Define 'reading' for me please

[1dilemma]

So we had the 'my child can read before he was 2' again today and it got me thinking. What do people mean when they say this. War and peace?. I would say it is able to say the letter sounds consistantly, sound out new words (simple ones) and string together both old and new in a simple story. Obv. don't have to be perfect. What does everyone else think? Any teachers out there, how many children can read before they start reception? Anyone aware of evidence that says that if you can read before 2 you are Einstein in waiting?
Thanks

i agree with you on what 'reading' is. I believe some folk say lo is 'reading' when what they're actually doing is remembering a story that mum has previously read to them. my ds did this v well before he was 2, but i'd never have said he was reading iyswim.

Hmm I think it must be a really tiny minority of children (like statistically irrelevent) who can read before they are two, because that actually means they can read when they are one - an age when lots of children are only just mastering talking, are not potty trained, not that great at using a spoon etc. I think reading means being able to read basic sentences which are pretty phonetically straight forward. That is when I said that DS could read. He was just turned 5. And had been in reception two terms. A year later he is fantastic.

But before he went to school he could "read" his own name, plus Asda, Next etc.

My dd is 4 years old and we have started looking at simple words like mat, cat, rat blah blah and would never say she can read

I once knew a boy at age 3 could write is own name, mum, fostercarers names and a few more words by heart, HE was very bright
L

Sorry was being a bit silly when I said 2 really it was pre-reception

It's just we're about to start school here and I'm just worried about what I'm getting into would like to be prepared!

1dilemma I think a few children can prereception but not as many as is claimed. DS certainly couldn't. But on his Y1 report he was above average in attainment for literacy. DD is 3 (just)and she hasn't a clue. I doubt she would even recognise her own name. She doesn't recognise any letters. DS recognised them all at this age from doing an alphabet puzzle repeatedly.

Reading means having an age appropriate book they have never seen before pput in front of them and they read it aloud to a disinterested witness! It also means being able to read road signs, cereal packets and embarassing words in newspaper headlines "What does sex mean, mummy?"
And the age when you can do this means absolutely nothing about future prospects, intelligence or 11+ suitability. It's just a circus trick if they can do it early. Early talking is the same. My dd could speak clearly and hold a conversation with a stranger at 10 months - she was a bit of a local celebrity - but she is now a averagely bright 11 year old.

However early reading is a really useful weapon in the Tarquinista army. The rest of us need to resist this with all the resources at our disposal.
Can you tell this is a subject close to my heart????

Good old ds! I'm happy not pushing it Richard Scarry is a big fave here right now! but then wobble occasionally

How sweet katelyle must have been great to see everyone's faces when she opened her mouth!

Same as Katelyle. Before they know all the sounds in the alphabet they do it by memory only.

Hmm, I remember sitting ds(4) at the time when he said Mum that man is reading a magazine about Golf.

I breathed a sigh of relief, thank god it wasnt something from the top shelf.

It was particularly sweet because she couldn't walk and looked like a cottage loaf in a dress. ~In anothe country she probably would have ended up as the dalai lama!

DD could recognise words early on ( at every one of them being film titles.... she still says S is for Shrek now!), but ONLY those words in the same way you recognise a picture of a cat as being a cat.

She promptly lost that ability and now can't even spot her own name from a mixture of B words

"It was particularly sweet because she couldn't walk and looked like a cottage loaf in a dress" pmsl

I remember being able to read pre-reception - (children's books obviously), but not because I was particulary bright, but because I loved reading (and still do). Also my mum was a primary teacher and I was PFB. My sister (child number 4) couldn't read pre-reception but was more ambitious (in a good way) and studious than me. Now that we are both grown up, she has a double degree and earns a cr*pload more than me

So I think early reading doesn't necessarily signify much except possibly a love of reading.

ds1 could read some words at 2. Unfortunately he can't speak aged 8. TBH I just keep away from anyone who thinks "my under 2 year old can read" is a conversation worth having.

