can early reading mean free private school?

[amidaiwish]

DD1 is 3.7 and has taught herself to read.

A friend told me to get an appt with the headmaster of our local private prep school (we are on the waiting list but have very little chance of getting in) and tell him that he will want her in his school as she is clearly very bright.

This seems very pushy and alien to me. However i don't want to let her down by not having the balls to do this.

Is it a crazy idea?
How should i approach it?

Not games every day, but they do have something outside every day unless it is actually hammering down. I think most schools round here are the same.

No advantage to specialist teaching? I think it is very useful to have a proper music teacher for music lessons, and language teachers for MFL (yes, even at 6 - research supports this).

Even if you don't use specialist teachers lower down the school, it is still very handy to have the specialist rooms.

You might not need any of these things if you favour the lowest common denominator, but they certainly have plenty of value.

i don't think so i could read at 2 and i couldn't get free private school

I don't favour the lowest common denominator - but I don't think that this term can be used, either mathematically or societally to cover over 90% of children. And I would rather my small child was taught by someone who was a specialist in teaching small children, rather than someone who was a subject specialist.

And TBH, I fail to see how a specialist geography room would benefit 6 year olds!

Because of new regulations about indy schools being registered charities most are offering scholarships/bursaries but they are awarded based on the results of entrance exams taken in Year 2 for entry in Year 3.

Reading early although it is an indication of a child being bright can't really be taken alone as all it says is thatthe child has been taught to ready by either a parent/nursery or pre-school.

don't think that a specialist geography room would be helpful, but a speciaist geography teacher might well be a good thing.

And I know that having a specialist science teacher is helpful to children in ks2.

'Lowest Common Denominator'

Only on this forum would I see this term applied to six year old children.

Reading at 3.7 was never unusual in the past. It isn't a recent phenomena. In fact, before the advent of TV, many children could do this.

I was born in 1965, and could read fluently by the time I started school. My father had already left home, and my mother never read to me. I taught myself (somehow), all of which goes to prove that hothousing is a nonsense.

Some kids can do some things earlier than others. In our society, those who can verbalize and/or read and write are deemed more intelligent. It's simply because these skills lie in the communicative sphere.

Einstein, unsurprisingly, was a very late talker!

I think Desiderata makes an interesting point. I was an early reader, but when I was 3 there wasn't, frankly, much else to do! We didn't have a television, but even if we had there was only an hour of so of children's programmes on.

MY children were later readers than I was, but they have lots entertainment options I didn't have. And they have lots skills that didn't even exist when I was their age - they can use computers, microwaves, playstations and so on.

You can question whether these skills are as "good" as reading, but, if I swallow my prejudice, I think they are. Our children are growing up in a different world - and will need a different skill set to live in it.

And I think that their (very monitored) television watching has given them a much wider general knowledge and a much broader world view than I had as a bookish child. Oh how it hurts to say that!!!

Not applying the term to children, coldtits, but to an education system. That's not quite as emotive though.

'2yrs8m with a reading age of 9+'

'Self taught?'

Slightly off-topic I know but I was struck by something Seeker said about TV. My DD2 would never watch it, I'm not exaggerating -she hated TV and seemed to view it as some kind of child torture no matter how many delightful videos I bought, how many children's TV shows I put on. I tried watching with her, I tried leaving her with something fantastically good or fun on while I did housework around her. No good. (must point out that my first DD was perfectly normal and enjoyed TV just like most children.)

DD2 was about 12 before she really took to watching TV, and I always felt her general knowledge and her 'wide view of the world' (as Seeker says) was not as good as her TV-watching mates'. They do pick up all sorts from TV, soak up little things about geography, current affairs, history and so on as these things do get passing references in many non-specifically educational progs.

Anyway, to the OP, it's probably all been covered by now but being able to read early, especially 'self-taught', could be an indicator of brightness and I'd certainly consider mentioning it in the hope of getting a boot up the waiting list as it's true that many private schools mysteriously seem to discover room for very clever children even when they are nominally over-subscribed.

I don't see the harm in calling the secretary and asking about scholarships (you don't HAVE to give your name).

Don't see the harm in making an appointment to see the head and letting the school know that your dd has taught herself to read, what reading level she seems to have and ask for some ADVICE on how best to take it from here in preparation for her starting school. How would they suggest/like to see you tackle it? Something like that.

