To think kids learn to read at home

[homhumherewego]

A friend with kids was saying in her daughters class there are quite a few kids learning to read.

WTH?

Isnt teaching reading a parent's job?

"Lots of posters have said either they or their children could read before starting school and it made no difference a while later when all the other kids had caught up with them."

I don't agree with that. Reading early is a huge advantage and it makes a lot of difference what child can access.

It is a parent's job, as is instilling number sense before a child goes to school. Unfortunately most parents don't do this, hence illiteracy is on the rise and maths results are getting worse every year.
Some teachers are keen to tell parents "it's not your job", which often frightens parents into inaction. Don't be intimidated by such people.
I recommend the Domann books, particularly 'How to Teach Your Baby to Read', which has been around since the 1960s.

Irvine do you have any evidence of that?

Being able to decode Room on The Broom doesn't give you any advantage over a child who instead has it read to them by a competent reader. Arguably there is more to be gained from being read to fluently and with expression and being able to ask questions and have discussions rather than a child decoding but often not fully understanding books alone.

There have been comparative studies done in New Zealand of children who began learning to read at 4 and at 7, and the average outcomes were better for the group who learned later.

All this bloody angst about weather kids are potty trained by the time they're 3 or older than 3! And how many words they can read x months before they start school!?

What the heck difference does it make?

How many of you know what exact age your boss/your best mate/your child's teacher/your therapist/your GP first shat in a potty or wrote their name? And what the hell does it matter now? None.

To those saying don't bother, your children will learn in school—this is from the Independent:
English teenagers are among some of the least educated in the developed world, a report reveals.

Young people aged between 16 and 19 have been found to possess only a “basic” grasp of maths and English, with nine million people of working age having low literacy or numeracy skills.

The report, conducted by the OECD (the Operation for Economic Co-Operation and Development) found that out of 23 developed nations, English teens had the lowest literacy rates and the second to lowest numeracy rates.

irvine that’s unusual, the pp wasn’t talking about cases like your child’s. They were scoffing about reading being a skill that develops over many years.

And as you mentioned understanding is a part of reading, small children can’t understand words they aren’t familiar with.

I don't agree with that. Reading early is a huge advantage and it makes a lot of difference what child can access

Yes and learning to read at age 4/5 (at school) IS reading early, some countries they don't start school til 6/7 and they don't all read when they start.

I remember a British newspaper columnist whose children were being assessed when starting at a private primary school in South Africa. The school weren't interested in the fact they could already read, but were concerned that they did badly in various tests of physical co-ordination. They were put in a remedial class so they could catch up with other children who'd spent their pre-school years playing instead of reading.

I am teaching my 3.5 year old to read as she is showing an interest and I want to encourage it.I could read before starting school. I remember going into my sister’s classroom, 3 years older than me, to chose my reading books when I was in my first year at school so 4/5.

I don’t see the harm if the child seems interested but equally I don’t think it matters to wait and support the school.

My son didn’t read til he started school. He learned quickly, loves books and is an excellent reader. He’s now in his last year of primary school. I’d really love to know what kind of advantage reading 6 months or so sooner would have had on him. I really doubt he could be any better a reader or lover of books than he already is.

A remedial class to develop their physical skills.

How many of you know what exact age your boss/your best mate/your child's teacher/your therapist/your GP first shat in a potty or wrote their name? And what the hell does it matter now? None.

Haha quite.

I think it’s fine to teach children to read if they’re displaying an interest but given they go to school to learn a variety of things why is it not ok for them to learn in school? If learning to read wasn’t one of the primary functions of early years schooling there wouldn’t be school reading schemes would there?

"Small children can recognise the shape of their name and simple words"

That's not reading any more than recognising the logo for McDonald's is...

OP, who taught you to read?

I suspect this thread was designed to annoy people.

For what it’s worth I don’t think children need to learn to read before 4. They start school young here anyway! My DD (3) attends nursery, we read together every day, she loves asking questions about the pictures of the story, makes up her own little stories. That’s more beneficial than learning phonics at this point I think (even if I understood them!).

My MIL is an early years teacher. She sees no benefit to teaching before school either- she encourages DD to learn to hold a pen, draw pictures etc but not write letters. I’m keener that she become proficient at dressing herself, washing herself and learning social skills at this age.

Lemonnaise I would go further and say that virtually none of the 6-7 year olds can read when they start school, in the countries that start school at that age.

I have many friends who think it's inhumane to teach a four year old to read 😊

Evelyn, at least it's true for my ds. He was able to access all the information he was interested and pursue it.

OP some parents are incapable. They are not functionally literate themselves. Some families have zero books in the house. I'm sure someone will mention learn from the back of a box of crispies or go to the library but for some families it just isn't going to happen.

I have many friends who think it's inhumane to teach a four year old to read

I imagine your friends would be horrified by this thread then, kids of 3 being taught toremember words by memory - not reading

But toughdecisions it isn't about being incapable, it is about it not being a good idea. We are an incredibly literate house, both my children have shelves of books, my eldest is a voracious reader and top stream for everything aged 14. My youngest is top table, was a free reader by 6 and had finished all the Rohld Dahl & David Walliams books by 7.

However, I didn't 'teach' them to read because, having many primary school teacher friends and having researched it myself I understood the consensus to be that it was not constructive. That is entirely different to having 'zero books in the house' and not reading to your kids is it not?

My DD could read fluently at 3.

I remain convinced it was because she was a late developer physically, she sat and looked at books for hours and was interested and asked me about letters etc.

It was never an issue at school - they simply provided her with reading books at her level and then guided her choices when she was a free reader at 6

"kids of 3 being taught to--remember words by memory"

Indeed, it's not reading. It's reciting. But not all of the children who can read though. Some of them actually work out decoding themselves, and with age appropriate comprehension.

But Irvine you said that he was just decoding, not reading with a real understanding of the text.

I admired you for being switched on to the difference - a friend of mine taught her DD to read at two and was in total denial about the fact that even by 4 her DD didn't understand what she read until it had been read back to her - so she wasn't gaining any understanding while occupied with the docoding. She read in a flat, unexpressive voice if handed an unseen text. Of course it was still a very clever party trick and she is an intelligent girl now many years later, but she wasn't really accessing much when decoding text at a precociously young age. Her mum was furious when her daughter's reception teacher put her somewhere in the middle of the reading scheme in reception rather than letting her be a free reader, just because she couldn't talk about what she'd read when faced with new to her text...

The UK has a 99% adult literacy rate.

"Literacy", in this case, does not have the "able to read" definition you seem to be implying:

Adult Literacy: definition: age 15 and over has completed five or more years of schooling

nothing about its effectiveness.