What does having a high reading age in reception or year 1 mean long term?

[Arewehumanorbones]

Just wondering if anyone knew if there is any research that shows an advantage in having a high reading age in infants?
Was having a conversation with some other mums and some thought it had no long term significance, while a couple of others thought it predicted great things.
I had / have no idea but am now curious!
A quick Google found me nothing butmight not have used the correct search terms...

[candlefloozy]

How would you find out your child has this?

[Karwomannghia]

If they have a higher reading age it indicates that they are reading at a level higher than the average at this stage. So it could potentially mean they are a quick learner, have a good vocabulary, can decode, comprehend and predict texts well depending on what the test was assessing (simply decoding? or understanding a passage?)
So it’s a good start certainly but the future depends on a lot of other factors!

[Arewehumanorbones]

Oh just on what book band they are on? Mine is on red but apparently a couple started reception already reading so are on green and blue.

[Arewehumanorbones]

Hmm yes the 2 who were reading prior to reception are pushed academically quite a bit. I more encourage mine to run around to wear off her energy!
So with that in mind I'm on the fence

[PinkSmitterton]

I was an early reader (not for any reason, just seemed to come naturally to me)
I still read a lot! And my strengths are probably related: good vocabulary etc

I wouldn't say I've particularly achieved great things in life

[PinkSmitterton]

The was meant to be after that last sentence!

[crosser62]

Nowt, absolutely nothing.
It appears that they all catch up at some point.

To me, it just means that the child has discovered the joy and pleasure of books earlier, so rather than a competitive advantage, I would see it as more of a joyous advantage.

[whattodonownow]

I was always very advanced at reading all through primary school.
In secondary school we did a test called the Edinburgh Reading Test and I came top out of 200 children.
I can’t say I’ve amounted to a massive amount.
Got A for English language and literature in gcse and A level, but have had pretty average jobs since.
I do still love reading though and I can skim read really quickly and complete a novel in a day.

[Livedandlearned]

Mine all had high reading ages and the only difference was that they finished the reading books a little bit earlier than others.

No difference in comprehensive school at all.

[Northernsights]

I think it is likely to indicate an aptitude for learning and parental interest in education. Both a factors likely to help success. I don’t think there evidence that it is advantageous above others particularly though (particularly children whose parents are interested in education but prefer to focus on other skills pre school)

[GregoryPeckingDuck]

None actually. Reading ability before the age of seven has no colleration with long term achievement in language or academics in general. At least that’s what studies seem to consistently show if the press is to be believed. In terms of anecdotal evidence my experience has mirrored the above proposition. Most of the really really intelligent people I know were actually late bloomers (but I think that may just be coincidental). Most clever people I know were very good at one thing e.g. literacy/numeracy/music etc until around nine or ten then suddenly became good at everything as less able peers fell behind. Some people who were very far ahead in early years fell behind as smarter counter parts overtook them. I can’t even say that it’s an indication of hothousing as some children pick up reading all by themselves. I suppose it’s a lot like riding a bike. Some people learn earlier, some later, timing doesn’t matter. It’s where you go on your bicycle that matters.

[Doobydoobeedoo]

I think it depends on whether they have the comprehension skills to match.

[Arewehumanorbones]

Gregory Peking interesting! That was what I suspected but it was only a hunch

[Jade94]

I read every book in school by time I'd finished year 1 and had to take my own books from home in to read. I'm still really fond of reading and did really well with my gases and that but it didn't really give me anything else just that I really love sticking my nose into a good book :)

[Hollowvictory]

The ones on green and blue do not 'have a high reading age' they are totally within the normal range for reception. As is your child. By the end of year 1 they will all be free reading and all this nonsense will be forgotten. I have twins, one was 5 reading levels higher than the other at one point. Have to say she loves reading and is voracious whereas the other one doesn't read much for pleasure, but it's nit just the resging it's the comprehension, the inference, the ability to read with expression, the ability to take what you've read and apply it to your own work, vocabulary etc etc.