I don't think I would put it quite the way your friend suggested though.

reading that again, tone sounds very weird and aggressive, sorry! Dunno why that came out that way. I mean just go ahead and ask, why not?

Bauble99- yep, now 2y9m and my teacher friend re-tested her with the Salford reading test and the Burt (sp) test, she came out with a reading age of 9yr5m....yes she can read those words but she doesn't understand them all. We think she comprehends around a Year 2 level.
She is self taught, she woke up one day (at 18months old) and just started asking us daily to write words for her....so we did and thought nothing more of it. Then we noticed she was reading her storybooks so we put that down to memorisation! One day in the library (just before she turned 2) she picked up an ORT book (level 5) and read it straight off, we knew then!! Around the same time she started writing short stories on Word...all very phonetic!
Reading (and maths) is such a small part of her day, thankfully she loves to swim, ride her bike, do playdoh, duplo, jigsaws, pretend, draw, play with her friends etc. We want to keep her a good all-rounder and so far, we are doing that! We are very child led in our approach to her.
Sorry, that was probably more info that you wanted, but I feel I have to justify that I have never flashcarded, hothoused, pushed etc, she is just a normal happy 2yr old that happens to be quite academic!

Try and see what they say. My second daughter could read at 3 and she did not get into her sister's school at 4+ despite them not being able to find a book hard enough she coudln't read it but she got into a slightly better school at 7+. She was an early reader because she sat still and concentrated. Her older sister never sat still and talked all the time. It was just the difference in their personalities.

Yours sounds very interested in books etc so a school might be impressed by that. Of the schools we know the scholarships tend to be at 11+ for those on very low income and not so much at primary level but ask. You can only be told no. There are also schemes like the Sutton Trust which will pay for a few years of prep school and then secondary because by 13+ some chidlren are too far behind in the state sector for common entrance exams so the only way to get the clever poor in is give them a few years of private education before the 13+ exams.

reading is a trick

like jumping

it's when it falls into place

nobody has ever been termed a genius because they can read

all children get the trick eventually

doing it earlier doesn't mean anything other than they did it I'm afraid

And children who don't get reading until they are 7 can be just as bright as those reading fluently by the time they get to reception

In terms of raw intelligence, probably not. in terms of the amount of books they would have been able to read in the intervening years between 3 and 7, then there is potbnatially a huge gap in knowledge. Which could of course have been filled through a variety of other means.

oh c'mon LadyMuck .. that's just rubbish .. a child between the age of 3 and 7 will accumulate more knowledge experientially than through Captain Underpants and Lemony Snicket

or are you saying that young pre-schoolers are reading encyclopaedias?

I think that my last sentence did indicate that there is more than one way of learning!? But I know loads of 5 and 6 year olds who mainly read non-fiction and seem to memorise various (sometimes random, often useless) facts that they have read. I have boys so it may be different with girls - ds1 has a large number of reference books that he reads, and his school reading book is often non-fiction. I don't think that later readers are necessarily less intelligent, but I suspect that until they are reading they will probably be lighter on a lot of factual knowledge in comparison to their better read peers. (Hence the differentation between intelligence and knowledge in my previous post).

Reading may be a "trick", but it is a skill which opens up an extremely powerful way of learning. I agree that early reading is not an indicator of huge intellect, but neither would I see it as inconsequential. I think that early readers can have some advantages, albeit relatively short-lived. I know ds2 is frustrated at not being able to read things by himself yet.

This is going to sound really reactionary and is nothing to do with the op but I didn't read properly til I was around seven, mainly due to a rare eye problem, but I made up for it very quickly and just skipped out all the peter and jane type stuff and moved straight in to proper novels.I became one of the top in my class. Not saying I'm a genius or anything, far from it, but I agree with Twiglett, it's a trick. A really good one, mind!

hey my 6 year old boy could tell you anything you want to know about crystals and minerals .. because that's his current passion

but there is a difference between the knack of reading and comprehension and retention abilities

I think we're both making the same point though .. it is a short-term thing that will make life outside school easier (although within the school the early reader may be bored in the early years as the rest of the class focus on gaining phonic and reading skills) .. and not a life-long sign of G&T

I hated not being able to read. I wrote backwards, too (very common for left-handers). Fortunately my infant teacher was very insightful and knew to put me onto really good books - realising it was nothing to do with my intelligence.