their family yes. but hunger?
> 
> ...


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

My older daughter started Kindergarten reading very very well, and writing quite a bit too. She didn't have any problems as her school provided tons of differentiation. I don't think it's a disadvantage, but I don't think it's an advantage either. I don't think it matters whether kids start reading at 3 or 6. Learning to read earlier doesn't necessarily mean learning to read better, and it certainlly doesn't mean enjoying reading more. I think adults should follow their lead and neither push them nor hold them back, so long as they don't wait so long to learn to read that it's really holding them back in school.


----------



## ollyoxenfree (Jun 11, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MamaPrincess*
> 
> this:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tracking_(education)


Have you or your children attended a school that engages in tracking?

My children did and I have concerns about how such a system is implemented when tracking into classes is based on achievement of grades in early years. Grades aren't necessarily a good assessment of learning ability, so there's a problem with accurate identification. Then there are also real problems with early pigeon-holing children into a rigid classifications as successful students or hopeless cases. It can be difficult to alter a prejudice about a child and move them out of their designated class. It also tends to become a self-fulfilling prophecy - the successful students believe that they are smart so they work harder and the students in the "dumb" classes give up because after all, what's the point? it's already been decided that they aren't "top class" material. There is also more stereotyping and bullying between students.

This is separate from systems that offer programs for intellectually gifted learners who have been identified using psycho-educational assessments (IQ testing etc.) to determine learning ability, as opposed to achievement. My children have attended these kinds of programs too. I believe that they are valuable. They are different from old-fashioned tracking systems where there are the "smart classes" and the "dumb classes" and a range of classes in between for each grade.


----------



## pek64 (Apr 8, 2012)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ollyoxenfree*
> 
> Have you or your children attended a school that engages in tracking?
> 
> ...


The 'gifted' classes are the 'smart' classes, and those not 'gifted' are 'dumb'.


----------



## ollyoxenfree (Jun 11, 2009)

Further to my last post, I should also mention that I support "ability grouping" both within a class or within a grade (or a few grades), where students at a similar level in a subject are brought together to work. Again, it's different from tracking. Ability grouping tends to be subject-specific, temporary, less formal and there's less likelihood that a student is permanently pigeon-holed into a particular academic level for the rest of his/her school career.


----------



## pranava (Aug 11, 2007)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *meemee*
> 
> trying to get kids to 'read' as fun i still find work. not fun. just the same as i dislike educational toys. trying to introduce 'unfun' things in a fun way. in my books - rather like bribing. perhaps i am a bit radical here. no. no. no. didnt want that. dd was interested in the human body. i got her all she wanted. i did not introduce the human body through toys hoping she would be interested. she had enough on her plate that she was curious about. i didnt need to introduce anything to totally overwhelm her. that's how i see educational toys or fun reading as.


Learning to read not fun? Try to tell that to my DS who at 10 months would chase me down the hall speed crawling while pushing a book. He did learn to read early, even though I hid all his books for weeks at a time because I could no longer stand reading them. Try to get him to jump, climb, and make mud pies, and he'll act like you're trying to torture him. Every kid is different.

What really suprises me, is how many kids here seem to be reading, and reading well at 3,4, or a young 5. If so many are doing it, then maybe it's not really early?


----------



## meemee (Mar 30, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pranava*
> 
> Learning to read not fun?


To the child who is not interested no its not fun. to the child chasing you down to read to him absolutely. but that is not the same thing.

as much as it seems like kids are learning to read earlier and earlier if you look at the statistics in K it does not show that. out of 25 kids maybe 2 or 3 kids enter K reading. many do come in at least knowing some of their alphabets and counting till 10 and writing their name as a picture not as a series of letters they can identify individually.

i absolutely hate the focus of academics on children starting so young. those who are interested of course they need it. but in most of the cases the pill is being sugar coated with teh hope that the kid will swallow it. they even have alphabet teething toys. i mean come on!!!

or this whole business that there is something wrong with you as a parent if you dont read to your child at nigth from a book. there are many parts of the world who do not read to their kids except once in a while. instead they tell stories.


----------



## SweetSilver (Apr 12, 2011)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *meemee*
> 
> To the child who is not interested no its not fun. to the child chasing you down to read to him absolutely. but that is not the same thing.
> 
> ...


(Bolded sentence) This drives me nuts now, though it never used to.

I also think a great emphasis is placed on reading, more than there should be. At home we read mostly, but we also tell stories. I tell stories of my childhood, and dh tells "Jack and Jill" stories with characters like Crackity Joe and others. The girls are engaged in these oral stories in ways that reading never does, as much as we all love our books. I think our society, especially in recent years, is missing out on the benefits of the oral storytelling tradition. Why? Watch how a good storyteller engages the children, looking straight in their eyes. I know storytime librarians do this some, too, but the focus is truly on the book. Interpreting all the pictures, as wonderful as it is, takes some of the focus off the words. The cadence of a good storyteller is far different from someone reading a book, even a good reader (I consider myself a very good narrater of books 

When we focus on reading at such an early age, perhaps we are missing something vitally important. Even kids who love to read and be read to at an early age could do with some storytelling. Why we save it for campouts, I have no idea.

