To think people who say "children who can read before they start school dont have any advantage because they all catch up in the end" are just trying to make themselves feel better?

[AnonBCofHate]

Because obviously it's not true. Even if they end up at the same reading level at the end of the year the kid who read 2000 books before he started school will always have read 2000 more books. And likely will have gotten through a heck of alot more in that year the the child whos just learning. The only reason I could think for them to say this is to make them feel more comfortable about the fact their child is average. Or am I missing something?

Have one from me too

Science disagrees with you.

Enjoy with the

My first ever

Just because they've read 2000 more books (2000? Really 🤔) doesn't mean they can read any better.

Are you comparing reading level, or number of books read? Because they are different things.

Depends if the children in question enjoy reading, and actually comprehend or are just rabbitting out their phonics. Some children do have a slower start but genuinely overtake their peers, some start ahead and stay ahead. What's the point of this thread, have you heard this in response to an over-coached child you know?

I'm assuming you're being goady but anyway, what's to say the ones who can read early aren't average or behind in something else?

It depends. All things being equal i.e. Children of a similar intelligence level, one who reads and one who doesn't before starting school - they will level out most likely.

😂😂😂😂

whatever you say dear.

I'm not sure this is worthy of a response, but here we go; because some children who learn to read later will then develop a real love of books and read even more than the early reader. Or maybe won't read a lot of books or maybe the early reader will be a serial killer, who the fuck knows

Speaking as a teacher: very few children will be ready to read before the start of reception. Pareby a who force a child to read before they are emotionally ready create an aversion to reading and teachers will have to do a lot of emotional work to undo the damage you over-eager parents have done.
If your kid is interested in books, by all means, teach them to read. Don't force your 3-year-old to read because it really does not make a difference.

Feel better about what? Ds couldn't read until he was nearly 7, now he reads for pleasure ALL the time and goes through books like nobody's business. However, having read X number of books isn't really a precursor to success - I can't imagine 20 extra biff and chipper books come in handy when you're a brain surgeon or entrepreneur or actuary or what ever.

Or am I missing something?

An informed opinion

Anyway, comprehension is more important. Two children - one reading independently and one being read to will gain comparable benefit. It's parental/caregiver input that's the key bit for outcomes

What about those countries who do formal education later, and might not read until 6/7? they seem to do ok?

You are assuming that the children will continue to read at the same rate, which may not be the case at all. Some children are only a day off being an entire year older than others in their academic year. Perhaps in that time the one who started off not reading will have passed the other one or perhaps not.

I would say a child who can read before school is also likely to be average as average spans a very wide range.

Also maybe once they leave school the one who has read the least will be far less judgemental and know that a lot is two words...

"the kid who read 2000 books before he started school will always have read 2000 more books. "

What books do the average 3/4 year old read? I don't think it will give them an advantage.

They won't have comprehension on a level that matters.

Equally ds could walk at 10 months so arguably has done more steps than his friends who didn't walk until they were 15 months. I don't think he's better at walking than them

My ds is awesome at maths, he's in reception. Doesn't mean he's at an advantage over the other kids, means he's more interested in it and his skill set is down to others.
Can't write his name, can do times tables. Others will catch up to him and vice versa.

In all honesty, who cares? They're kids. Little kids.

I'll be charitable and not go straight for my first .

1. It depends what you mean by reading
2. There's more to reading than decoding
3. All children learn at different paces
4. The sorts of parents who say 'those people who say x doesn't matter are jist trying ti make themselves feel better' are often the ones who view their child as an extension of thenselves and are destined to spend the next 15 years keeping a watchful eye on other children so they can rank their own child against them.

Truth be told, a child is affected by discrepancies in social background and cultural capital, but whether that boils down to 'i am better because my child can read early' is a bit dubious.

But however many books at the reading level of a preschooler isn't going to give them a massive advantage is it? Those books have like one word on each page.

I heard they may be at a disadvantage because they don't know how to read the 'right' way (phonics, etc).

For what it's worth, as a study of 2, I couldn't read prior to school, my younger brother could (he learned watching me). I have a lifelong love of reading, and a degree, he doesn't.

(10 minutes a day once they can actually read story books is a massive advantage to those who don't read at home at all though.)

That an opinion from someone who could read at three btw.

I've three dc who were reading fluently chapter books before reception and I also say the other children catch up at infants. Yes mine stayed towards the top but others who weren't reading beforehand were reading as wellby year 22.

2000 books is a lot. How early has this hypothetical child learnt to read?

Anyway, it's not a competition. I'm daresay some early readers will stay ahead throughout school, but that's not an argument for pushing pre-school children towards reading before they're ready to learn or showing an interest in learning reading.

Being able to decipher phonics at 3 rather than 6, whether taught or naturally picked up, won't make any difference in the long term.

However, a young child's attitude to reading and enjoyment of it can usually be seen from an early age imo.

I have 'one of each'. 2 ds's who are both equally competent at reading, both 'could' read from an early age and were way ahead of the class. Both easy to teach, I never had to put much effort in tbh.

But ds1 has no love for it at all - he enjoyed reading at a young age because he's naturally eager to please and enjoyed the praise of getting it right. But he will rarely pick a book up for pleasure at age 9 and I don't see that changing.

Ds2 however will devour books one after another and gets genuine joy from it.