AIBU to think that children should be reading when they start school?

[horribledinners]

Maybe I'm just old-fashioned, I started having kids 20+ years ago, but I, and all my brothers and sisters were taught to read and write by my parents before we started primary school. I taught my two older kids to read and begin to learn to write letters in time for them starting primary education, and would be ashamed if ds3 couldn't recognise letters and be able to read by the time he starts school.

I completely understand that there have been many confusing 'experiments' in education since then, the abandonment of phonics was a tragedy in my opinion; but do parents really think its the schools job to teach kids to read and write and do they not even give an introduction to reading and writing anymore?

I would love to know if this is a generational thing. I know for certain its not a class thing as we were very poor growing up and my Mum would take us out to the bus-stop and make us read out the notices!

So... which is it? Home-ed is a crazy idea because Parents are not trained teachers & should not presume to take on such a specialist role, OR
Parents are the pre-eminent teachers in a child's life and should actively seek to pre-empt the usual efforts of teachers and schools, usurp them even.

Honestly, we parents can't win, can we? Since I can't make everybody happy I'll just aim for me, and since I wouldn't enjoy the pressure of having to teach a 4yo to read, the school can do it, Natch.

So yabu... but you must know that by now.

motherinferior made a good point, then spoiled it with Bill Nighy. It's not just about reading with children, it's them seeing you with a book in your hand and you not necessarily throwing it in the corner the minute they appear in the lounge and leaping off to get the flashcards. If there are books in a house and DPs who actually read them, I think that is giving a very clear signal that reading is a valued activity.

I would also say that I 'taught' the letters all wrong - did the names instead of the sounds, so had to undo all that...

I could read before I went to school. I had read all the Malory towers books.

But my mum didn't teach me. I had loads of brothers and sisters and I just picked it up iyswim

Do what you want as long as you and your child are happy.

But op said children should be reading. Which is bollocks.

I remember loads from before I started school!
I remember my first day at school really well. I remember standing at the teachers desk and being told to read a Peter and Jane book , the first one in the series. She then skipped a few and asked me to read another, skipped a few more until finally I read the last one in the series.
I also remember getting my thumb stuck in a plastic thing and being too embarrassed to tell the teacher. I just sat and cried quietly while my thumb got more and more swollen.

AKMD - well obviously we teach our children about the world around us, and that means elements of reading, science, biology, history, geography etc.

What I meant was, for example, sitting down with your child and making a point of teaching them about the Battle of Hastings, because they would be covering it in history next term and you wanted to beat the school to it

Whereas, if you were going to Hastings on a family holiday and it would be interesting and relevant to learn about it.

I see the benefit of teaching children about the world as and when things come up, and of course the benefit of supplementing anything the school is already teaching.

But deciding that something needs to be learned before the school can teach it, whether the child is interested/ready or not? What on earth for?

Totally agree, going into a competition with the school so that you can boast about your DC being 'so far ahead' is pathetic and trying to force your child to learn something they aren't interested in is stupid and self-defeating.

But if they are interested, go for it.

Bets on a newspaper article in next few weeks about this topic ?

Hope someone else has pointed out that phonics is very much alive and kicking! I suspect the vast majority of primaries now teaching reading with phonics as it has been heavily pushed again in the last 10 years (if it ever truly went away, except in the minds of DM readers).

I started school 21 years ago. Couldn't read a single letter - have a PhD now. None of mine could read before school and all are fine.

And some countries with better literacy rates at 11 than UK, don't teach reading until 6/7 years.

I think it is really sad to think kids have to be reading at 4 years old!

AMKD being interested in something does not mean they have the cognitive maturity to master a technical skill like reading.

There is a huge difference between providing a stimulating and exciting environment for your kids and expecting them to grasp technical skills.

I happily read to my kids, make up stories with them and act out stories we have read or one's we have made up. We sing, play music, go to the park, museums, ride bikes, go to the theatre. My kids are also bilingual.

But at before the age of 4 they just didn't have the cognitive skills to read even though they were interested in books. I preferred to nuture the love of books, story telling and imagination rather than trying to push them to develop reading. Learning to read is important but there are so many other important things for kids to learn before school that I really don't see it as a priority because I don't really think it confers any benefit on the child to learn early.

Chazs there's nothing wrong at all with what you did.

I've said it before on this thread but learning to speak a language is probably the most difficult, technical thing a person will do in their whole life, yet they start to get to grips with it before their first birthday. If DS asked me what a word on a page meant, I'd spell it out to him phonetically to show him that the funny squiggles meant something, a word he already knew how to say. In fact, I already do. Nothing wrong with that either IMO.

YABU.

