Early proficiency in reading--a cautionary note

[abride]

I read a lot of posts about reading levels and there does seem to be some anxiety about them. I hope what I'm going to post might be of interest. And might reassure some people who are anxious about children taking longer to get to various levels in reading schemes.

Both my children learned to read with ease. We barely needed the phonics system, they just read the books. Both of them went through the levels speedily. Both scored very highly for literacy throughout primary school.

My son is 13 now. He struggles with English literature, despite being academically bright in most areas and despite the fact that we are a bookish family and there is a lot of reading talk going on here: I am an author and also studied English literature at a highly-regarded university. I always assumed that my children would find writing about texts came naturally, especially as they'd found reading so easy.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

So don't worry too much if your children don't seem to be keeping up with the bright sparks. Time will tell. Your slower reader aged six could well outpace the fast and bright reader who's shooting through the levels. When he's 13 he might be the pupil his English teacher loves because he writes such insightful and mature essays. Being a good reader is about far, far more than how quickly you progressed through the ORT aged six.

Reading and reading comprehension are two different things.

Re Milly R's point on the emphasis on literature it's true, as that's what the exam boards proscribe.

The vast majority of pupils in English schools do both English and English Literature for GCSE, two separate GCSEs. However, the govt/exam boards feared that it was possible to get a GCSE English pass (the crucial one in the stats) without studying any literature and so threw a great chunk in.

Most schools do their best to double up on the coursework to avoid lit overload, but 3 out of the 5 pieces are lit based and are the time consuming to teach. There is then two separate lots of poetry and another whole text for examination.

Agree with Milly, they are totally different skills.

I read at 2 1/2 (which is a reflection of how much spare time my mother had, rather than any inate talent on my part), and got an A in Eng Lit at O level.

Just thought I'd add that I am not against the teaching of English Literature! My eldest child is in KS3 so I haven't experienced GCSE English Literature. I think it is important to appreciate it and will want DS to do his best.

I just think that for most people reading is essential because we want to understand the bus timetable, read a manual to fix a car, fill in a job application or understand a medical or legal textbook.

Treating reading in KS1 as being about the analysis of fictional texts is like asking someone to explain what the Mona Lisa 'means' as part of carrying out a sight test in an opticians.

it is an interesting area. dd learned to read early (age 2 for picking out words untaught )and at 5 read The Lion The Witch and the Wardrobe. She could clearly follow the story.

At the age of 10 she reads constantly and is a very fast reader. On comprehension, she can quickly recount the factual side but her sub-text understanding is much closer to average and she gets upset as to why she isn't 'good' at it. It seems her area is far more maths/science based (which is understandable given they are mine and dhs areas.)

i think the OP has confused being good at reading and getting something out of what you read...and the ability to talk and write about it afterwards.

english lit is all about demonstrating the latter - wheras reading ability is demonstrated in the former.

so raeding early is no indication that you'll be the future book reviewer for the guardian - so what? You may still get to enjoy a huge number of books along the way, and the more so from having learned to read earlier.

Yes, a love of literature and an ability to read are two completely different things. Early reading is about an early ability to crack a visual code; plenty of early readers have little interest later in fiction or in creative writing. They might however use their reading to further their knowledge of physics or maths or computer programming.

My brother, for example, was a very early self-taught reader but was fairly average later at literature and creative writing (B in O-level); he excelled at maths and science. He read early because he had good logical problem-solving skills, not because he had an interest in poetry.

The OP's son is clearly a bright boy and his early reading suggests a of generally high intelligence, rather than a love of literature.

Good point EdgarAllen, but ime reading early is also no guarantee that you will read a greater number of books in the long runs.

Dd was a slow reader by English standards (didn't twig until she was 5/6), while many of her friends read as 3-4 yos. But once she got going she picked up speed very quickly and by the time they got to Yr 6 had read far more than her friends and was a much faster reader as well. At 13 she has read everything in the school library, all the well known children's/teen writers, but has also read more Victorian novels than I have, and I did English at university. When it comes to the number of books read, her early reading friends certainly don't seem to hold any advantage over her.

