When should a child learn to read?

[Allyinoz]

I live in Australia, the system here is slowly slowly and very play based learning.

I was brought up in the UK and know a lot of people whose children are already being formally taught reading at age 4 etc.

Why is this the case? what are the arguments for and against?

I live in Australia and with the implementation of ACARA (in QLD), I have found with a preppie this year, that the slowly, slowly approach is a thing of the past.

DD is 5y3m, she could read (very basic readers before she started school - she was 4y7m when she started). She is now reading a level 12 - the expectation for prep here is a level 8 by the end of the year.

She brings a different reader home five days a week and has completed/knows the DOLCH 220 sight words (including the harder half). She is by no means the exception in the class, by midway through the year, there were no children who couldn't read.

The entire new curriculum places an entirely different set of values and reporting criteria for what was the traditionally play based prep year (same as reception in the UK). Our kids can write to 100, can count forwards and backwards in 2's to 30 and can write basic recount stories.

HTH

What are the DOLCH 220 sight words?

Sorry OP, just surious, can't answer your question as DS is only 3

curious, sorry

Hi Belina - they are high frequency words which children learn as sight words - www.dolchword.net/dolch-alphabetical-word-list.html

Oooh, what a question
theres research to say it's partly a development thing, but if you read together and the child gets the general idea from a very early age that these squiggles have meaning, which direction to read a word, be shown how to follow a line of text (tracking) then you're helping them to get the basic skill set together. There are plenty of debates about phonics/ synthetic phonics, systems and ways to learn. I'm sticking to reading as that was the question in the op, and writing is another set of skills entirely

Why should there be fireworks MrsS?

I guess it can be controversial. I have heard from a number of sources that they favour the Scandinavian approach where a child doesn't start formal schooling until 7. I suppose my question is really about direct instruction versus play based learning. Why do some countries want to get on with it and others have a softly approach?

They definitely don't follow the Scandinavian approach - I am not sure where your sources are getting that from. QLD used to favour the play based approach to the Prep year, the result of which was that it was the lowest performing state. Cue the new national curriculum and the beginning of formal early years schooling and benchmarked expectations for the 1st year of schooling.

Children start school in the year the turn 5 if the turn 5 before 30th June.

Yes, a bit controversial and mucho debate. Everyone with a particular POV thinks They Are Right
IMHO even the theorists can't agree, the developmental psychologists vs behaviourists, and the learning / teaching styles around the world vary hugely - depending on which whim bit of research they're listening to at the time. Different things work in different places and there's honestly a cultural aspect bigger than anyone acknowledges, I think

My dd is in a strange uk school and was "fast tracked" into a class of year 1 (the academic year above her, far more structured) when she started school. Fwiw I don't think her reading is vastly better than the children who did the play-based reception year. Concentration, yes. Academic attainment - not hugely above her peers, well not a years worth.

iMoniker it is too simplified for you to say that the QLD test results are directly related to having a play based curriculum. Particularly when you would be hard pressed to find any research saying children benefit from more formalised instruction at an earlier age. Correlation does not imply causation. As fot the Scandinavian countries that start formal reading lessons at age 7- they have among the highest literacy rates in the world!

Play based doesn't have to mean that a child is not learning about letters & their sounds. An effective play based curriculum should be looking for teachable moments constantly and teaching a child man skills at the time that is appropriate for that individual child & related to their interest, not trying a one size fits all approach that only really suits the adult's need.

The main advantage for play is all learning is done in a fun & age appropriate way. This hopefully means that the child finds things like reading- exciting & fun, not a boring chore. If they think of it is fun & something that helps them learn what they want to know- they will want to know more & more about it.

There is plenty of time to create stress, failure & 'sit down & conform' opportunities in a person's life. By teaching through play, if we are effective, we can introduce a child to letters, introduce the concept of words, phonics and sentence structure, plus a multitude of things ALL AT THE SAME TIME. We can intrigue them and invite them to explore further, because they are self motivated to learn more. It is about creating a learning disposition that is more than just learning a finite set of skills.

From both a teacher & parent perspective I want a child to be excited about what they are learning, so that they want to continue to learn more- I want to teach them skills to access knowledge, to experiment, guess problem solve, create. That is what play is good for. Sitting them down & giving them a work sheet aka formal instruction teaches a very small & limited aspect of literacy.

beautifully put, TLA

Teacher. I wasn't commenting on whether or not the policy is right or wrong. I was just outlining the way it is. The OP's sources were ill-informed about the status quo, so I thought I was being helpful by letting her know what to expect.