[reallyanotherone]

I was a very early reader. Comprehension, vocab, spelling etc all way above average.

What it meant is i much preferred the world of books to that of actually learning other stuff. So a secondary school career spent reading books under the desk meant i didn’t actually achieve my potential.

I do have a very scary amount of useless facts and general knowledge though...!

[SoyDora]

My reception child is on purple book band. It means she’s a good reader, that’s all!

[mumwon]

depends whether the child understands what they read. I was helping in class once with a group of 6 mixed ability readers. I child galloped through the book reading out loud - another read very slowly & needed some help to sound out words - BUT- it was very interesting when we got to asking questions about what they read because the child that read with difficulty had obviously took note of what they were reading & answered the questions whilst the fast reader had difficulty - re question long term success - I had problems learning to read undiagnosed visual issues)but when they were sorted I was streets ahead of an older sibling who was seen as the bright one in the family. My spelling is still iffy at times (God bless spell check :) ) but as a very ! mature student I got a 2/1 so I would say no because some children are late developers for various reasons & catch up & surpass others & some children who read well at 5 ( because of supportive carer/parent) don't go onto having a great academic success BUT success is relative - I would rather the dc has the opportunity to succeed in whatever future choice they make & be happy - as parents I think that is our role to give dc the opportunity & tools to do that.

[BlueMerchant]

I don't believe in all this book banding. It puts pressure on the children that they do not need. The amount of parents who are pre-occupied with book colours and levels is ridiculous and a source of unnecessary competition. The majority of children will become fluent readers- they get there in the end. A high book band doesn't mean your child is gifted- like some mothers like to think. It means they can read well. My daughter can read very well and is reading beyond her age group expectations however she is poor at other things. Unless your child is the exception, then things tend to level-out.

[CoodleMoodle]

My DD has been reading fluently since before she started school. Now she's halfway through reception and can read chapter books in her head (we're currently reading an Enid Blyton and she often reads ahead of me!). I was an early reader but she's even better than I was. She's very bright but I'm not expecting her to be a genius because of it - I'm certainly not.

I expect it's like PP say, it just means she's got to grips with it quicker. There's plenty of things she can't do, like do her own buttons up... But they do all seem to level out eventually!

[Abouttime1978]

It can mean that they have been taught at home; it can mean that phonics comes naturally to them.

My DD is in year 2. She took to phonics like a duck to water and was fluent and reading Ronald Dahl by mid way through year 1.

However, she is not significantly ahead of others at comprehension. Being able to apply phonics to words and pronounce them correctly is different to understanding the nuances of what they are reading.

DD went off Roald Dahl and I suspect it is because some of the comprehension went over her head.

Most kids find the bits of school that come easier in their own time, and they mostly catch up with each other towards the end of primary.

[Paddy1234]

We are all late readers in our family. When I say 'late', I mean 7 or 8
All of us have achieved high standards academically, so I would say zero.

[Helix1244]

The advantage would be being able to read early means they increase vocab, practice comprehension. Read more non fiction books.
But once others start reading chapter books it would be whoever can read them fastest/with most understanding.
But as comprehension is very different to learning to read. It really is a skill you only need once, although a good ability to decode new words accurately is obviously very useful.

Those with great creative writing and comprehension will excel.

[Norestformrz]

Higher book bands isn't a good measure of higher reading ability I'm afraid.

[PotolBabu]

I learned to read at about 6. I have a PhD and I excelled academically at school.
DS1 learned to read at 3. He has been in top sets throughout and is very bright. He’s also musically gifted (can’t draw, can’t run, and totally scatterbrained otherwise!). I was very very careful to make sure that his early reading didn’t put him off books and he’s now an avid reader. We have a house full of books and we all read a lot. And he remains ahead of his peers in terms of reading ability. Whether this makes a difference when he is 15/16 I don’t know. I think cultivating a love of knowledge and reading is way more important than early reading.