The OPs point, as I read it, is that it may not matter that much in the long run how early you do something- it's the longterm that matters. I was a slow walker- but I've got pretty good at it later in life.

I agree with the OP - learning to read is much more than how quickly you can get through the ORT.

I am pretty sure there is a fair bit of evidence that by the end of primary the early readers have lost their advantage, in much the same way that by 5 early walkers aren't better walkers than those who started much later.

It is also about comprehension - I remember when DS2 was in Yr 2 and he had made great progress with his reading. His teacher did say that those had raced ahead of him in the early stages often read well but didn't have the level of comprehension that he had, even though he got off to a slow start. They could decode the words but that didn't necessarily mean that they understood what they were reading. Of course that doesn't apply to all early readers but reading is more than just understanding and being able to read the words. It is about getting meaning from the text as a whole and that can be lacking in some in the early years.

I think people are getting too hung up on English Literature. The OP did mention it but she did start off by saying that she assumed her children would find writing about texts easy but texts could mean any subject really, not just fiction. Getting meaning from texts matters just as much in history or the sciences for example.

Niecie, if the only books that teachers in KS1 use to test understanding of the text are fictional books, then it is not a fair test of being able to understand texts in general.

It holds back children who are not that good at grasping meaning in fiction, which has nothing to do with reading. DS could be asked about understanding of a fictional TV show and do badly, or a science themed TV show and do well.

The OP was clearly talking about English Literature, as she said her son was doing well in Science, which is now based very much on reading from text books.

Sorry, I meant a tv show that contained a fictional story; I did not mean a tv show that did not exist!

Going back to the original post, I think it was very generous of abride to write that. So many of the posts around reading on mn are skewed towards early readers and v high ORT levels etc that I think we can all lose sight of what reading really means. I know I'm rubbish at getting ds aged 5 to comprehend as I'm so busy pushing him onto a wordier book and it means I'm worse than useless at actually helping him.

Are the only texts used to test at KS1 fictional? I don't know about that. ORT, for example, has non-fiction titles and about 50% of what my DS2 brings home (Yr 1) is non-fiction.

DS1 in YR 5 has to read all sorts of books for literary - they have a check list of different styles of books they need to read during the course of the year so that they are able to read anything with confidence and understanding. Comprehension texts in litrary are not all fiction. Surely all schools do this?

Btw, where does it say that abride's DS is good at science? I have scanned and rescanned the thread and I can't see it and I am worried I have missed something important.

How very interesting. DD1 read very fluently, very early, achived level 5 in reading and writing at the end of KS2. At age 13 she also now has problems with the analysis of texts in her English Literature classes.

SHe remains very good at creative writing but can't put an critical essay about the texts they are reading to save her life!

At Dcs primary they did have a lot of non fiction books but they never really used just one reading scheme and there were lots of different books to choose from, although for guided reading they used ORT.

As I said above DS 14 didn't click with reading until YR2. His comprehension skills for both non fiction and fiction are excellent. His teachers keep saying he must read a lot, but until he was 13 he had only read HP, although he did listen to story tapes. His teachers in yr7 were shocked when I said he doesn't hardly read, he likes magazines and books he can dip into but still I don't think of him reading that much.
At 13 he did start reading novels and now does like enjoy novels but he only really likes a certain type of book.
Even his latest science report comments on the fact that "he must read about the subject alot" but he doesn't! I just don't get it.

The frustrating thing is however good he is at discussing english literature and history or science he can't put that level of thought down on paper.

i wouldn't assume someone who is crap at eng lit doesn't enjoy or understand fiction - it is the ability to dissect and then explain why this or that is written in the work that makes you good at Eng Lit.

For me this is like analysing sex and asking questions like 'Why was the orgasm there..'

I love reading. hate lit crit.

'DD1 read very fluently, very early, achived level 5 in reading and writing at the end of KS2. At age 13 she also now has problems with the analysis of texts in her English Literature classes.'

Talking to another friend with a 13-year-old boy we are now wondering whether it's just an emotional maturity issue: their brains just haven't been wired up yet through hormones and life experience.

To clear something up: his English (and other) comprehension skills are very good--he's always found that part easy.

He's just been to Waterstones and spent £30 of his own money on novels and is curled up on the sofa happily reading. So really, what does it matter?