It is well known that the release of the new National Curriculum in QLD is to address benchmarked deficiencies in literacy and numeracy levels of students in QLD vs other states in Australia. They underperformed and somebody decided that it was most likely to do with the fact that they used to start formal schooling a year later than other states who perform better.

I have no feeling either way on if it's the right or wrong approach. My child attends a state school - I cannot afford a private one, so I appreciate what I am given.

iMoniker- In your 'correction' you are making an incorrect correlation. By trying to connect low test results with a play based approach. Further to that you make it sound as though QLD has done away with play based learning with this "entire new curriculum places an entirely different set of values and reporting criteria"

I am not from Queensland, So I am basing this on the small bit of research I have just done- so feel free to correct me if my information is incorrect here as well. Quoting directly form the qsa.qld.edu.au website

"The guidelines are based on active learning for children through real-life situations, investigation and play."

Reading further into the guidelines "Teachers provide opportunities for children to participate in decision making about learning experiences" that teachers should create "flexible learning environments" "promoting integrated learning" (i.e Not a maths lesson, then reading, then science- but all at once as the child's interest dictates)

The 2011 review is an interesting read as it describes what we are experiencing in this thread "Play-based learning is subject to many different perceptions and interpretations that create tension around the term ―play and its use in the education context"

Importantly though the document still asserts a belief that "children are capable active learners who learn best through interacting, exploring and experimenting" and "In contemporary classrooms, play and learning are not oppositional; play is active learning"

So not just play based- but FREE PLAY (with skilled teachers planning, interacting and scaffolding the learning alongside the children in their room.) The very anti thesis of all formalised learning.

Obviously practitioners would still interpret a curriculum in their own way, but the vision here is that learning & teaching for this age, for this 'prep year' is that it should still be play based.

As I have said before though, 'play based' does not mean kids running around doing whatever they like. QLD has recognised that play is the most valuable tool for teaching children everything they need to know at this age. Including site words, phonics, numbers etc... They have just sharpened the expectation of adult's role in that play.

I am not correcting anything - merely stating the facts!!

I guess what I am saying- is that you are not stating facts.

You stated " the slowly, slowly approach is a thing of the past." and "the entire new curriculum places an entirely different set of values and reporting criteria for what was the traditionally play based prep year"

Your understanding of the review of the curriculum does not reflect what the document actually says. They still support following an individual child's interests and learning pace. They support learning through play and no where in there does it state that they will be introducing formalised teaching instruction.

To the OP- , in the UK (where I teach currently-I was previously teaching in NZ) they begin introducing literacy concepts at age 4, but it is still in a play based approach (EYFS) Through singing, songs, games. As the children get older they gradually introduce more formal instruction. The arguments for a play based approach to every aspect of learning is so that children are learning about everything all of the time, and at the time most appropriate for them.

For example- a child might love the home corner and playing 'Mums'. So the most appropriate introduction to literacy teaching for her might start with adding a phone and notebook, a calendar & pencils, adding books to read her baby stories.
We might change the home corner into a hospital for a few days, add prescription pads and hospital signs. We might create a shop and ask her for help to make price tags and money, information about what we sell. The resources help create 'teachable moments' then as the adults observe how she uses them they scaffold her learning as she uses it. Providing enough support to allow her to make some discoveries independently, giving enough information and feedback to spark further interest or achieve something exciting. "Thanks for making the sign for our shop Sophie- Mary & Jo come to our shop, Sophie has made the sign that tells us we are open" So not only is it teaching her about literacy, she will have opportunity to use her imagination, develop social skills, potentially math concepts and independence.

Next time Sophie is in a shop with her Mum she might spot a sign that says open/closed. So the journey to becoming a competent reader begins.

vs

Formalised learning which might consist of plenty of sitting still, being quiet, following what the adult wants to do, rote learning, repeating sounds or completing worksheets. Some of limitations of this approach is that it has no context, it assumes all children learn the same thing at the same time in the same way, they are only learning one concept at a time, and most importantly it is BORING (not many children rush to the table for worksheet time)- so it is creating an unnecessary hurdle between the child & learning. If we want to raise robots or factory workers then the earlier the better for this approach. However most people want happy, self motivated learners who can think critically, communicate effectively, make friends and are literate.