AIBU RE teaching babies to read

[Graut]

Sparked by a discussion on a FB group I am in for parents of bilingual children.

Someone was talking about how her 20-month-old was reading in two languages and my first instinct was a mixture of a) scepticism and b) feeling sorry for the poor little boy to have been hot-housed in that way.

But some of her arguments reminded me that I've been criticised as a parent for taking our babies to baby swimming (should 'let them be babies' and not try to 'force their development' and what have you). I've always felt that baby swimming is just something that some babies enjoy and if it helps their physical development then all the better (note that the babies in our classes are not actually learning to swim, it's just kind of like baby gym in the water with lots of singing etc). I found it annoying and unjustified when people accused me of being competitive about my kid's development or of pushing them when as I saw it, we were all just having fun.

This mother said her baby enjoyed learning to read and why delay learning for no reason. I still strongly think that earlier is not 'better' when it comes to reading and have no intention of trying to teach my baby (or indeed my 3 yr old) to read, but WIBU to negatively judge the practice of teaching babies to read? Am I just underestimating babies to think that they shouldn't be reading?

My 18 month old is on the slightly high end of normal for speech as she has 100s of words she uses in basic sentences. If she teaches herself to read or asks to be taught then I will work with her, but otherwise reading can wait until school, despite me having no doubt that she could easily learn now. Vocabulary and understanding are more important than rote recognition.

I saw something years ago long before I even thought of myself as a mother that's stayed with me about it curbing the imagination to hothouse a toddler... The example give was should a toddler see a t and see the letter, or should a toddler see a t and think it looks like a man wearing a big hat? What's more beneficial in the long run, reaching an arbitrary milestone or flexing the imagination?

We read together every day, probably 5-15 books a day at her request so we'll see where her interest takes us. I like to think that these early years are about teaching her how to explore, think and learn- ie the process rather than focusing on the outcome.

People do advance some odd arguments against it.

"They'll be bored in school": if they have the capability to read at 2, they will likely be bored in the reading aspects of school anyway without significant differentiation. There are still other aspects of school not to be bored in. Maybe it shouldn't be the case but our experience has been attainment is more obvious and more likely to attract differentiation than potential to learn fast.

Reading hurts the imagination? Really? Free access to thousands of imaginary worlds to play in, hurts the imagination? Not our experience let's just say.

I was reading, properly, at 3. I certainly knew my letters at 2 (I was given a magnetic easel/blackboard for my second birthday and used to put the magnetic letters in order).

I do have a wide vocabulary now, but there is a ceiling effect! Once you can read, you can read. It doesn’t matter whether that occurs at 2 or 6. If it’s significantly later than your school cohort, it matters insofar as you will miss out on teaching. But the actual age doesn’t matter.

Being read to and reading has helped my sons imagination no end. As for being less bored if you have the potential to learn fast, then it would depend on the school. If you can get complex concepts after one or two repetitions then there is a high likelihood that you will be bored at school when the average child needs 8-15.
Also a child that learns fast may well start to self teach concepts before even the parent or teacher is aware.

I could read fluently just after two. My mum loves to show a home video of me reading aloud a newspaper to her stunned friends and family. I ended up being brilliant all through the primary years only to hit university, discover alcohol and boys and fall stunningly quickly into medicocrity where I’ve remained ever since. But yes, some toddlers can read. Their brains just make sense of it quickly in the same way some can play instruments or do math.

My daughters could properly read by 4. Before that they could remember a story using visual clues and they knew their letters by about 3. 2 seems early but quite possible.

It’s a fact that bi/multi lingual children acquire language later than those learning one language.

as the mother of a bilingual child I can tell you it isn't a fact. OP my answer to those kind of boasts are 'good for you and him/her'. Reading at 2 doesn't make one cleverer or happier!

Kids that enjoy sitting and reading will sit with you and read. This is my DD. With my DS I tried to have the same quiet sitting and reading time when he was a baby and he would push the book away like it annoyed him. He didn’t learn to love to read until he was 6. I would say I created a ‘program’ for my DD. I made games out of making words but she enjoyed it so much, how could I not? If you had a child that can play football at a young age better than her peers, wouldn’t you take her out to play more often and find ways to develop her skills? Intellectual ability gets people’s hackles up for some reason.

My cousin taught herself to read at age 3. Had anyone supported her she might well have been able to read at age 2. She was however a genius. Massively ahead at school, tipped to do great things. Sadly she died in her teens so no-one ever found what she was really capable of.

It is possible this kid can read, fairly unlikely but possible.

I began "reading" letters just before 2 from watching Sesame Street. I opened a book, pointed at a letter, identified it, and then said "two Ms". Being the youngest, there were lots of books in the house and I was reading Peter and Janes at 2. I remember reading a new book at 3. Starting school at 4, I had the reading age of an 8 yo and books had to be brought over from the juniors. Over time, everyone else caught up

It's good to give children opportunities to learn a variety of things. Mine have started off with a good book collection that they've always enjoyed looking at, but they haven't been ready to read until around the school starting age. Likewise we've done the swimming lessons of games and rhymes before the more formal technique from 4.

The issue with hot housing is when a child feels pressured and learning isn't fun. Flash cards would have been a totally wasted effort on DS1 as he couldn't even have seen the words clearly. Recognition without comprehension is a bit of an empty trick.

Two year olds can’t read, they can repeat words that have been drummed into them but they can’t read a sentence and have an understanding of what that means.

Some of us could read at 2, Mousefunky. I was the child who sat in a corner at Playgroup in the grotty village hall, reading the books rather than being barged by the other children. My mother remembers one of the playleaders saying 'Ah bless her, pretending to read!' and wondering whether to mention that she'd just taught me to STOP DOING IT OUT LOUD FOR PITY'S SAKE. (I can still remember the revelation that it was possible to read in your head and the words still worked!)

My parents were primary school teachers, and had been teaching my rising-4-year-old brother (2 years older). There was no drumming involved.

My parents never found out when I learnt to read. I used to love my books, and still do. I obviously learnt what pictures the letters made, but by the time I went to school I was well ahead of the others, and my teacher reported at parents evening goose never uses a short word if a long one will do

Op don't pressure your dc if they don't want to and are not interested. Instead read to them, and have books available. Some will be more advanced than others, but it sounds like those who are, were child led, not hothoused.

Funnily enough mousefunky, the two year olds you happen to have met are not a complete representation of the full span of human potential. A small minority of toddlers can read and comprehend simple unseen sentences and short books before they turn three, and a rare few can do the same before they turn two.

Obviously there are a disproportionate number of early reading anecdotes on this thread because that’s what it’s about - they’re not representative of frequency but neither are they all liars.

You're wrong, Mouse.