My dd1 loved to be read to, even at 4.5 months. I have a picture of her sitting up in a laundry basket, poring over "Mr. Brown Can Moo, Can You?" So, I would never stop a child wanting to be read to, or learning how to read. But I think there is some line of thinking that this is a sign of superior brain development and that other children would be better off, too, if they learned reading as soon as possible. Like I said earlier, I was an early reader, picking it up soon after 4yo, and those differences simply melted by the third grade, where I was a bright but otherwise average student. (I still have an ease with words, but I'm afraid that I am more than a bit deficient in other areas.







)

I better stop before I lose track of where this discussion started.....


----------



## AmandaT (Jul 12, 2012)

To keep the subject OT for just a bit longer....

DD is a child who LOVES being read to. If I don't read to her multiple times a day she gets very cranky. The other day we could not leave the house until I read Clifford's Bathtime to her eight times. In her six month professional pictures she's reading The Very Hungry Caterpillar .

.. okay back on subject!


----------



## transylvania_mom (Oct 8, 2006)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *meemee*
> 
> i absolutely hate the focus of academics on children starting so young. those who are interested of course they need it. but in most of the cases the pill is being sugar coated with teh hope that the kid will swallow it. they even have alphabet teething toys. i mean come on!!!
> 
> or this whole business that there is something wrong with you as a parent if you dont read to your child at nigth from a book. there are many parts of the world who do not read to their kids except once in a while. instead they tell stories.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SweetSilver*
> 
> But I think there is some line of thinking that this is a sign of superior brain development and that other children would be better off, too, if they learned reading as soon as possible.


I agree with this. Ds started reading early, it was an advantage for him when he went to school, but if a child is not interested in learning until later, that's fine too. I come from a culture where children start learning to read at 7-8 y/o. It didn't stop me and my friends from school to earn graduate degrees at universities all around the world.

It makes no difference when a child starts reading imo. The important thing is not to pressure him one way or the other.


----------



## KCMichigan (Jul 21, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SweetSilver*
> 
> When we focus on reading at such an early age, perhaps we are missing something vitally important. Even kids who love to read and be read to at an early age could do with some storytelling. Why we save it for campouts, I have no idea.
> 
> ...


----------



## dogretro (Jun 17, 2008)

DD1 is four and is going to full-day Headstart this year (her first preschool experience). Dh and I are definitely into not formally teaching her to read, just letting it flow organically. That said, she has always been a v academic kid, knowing (and recognizing) her letters at age two, memorizing full books, etc. She currently wants to learn how to tell time, is learning about coin money, asks what different signs say when we are out, traces letters & can write many of them on her own. With her schooling this year, we have no doubt that she will be reading by the end of school year b/c the teacher will see her abilities and run w/ them. I am sad about this b/c I wanted it to unfold as it would, but I cannot control that when she is going to an academic preschool. Now, obv ps is different than kindy, but the fact that dd1 already knows what is being taught right now does not seem to bother her. We sent her for social & behavioral reasons anyway. They are doing abc's & counting. I doubt she is bored. I expect that if she goes to kindy next year (want to hs, we'll see), I would let the teacher know her abilities and ps background & expect that the teacher would work w/ it. Even older kids who can read still enjoy being read to. Some kids are going to come into kindy still not knowing their abc's and some will be reading. That is part of the challenge of teaching kindy 

I looked at dd1's class schedule and it is, at the most, an hour of her day spent on literacy activities (this includes being read to). She is there for six hours. I do not have a problem w/ this ratio. As I said, she loves academics, it's still ps, so there is lots of play, and we play play play the rest of the day at home. I would NOT skip a grade this early b/c socially & behaviorally dd1 will still be only five next year. Not at all ready for the rigors of first grade, nor that mature. This is also part of why, despite loving Waldorf, W school is off the table for us


----------



## mariee (Mar 4, 2012)

My gosh, I just cannot imagine any reason in the world NOT to teach a young child how to read. I'm not even going to entertain any alternative theories about needing to play, etc. Everything in balance.

And to answer your question, yes, I it is absolutely possible for a child who is advanced to be bored beyond belief in a classroom where his peers are far behind. I've seen it constantly in my own classroom in 10 years of teaching. A proactive teacher can make a difference, but not all teachers are procative. Unfortunately, that is a huge drawback to public education. Public ed was not built to challenge the advanced learner, sadly, but I can't see that as being a reason not to teach a child to read at home.


