Learning to read before school - Why?

[BikeRunSki]

I really, really don;t want to start a fight, but I am genuinely curious as to the point of teaching a child to read before they start school. I know three people who have done this and this is what has happened:

1 - Child could read and write about 100 words, was bored and became disruptive. Went private after 2 terms of state primary school, where she could have more attention. Family sold house to afford this, is n doing so ironically moved out of catchmemt area of state primary that they had deliberately moved into.

2 - Similar situation. Reception class child now goes into Class 2 for reading time.

3 - 4 year old pushed by parents once he started school, now 5, reading books for 9 year olds. SENCO at hasn't a clue what to do with him. Very shy child anyway, tends to read "big books" by himself rather than join in rest of class.

I really can't see what any of these children have benefited from being advanced readers, and certianly inthe first two cases there is some degree of disruption to the child. I am clearly being naive as their parents all think it is great. Please could somebody explain?

(I couldn't read until I was 7 (due to hearing and speech difficulties as a younger child) but it didn't seem to hold me back.).

BTW DS is only 1, and no, he can't read.

DD could read before she started school, she went to a good nursery and was interested in learning. She wasn't bored in reception, they don't spend all their time learning to read in reception.
I purposely didn't my dc's to one of the local schools because they discouraged early reading. In fact they complained to our nursery that the children who came from our nursery were "too advanced"

DD3 learned to read at three by sitting beside me when I was helping DD2 with her reading. The only tricky bit was holding her back when she knew the word and DD2 didn't.
I didn't teach her on purpose, she just wanted to do it. I don't think she has ever been bored at school despite this.
DD1 I did teach before school, because she wanted to learn. By the time she turned six she was reading E Nesbit and Frances Hodgson Burnett. She wasn't bored either.
DD2 found learning to read a much harder process and was really 8 before she was totally fluent and it did make certain things a little harder for her at school.
So my experience is that early readers are actually at an advantage, not a disadvantage.

I don't really see why a child that can read should automatically be bored. A good teacher should be able to cope (using paired reading/independent reading and a mix of other strategies) and a bright child that can read also needs to learn to get on with things themselves to a degree. A sizeable minority of children can read when they start school (either self taught or taught) and if they can then they can amuse themselves (by reading) which is the key advantage to them - lots of children LOVE to be able to pick up and read a book when they want to rather than just when their parents have time/inclination to read to them.

Most of your examples seem like socialisation issues rather than academic ones to me. I doubt they were solely caused by ability to read.

I could read before school - my mother said she just pointed to each word as she read aloud and my school quickly worked this out and gave me appropriate reading material. I was reading Five Children and It (chosen for me by Mrs Cottam my redoubtable primary teacher) just like LadyGlencora's DD, and after that it was free choice from the school library and the amazing, fantastical, wonderful world of books was all mine to lose myself in while others were Janet-and-John-ing.

That was in the 60s. Surely schools/teaching haven't changed so much for the worse that an early, able reader can't be accommodated without 'boredom' setting in?

Not read whole thread but my Mum taught my brother to read (she's a teacher) and I picked it all up too.

Never did me any harm at all - one benefit was having a very advanced reading age all through school and that probably helped me to do v well at A levels and university as I chose essay-based subjects.

I could read too. I don't remember being explicitly taught, I think I just picked it up.

I think the only disadvantage is that you don't really learn how to learn until much later: you become so used to twiddling your thumbs and waiting for your peers to catch up that you do become lazy.

Having said that I will try and teach DD before she starts school - books are too nice to have to restrict them if she shows an interest before then.

I used to read a lot to DD1 and she did pick up reading before starting school. Maybe I should have left her in front of the tv instead?

Even if the school could not have accomodated her, there are still libraries arround to find things that are more chalenging but yet ok for young readers.

Reading is a fantastic skill, why wait if the child shows interest?

I never actually though people learnt to read FOR school, but rather because it it a pleasurable way of passing the time/learning things, regardless of how old they are.

I wonder how you're supposed to stop a keen-to-read child from picking up reading. While it's generally true that most DC learn to read sometime between the ages of 4 and 7 and it doesn't necessarly make much difference to the ultimate outcome whether they start early or late, there does sometimes seem to be this attitude that if your child does something early or seems to be - oh NO! - clever then you're supposed to suppress it, shut up about it and teach your child to shut up about it, for fear of 'not fitting in with the morons'.

One of the things a good school does well is differentiation - teaching each child according to their abilities. (It's a good question to ask when you're looking at a school - how do you differentiate for children of varying abilities) Some teachers are better at it than others - at the infant school my two went to, one of the reception/Year 1 teachers (the one DD had) took every child back to the beginning, the other (DS's) let them read at their own level. Luckily this suited my two perfectly, as DS was reading fluently before he went to school - not because of any 'pushing' from me, but because he saw his older cousin reading when he stayed with us one half term and wanted to do it too. My sister gave me the Ladybird scheme books DN had learnt with & DS romped through them in about a week.
DD on the other hand was never interested in reading (though she loved being read to)and was even a bit apprehensive about it - possibly because DS, in the way of older brothers, had told her how hard it was - so her teachers approach was good for her - I hate to think how DS would have got on being faced with single word to a page books again.