My dd can read a little - she is 4 and at nursery. She knows all her inital sounds and can snthesise and segment them - so she can read short phonically regular words by sounding them out (and write simple ones too) and she is developing a good sight vocabulary - they tested her at nursery and she already has 34 of the 40 odd key words for reception. We haven't spent loads of time doing this - I mean I haven't hot housed her, forced her into reading constantly etc but rather have followed her interests with this - she is so very keen on the idea of reading. In fact I have resisted pushing it too much because I don't think it's necessary and can be counter productive.

I have read some research that says (and do firmly believe) that taking 2 children of the same ability - if one learns to read pre-school and the other learns to read at school - within 2 years there will be no difference between their reading abilities. I don't think that there is any academic advantage to learning to read before starting school and for some children it could be a real turn off.

katelyle... LOL at 'cottage loaf in a dress' and 'Tarquinista army' .

1dilemma... I agree with what everyone else has said. The school will assume NO knowledge whatsoever when she starts reception anyway, and ime (two dds, one just finishing reception, one in year 2) most of the kids won't be 'reading' at all at that stage. My two couldn't do much more than read their own names and recognise a few letters, but at 7 dd1 is now reading books for 9-11-year-olds [boast, preen ... no, not really... can feel katelyle and the Tarquinista army coming for me...]

I think 'reading' is that wonderful moment when they stop 'learning to read' and start 'reading to learn'.

So they stop reading books from nursery / school becasue they 'are expected to' and start reading other things like non fiction, road signs, comics etc because they want to learn and understand.

good pov spring bunny

Great definition, SB!

Hmm, interesting definitions of reading.

Ds1 - he could read his letters, and the first Peter and Jane book, but I wouldn't describe him as 'reading' before he started school. Now at the end of Yr1, and nearly 6, he's reading Horrid Henry in his head for fun, and can basically read anything.

Dd - she was a very early talker, and she CAN read I think - she is 3.9, starting reception in September, and she can sound words out, work them out. She can also do it the other way round, if you ask her to spell a simple word she can do that. She can read Level 2 and Level 3 ORT books. She also knows about 30 of the reception words.

This is just something she has done - when she has asked to 'do reading' we've done it, tried to make it very child led. She just likes 'literacy', as she can write as well. But there are other things she doesn't do so well, she is not so confident with numbers as ds1 was.

I could read before I went to school because my mum taught me, plus the professor in the uni dept she lectured in taught me. My mum said I had read Alice in Wonderland before starting reception . I have to say I was BORED BORED BORED in reception, and have tried not to put dd in that situation.

I hope that doesn't sound like 'bragging' - it's very difficult to explain what dd is doing, without it sounding like that, but honestly it's just something she happens to find easy! And I've seen with ds1 how they level out once they're at school.

Agree with tortoise that some children just do find the initial process of learning to read easier than others. dd2 has found it easier than dd1 did, but dd1 is now a fluent reader (though it didn't fully click for her till she was about 6.5)... so it does all 'come out in the wash'.

Agree with katylye
"Reading means having an age appropriate book they have never seen before put in front of them and they read it aloud to a disinterested witness!"
When DS1 picked up a book in the library a couple of weeks ago and started reading it out loud i knew that he'd cracked the reading thing. He's in reception. I listen to readers in his parallel reception class every week and whilst some of the children appear to 'read' a book from cover to cover, they have actually memorised it. Sounds very impressive but ask them to read words out of context or without the pictures and they can't do it. Its is all part of the learning to read process though.

if you look on youtube there are lots of videos of babies "reading". But they are not actually reading they are just recognising a shape and associating a word with it. Giving a new word they wouldn't know what it means.

DD could read before reception ie recgonise letters then put them together then make a word and was reading words like architecture at the age of 5.
However DS didn't really get reading until he was yr 2.
They both read as well as each other now.