----------



## SweetSilver (Apr 12, 2011)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mariee*
> 
> Everything in balance.


"Everything in balance" is in itself an unbalanced idea. *Everything*?

I promise I'm not being snarky.... just a little bit silly, though.


----------



## meemee (Mar 30, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mariee*
> 
> My gosh, I just cannot imagine any reason in the world NOT to teach a young child how to read. I'm not even going to entertain any alternative theories about needing to play, etc. Everything in balance.


what is your definition of young child? do you think a 4 year old needs to be taught how to read? i am not talking about the alphabets. but to actually read.

how about a 3 year old? is it ok to do the alphabets with them?


----------



## meetoo (Apr 15, 2008)

I just skimmed the posts, but I don't believe there is any advantage to *teaching *preschoolers to read(not to be confused with readiness skills). I've read many studies that actually state teaching preschoolers academics slows the learning process in the long run(even when done in a "fun" way). The brain connections they make are not as good as the ones they would have made had they been taught later. It also takes away from the very important skills preschoolers need to be learning (social, problem solving, etc. etc.) Also, most of the time kids even out by 3rd grade. Now that said, some kids just learn to read as preschoolers and are ready....That's not what I'm talking about. 

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *meemee*
> 
> however under no circumstances will regular public K or 1st be a great experience for a child who knows how to read and is grades ahead. all the trouble makers or the dreamers in her class fit that category.


This is not at all true in our experience. Many kids start k reading. Most are emergent readers, but occasionally there are kids reading quite well(this is rare according to our teachers but does happen). Our schools work at each child's individual reading level for all grades. In any given classroom (particularly the lower grades!!) you will see kids working in many different reading levels. Often kids learn to read in spurts too, so you can have a child who moves up 5 reading levels in 6 weeks. It goes at each child's pace.....


----------



## squimp (Nov 7, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *meemee*
> 
> however under no circumstances will regular public K or 1st be a great experience for a child who knows how to read and is grades ahead. all the trouble makers or the dreamers in her class fit that category.


Of course blanket statements like this are just begging to be wrong. My DD learned to read at 4, in her first of two years of preschool. She is now 9 and thrives at gasp public school. She loves school, loved K and loved 1st grade. Luckily she is not the only one (but she was the most advanced) and has great teachers. She is neither trouble-maker nor dreamer and neither are the others who were advanced. She didn't need to learn to read in K but there were plenty of other things to do. I say, if kids want to read (or play violin, or write a book) at an early age, my goodness, encourage it.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

Yeah, my dd started reading right around her 4th birthday, and was reading very well by kindergarten, and has had a great experience at public school. Our school has a great GATE program and is really good about differentiating. It's probably different for all kids, but I agree that "under no circumstances" is not accurate. I can see how, depending on the school district and the kid and the teacher, it could cause problems, but i would see that as a failing of the schools and not a reason to hold back a child who is wanting to read.


----------



## mariee (Mar 4, 2012)

Maybe I'm totally misunderstanding the debate here, but here's what I think of when I hear "teaching a young child to read": reading to the child with a book in front of you both, pointing out capital letters, pointing out names and other proper nouns, pointing out things like exclamation points, question marks, and periods, and eventually, pointing out short words such as "car" or "dog". And certainly not all these things at once, but perhaps a few of them each time a book is read. And, yes, the alphabet is a great idea, even if kids don't recognize all the letters. JUst familiarizing them with the concept of letters is a great start. Drilling, worksheets, and phonics never even entered my mind, so I"m not sure what others are envisioning with the idea of teaching young children to read. Am I missing something??


----------



## meemee (Mar 30, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *squimp*
> 
> Of course blanket statements like this are just begging to be wrong. My DD learned to read at 4, in her first of two years of preschool. She is now 9 and thrives at gasp public school. She loves school, loved K and loved 1st grade. Luckily she is not the only one (but she was the most advanced) and has great teachers. She is neither trouble-maker nor dreamer and neither are the others who were advanced. She didn't need to learn to read in K but there were plenty of other things to do. I say, if kids want to read (or play violin, or write a book) at an early age, my goodness, encourage it.


eeeh making statements on a tired brain is certainly not my stellar moment. however in my later posts i corrected it and said = for those not getting differentiation - whichever way it goes IS the part that really messes things up.

it all varies according to state. and depending on teachers to provide differentiation is really hard in my state with crowded classrooms nad no help. let me tell you the teachers suffer too. their hands are tied and they cant help. they want to but dont have the means to.

so for those who DO get some sort of 'services' - school is not so bad.

we have limited differentiation. there is such a marked change in some kids when they DO get the differentiation.

'under no circumstances' when a child isnt getting any kind of differentiation - is trouble land - in some form.


----------