Fast forward about 15 years and their attitudes are still the same - DS reads for pleasure, DD hardly at all - but both have A grade English at A level. DD defies the common belief that to be a good writer, you have to read widely - I have no idea where she gets her writing skills from, but they are undeniably there.

I agree with snorkie. The problem is not the reading, it's the emotional/social development of the children and/or the quality of the teaching and/or the excessive weight the parents have put on that skill over and above any other that has caused them problems. I could read fluently when I went to school and don't remember being bored or disruptive in class. My ds1 can read fluently and it has been a great boon to him, as his rather low self esteem has been hugely improved by the realisation that he can do something his peers can't, rather than the boot always being on the other foot. To avoid him learning to read prior to school, I would have to have avoided reading to him.

In fact, I think that to say early reading causes problems is as crass as to say you should discourage your child from being too athletic prior to going to school, because he will only be bored in PE lessons. Some children actually get pleasure out of reading. Why prevent that? Not every child is the same and you can't force all children to be the same or to develop at the same rate, just because it makes them easier to teach.

Having said that, if the whole argument is over whether you should teach your unwilling child to read prior to starting school, then it stands to reason that you shouldn't, not because they will then be bored in school, but because you will put them off reading altogether.

Agree with the previous posters... I could read fluently before I started school (70s) and it was never a problem, and my DD could read fluently before she started school, and she has never had behavioural issues at school either. Bad behaviour is because the child is badly behaved, not just because they are bright.

I would do it, if my child was interested. I strongly believe in the work of educational psychologist Vygotsky, and his work would even suggest that if you had a child who was ready and wanting to learn to do something (such as reading) and the adults prevented them from doing this, then this could also be psychologically damaging to that child - possibly causing low self esteem in later adulthood.

If the child is ready and wanting to, then I think the responsible parent should use that window of opportunity to help them do something they want to do (reading) and that should happen at whatever age the child is ready to do this.

i don't think i'm you muddleduck... did you have a nancy drew fetish too?

DS could already read quite well by the time he started in nursery aged 3.4. I started to teach him, he picked it up really quickly, but when I asked if he could start the ORT books early I was told there wasn't much point as he could already read the easier ones, but the higher levels would be too hard

So he and I were both mildly annoyed when he was given a book when he started reception that had two words per page. Same school, so they were aware he could already read, but he still had to read books from the early levels. He had a reading age of 10.9 when he was 4.7. It wasn't until he was six that they accepted he could already read and let him choose whichever books he wanted.

It's not something I pushed him into, he started to ask what each letter was, then what each word said, and started sounding out words himself. I get the feeling his school would have much preferred him to have not learned beforehand.

That's a relief fluffles, was worried I might be posting under another name without noticing

The thing is any pre-schooler that goes to nursery or playgroup now will be inundated with "phonics" activities.

I haven't pushed either child, one of them didn't read until nearly 5 (in Reception), the other simply taught himself at 3.6 and I couldn't have stopped him. He was reading car number plates, shop signs, cereal packets...

BRS what sounds more dubious about your examples is how pushy the parents seem to have been, and how much pressure the children must have been under to live up to expectations. There are a lot more reasons than reading why a child might be disruptive. I wonder whether the cause and effect might not be as they seem?

Perhaps your child will surprise you by not fitting in with your preconceptions

My child will (I suspect) be reading CVC words within the next 6 -12 months, well before reaching Reception.

I haven't specifically taught her, but equally, if she has asked, I have answered. e.g What's that (pointing to writing)?, Whose letter is that? What is x's letter?

As far as I see it, trying to stop her reading would be like trying to stop her learning to crawl or walk. That innate desire and ability to learn, and the sheer determination to succeed.

If school can not cater for her needs when the time comes, I'll just get her into a school where she can flourish.

Sorry, but some kids just - in the right environment - pretty much teach themselves. I certainly didn't hothouse DS2 but he has just started reception at already 5 and taught himself to read. Having an older brother who does helped. As did Superwhy on telly .

My son could read way before school, but I never pushed him in any way,and he somehow taught himself, maybe because he saw me reading all the time. Now he just gets given a bit more advanced exercises in class, together with few other kids. On the other hand, in maths and science he's good but not a genius and I don't see how his ability to read early affected him adversely in any way.
On the other hand, if a kid doesn't show any inclination to read before starting school, I think it's silly of parents to make him learn. It's just putting pressure on a child to gratify your ego imho.

I could read when I was 3, apparently. (Mum swears she is not exaggerating..) DS cannot really read but can read simple CVC words at 4.02. Other children in his year vary from fluent/advanced to not being able to say their letter sounds.
Apparently one advantage is that I was a very well-behaved child able to sit quietly and read by myself for long periods......
I had no special treatment in school or at home apart from weekly trips to library and spending own pocket money on books. I don't remember being bored or understimulated in class-just worked to my own level Maybe it is not the reading so much as the parent's attitude to it???