DS is four and knows the letters and what sounds they make. He can write his name (though a lot of times it's backward) and Mom and Dad. (Which may be backward too, but who could tell? :) ) He can't read though, and I am fine with that.

Here they're no expected to learn to read until kindergarten, which they go to at 5 or 6. Learn to read, not be doing it already.

AKMD I would agree that showing an interested child that a word on a page is made up of sounds that are represented by funny squiggles etc is fine. I wouldn't see that as teaching a child to read as such but rather teaching them how books and writing works. If during that time the child is cognitively ready to process the squiggles into letters and words - great. What I don't like is the idea of people drilling their children in reading at a very young age as I think it can be counter productive if the child isn't ready.

YABU-they are all different-one size never fits all. Some are just not ready.

I taught Infants for 27 years and can count on the fingers of one hand the number of children who could read when they started. I have three children and only taught one of them to read, because she asked me to (because her brother was learning to read at school).
I have a grandaughter who has just started school and she has learnt all the really important things, like dressing and undressing, going to the loo on her own and above all how to speak clearly. She loves to colour and do arty crafty things at home. She can use scissors. She knows nursery rhymes, names colours and can count objects. She loves to listen to stories. I have no doubt that she will learn to read quickly at school and that she will thoroughly enjoy the experience. I don't think my d-i-l has failed her in any way by not teaching her to read.

yabu
they are only very little when they start school compared to when many other countries start formal schooling.

I won't be teaching DD to read before she goes to school. I have no problem with talking to her about books/words/sounds etc if she is interested but definately no more than that.

She is so similar to me and if I send her to school already knowing how to read, that basically means putting her in a situation where she will be bored all day for 2 years, she will be an awkward so and so and probably get a reputation for being difficult or lazy.

I know because we have exactly the same personality types and at primary age I used to refuse to do work I 'knew' how to do already! Not exactly a great start in education.

Love the way that if children can read before reception they have missed out on so much vital play time and must have pushy parents. A lot of people have mentioned summer babies not possibly being ready - how about early September babies? It is more than possible that some of them are ready because they will be starting at 5.

Do you know what? I think unless you are a massive twat about it then whichever ends up happening will probably be fine. I don't think children that can't read come from neglectful homes and will never catch up but neither do I think that those that can read will have no social skills and will have been hothoused!

Also, nobody has really defined 'reading' yet...

YABU. Isn't that what school is for?

"depends if the parent can be bothered to sit down and read to the child or not

my kids could all read fluently before they went to nursery because we used to read a lot at home"

hilarious

Why are so many so antsy about this? AIBU is full of judgemental mums having a boast and a brag about their child's achievements and looking down their noses a bit.

I could read at 5; proper reading, Enid Blytons and the like... no badge of honour awarded, it was just something that we did. So what? I think the earlier a child learns to read, the better, it's' something that they don't have to learn at school and can spend their time more on comprehension and, dare I say it, reading books beyond their age level.

I can't understand why any teaching of a child, at the earliest possible stages, is something that shouldn't be done. Teach your child everything you can whenever you can is my adage. I personally don't care what other people do but I don't feel my hackles rise when somebody says they're doing something with their child that I'm not, it's my choice to do it or not so no need for defensiveness.

I read before I was three; Mum was a great etacher, had she been more confident she could ahve trained, school asked her to.

Expected the same with ds1- spent ages and really ebat myself up about getting nowhere; wasn;t until he was 6 we found he had SN that explained it. Now at 11.5 he's an excellent reader, bookworm even, reading Hobbit atm.

Mind I am clearly neglectful as ds3 and ds4 are not even toilet trained. Was ashamed with ds3 untilw e learned that.... you getting theme here OP? This time around not surprised tbh. he's toilet phobic, can control bladder but chooses not to. Bit of a confounding one that.

Although I will agree boy's reading all picked up when DH got into reading, and making it a real treat as well- when we go camping for example, first thing we do after setting up is find a book shop and treat everyone. lifts something that so many boys their ages (11.5, 10.5 for older ones) see as a chore.

i could read when i started school. but i started school aged 5. my daughter can read words independently, but only a few books all the way through (and that from memory) - she is just four and starting school - i am pleased enough with that for my pre-school targets of having her read earlier were thwarted by her talking late (so, i suppose she might have been reading more words sooner, just not able to relay that knowledge)

although i believe children can learn really early, and i think it is fun to read with them, i don't think you can say should.

on a more general point, i think it's more important to be supportive and help them practice what they learn at school.

I would say though- I remember being confused in my own reception year as theyw ere all elarning phonics and that can be hard quite ahrd to grasp when you have learned to read a different way.