@Hodan85
I'm of the belief the most children by around seven can read in some capacity, as appears to be the views of many. If he is a bright child, with no learning difficulties, then it stands to reason that he would be further ahead with reading in a normal school environment. Whether or not the parent has to follow a curriculum, it seems a shame that he's behind where he could be due to being home schooled.
(I know it's a zombie thread, but the subject is of interest, though the OP is probably long gone...)
Why do you think it's a shame, @Hodan85? I agree with the home ed parents who say that learning is a journey, not a race. So long as the child does acquire literacy before reaching adulthood, why does it matter when that happens?
I don't hold with the idea of being "ahead" or "behind" with academics any more than with babies learning to walk. It's only a competition if you make it one. Doing so doesn't serve children's needs well.
It's quite true that children at school who can't read well by late primary age do perform worse in the long run, statistically. But there's no evidence this is true of home educated kids. Unlike schoolchildren, they can escape the demoralising daily message that reading is too hard for them and that they are underperforming - a message which is likely to be self-fulfilling. Also, home ed kids who aren't early readers don't flounder in other subjects, because they can access the material in ways other than reading. As you'll see from my messages upthread, neither of my home ed kids was an early reader. Neither has found this to be a disadvantage in their education.
Even if you feel that it's very important for children to sit GCSEs aged exactly 16 (I don't), a seven year old has many years ahead of them in which to get to the necessary standard. What's the rush?