Niecie - no, all schools do NOT do that. That is my point! My children did not bring home any non-fiction in the whole of KS1.

Like Abride, my DS is very good at English comprehension, but he does not get fiction in the way that is needed for the study of English literature.

'Like Abride's son' was what I meant to write!

As an adult who reads very fast (skims), this is the way I enjoy reading novels. I cannot read them properly; it bores me. And I would say that I comprehend more than most people by reading this way.

However, if I really want to take in every bit of complex techical/scientific text for work, I have to read it properly.

So, I don't think it matters how people read/skim or comprehend books. If a child enjoys skimming through a book but doesn't comprehend all of it, does it matter? They will read something through carefully when they need to...

You can't make a child sit and read a novel thoroughly if they don't want to; that's an infringement their right to enjoy a book in the way that suits them.

In response to the original thread; I was actually quite a late reader but overtook everyone academically at a later age. (At school, at least)

And another thing!

My dd was a quick reader (and writer, and counter etc). BUT because she found everything easy she has not developed the knack of trying.

Now, at 10, she is defeated before she starts when something new is presented; or she just does the bare minimum - unless she's actually interested. If it isn't easy it's too hard, iyswim.

It is a mindset I am very worried about.

"We didnt put our kids on an intensive walking program if they werent walking at 12months so why panic with reading"

Love this quote. DH says his parents always moaned at him as a child because he read nothing but superhero comics, Asterix and Tintin. English language and literature degrees and 20+ years as a journalist later, he thinks his dad might just be ready to concede the point Consequently DH doesn?t mind whether DCs are reading Dickens, bus timetables or car manuals as he believes the act of reading is what matters, if that makes sense.

I read all the time, and very quickly, but have no interest in analysing the book after I?ve finished it in the way DH does. Much prefer to start reading the next book!

Agree with those who say that studying English Literature is a completely different thing from enjoying reading. They might go together, but not necessarily. However the former is a skill which DCs need to acquire if they are to do well in GCSE/A level English.

Jux, that's an interesting point. I recently taught a fantastic class of very bright young people, mostly on the G&T register, all very motivated and keen on learning. Many opted to take the subject into years 10 and 11. Then I started to present some more challenging work and as a group, most of them just couldn't hack it!! Some of them even changed their option to their other language. I was baffled for a while and quite disappointed. Then it crossed my mind that just maybe they weren't used to being challenged quite so much! They had found education relatively easy and weren't used to having to puzzle things out; getting things wrong etc.

I see some of these traits in DS1 and am so much more aware now. So I think it is worth trying some more challenging activities with your DD - be it within 'education' or other skills like knitting!!

Thank you Tinuviel. That's a good idea. DD is very like that (and is on the G&T register, too). I have been in despair about what to do about her. I'd tried piano lessons because she really wanted them, but they required work and self-discipline and once she realised that she absolutely refused to continue.

Actually she insisted on playing everything with only one finger; I think it was a creative 'dumb insolence'. Even her teacher - very experienced - couldn't get round her in any way! I must admit that, privately, I found her form of rebellion highly amusing.

She loves art and needlework. She has her own way of doing things and will not learn the 'right' way; I do sympathise, but in dressmaking for instance, you do need to know how to lay out a paper pattern and cut it out etc; apparently dd doesn't need to!

Knitting, hmmmm. She hasn't learnt to do that and I used to knit a lot, and crochet. I shall look out my needles and hooks.

(OP, sorry for hi-jack).

''Obviously many scientists, engineers, designers etc etc will be able to read fluently but their real high level skill may more in non verbal reasoning, visual, measurable factual and rational actiivites, and their interest in, and ability to analyse text would not necessarily be very high.

I know there are many scientists/engineers etc that could also analyse text before someone shoots me I'm just trying to demonstrate that high level comprehension is about a particular way of thinking rather than being a 'good reader.'''

As an engineer, I am very willing to 'shoot' you. I've always been good at analysing text and am still very proud of my amazing essay on Tess of the D'Ubervilles. Why I was so into Thomas Hardy when 14 I have no idea...it's all deeply depressing. Thomas Hardy, that is.