Under-seven 'too young' to read?

[Vale]

According to world learning expert Lilian Katz, if children are pushed into reading too early, form an impression of themselves as inept. Boys particularly!

I disagree with that.

I think it depends on the method you choose, for instance Glen Doman method is perfect for young children.

According to this method you should introduce reading as a game. Children have fun, they are not tested or forced to read when they do not wish to.

All the books in the world won't help a child where reading hasn't clicked. My DS really didn't click until he was 7 and caught up all the children that were reading fluently in reception.
Saw a really interesting New Zealand programme on dyslexia the other day. It showed that dyslexics don't use the part of the brain responsible for word recognition on the the left hand side of the brain and compensate by using the right hand side.

So The Glen Domain flash card system wouldn't help with a child like that anyway. My DH was taught a word recognition system called Look and Say and he didn't learn to read until he was over 10 once they started teaching phonics.
Reading by word recognition isn't really reading anyway as if you come across a new word , you can't decode it.

My DD was completely different from DS and just absorbed reading with no problems.

One of the other problems with english is it takes on average about 18 months for an english child to learn to read and write , whereas an Italian child for example takes less than 6 months, because there are less irregularities.

popsycal, I just mean to say that just because there are some 4 year olds who have learned to read withing the English system, doesn't mean that it is the best system.

People like to cite their own DCs reading ability, or enjoyment of reading as evidence of a good education system.

My point is that one child, or even a few children cannot represent the majority, and that just because some children cope, and some even appear to flourish, this doesn't mean there isn't a far better way.

I did do the Doman flashcards with my first DD from the age of about 1 and it was great fun - a game that she loved. I know what the poster who says 'it's not real reading, just recognising pictures' but it's not quite as bad as that - you were supposed to point to some body part, and then the baby would find the word 'toes' or pat its head or whatever, thereby proving? it associated the word with its meaning. No doubt it was a bit pushy of me to take pride in her knack for it (as I did) but don't worry, I had grown out of it or had less time for all that PFB stuff by the time I had DD2

DD1, my amazing reading baby, has grown up the more voracious reader with a huge love of books. DD2 is academically brighter, despite her 'slower' start at reading, yet does not enjoy reading for pleasure quite so much, thereby proving - well, absolutely nothing, no doubt!

I think it is good to encourage children to read when they are at a young age. I'm not sure how I feel about pushing them. Ours have all happily read before the age of 7, so it is not something to try to avoid, ime.

astrophe - Thanks for clarifying. I see what you are saying (bit slow on the uptake at the moment, I am )

If a child is lucky enough to have parents who reads to them and buy books for them, than that's OK. Good for them. Unfortunately, not all parents read to their children regularly and not all parents buy books for their children. According to a social worker friend of mine, she's been to quite a few households where there isn't a single book to be seen! In fact, there are households with little or no storage area for books, either bookshelves or cupboards, boxes etc. And not all parents take children to the library. Hence the need for pre-school or nursery to fill in that gap. I'm convinced this is why some children are way ahead of others when they start "formal" education. Pre-schools and nursery schools should be identifying those who do not have exposure to books at home and target them by giving these children "reading time". In fact, I would go as far as saying it should be compulsory. It's simply not fair to let these children miss out. It does place them at a distinct disadvantage by the age of 7. Common sense tell us that.

Nobody is saying that children should not be read to at nursery- of course they should! Or that they shouldn't have a literature rich environment with lots of print around them at nursery - of course they should! And if children are interested in letters and letter sounds, nobody is saying this interest shouldn't be nurtured and valued - of course it should!

But this is quite different to the kind of formal instuction that 4 year olds get in reception, and if the government has its way, it will be vastly different from the experience that even 3 and 4 year olds at nursery have

Myself and two of my younger brothers were Steiner educated, where formal teaching of reading and writing does not begin til the age of seven. IME, children 'catch up' with their peers in the state system by about the age of ten.

DD is 4.8 and is at Steiner kindergarten, but has previously spent a term in a state pre-school, and a year at a day nursery where she was encouraged to copy letters etc. She can write her name, and numbers 1-9, and recognise most letters, but has no real need to do so.

I do think children start formal education far too early, even at nursery at only three there is a lot of 'preparation' for school and it just seems too young to me.

Ten is too late!

mumofhelen, too late for what? Kids who start formal education later more than catch up with those formally educated from 4 (some studies show better long term outcomes). And on top of this, they have been given the time and resources to spend their childhood developing social, physical and emotional skills that can not be caught up on at a later time. I also believe they are more likely to really love learning for its own sake, as they have been given more freedom to follow their interests, and see learning as an end in itself, rather than a route to good exam results.

Too late for what? If the end result is a well educated child by the time they leave school, then what does it matter?

In most of continental Europe, schooling does not start until six (here).

This Telegraph article is waffle and poorly written.

"The long-term development of the majority of children is being harmed by them being forced to start school aged four, according to a study." - which study?

"Parents are coming under increasing pressure to enrol children early to make sure they get a place in the best schools, fuelling anxiety levels and damaging youngsters' self-esteem, it is claimed." - who's making this claim?

"Experts warned last night that the development risked damaging a generation of children who are "not being allowed to grow up" - which experts?

"Margaret Morrissey, of the National Confederation of Parent Teacher Associations" - are these the experts?

"Many small children aged four are barely out of their push chair when they are suddenly going to school." - push chair have a maximum load capacity of 15kg - the average weight of a 3 and 1/4 year old. Hardly "barely". And in any case, no-one forces anyone to send a 4 year old to school. The NEG can be used at playgroups, registered childminders or the child can stay at home or at relatives or with nanny. There are plenty of options.

"Children can no longer wander off and doze on a bean-bag if they are tired" - when has that EVER been the case?????

"The legal starting age for children is five". - correct. So what's all the fuss about 4 year olds then?

"But a study by the Times Educational Supplement shows most schools now only admit children in September to maximise Government grants. If a pupil starts in January or April schools do not get funding for them." - which schools are these? Have they published the names?

"An influential study by the National Foundation for Educational Research found that an early introduction to school can "increase anxiety and have a negative impact on children's self-esteem and motivation to learn" - what was the study's definition of 'early introduction to school'?

"Another study of 1,400 children in Glasgow found that boys who started at four-and-a-half were still at a disadvantage when they reached secondary school." 1,400 children???? out of a possible million odd. And why did they chose Glasgow? Some areas of Glasgow have other issues which often means that even if a lad started school later, he'd still be disadvantaged by secondary school. School is just another factor amongst many other factors.

"Britain is almost alone in Europe for having a compulsory school age of five, let alone four. Most countries do not start children until six." This is incorrect and the wording awful. "almost alone"? It's either alone or it's not. And as the article mentioned earlier, the legal starting age of 5. In fact, to be pedantic, you don't have to send your child to school at all. You have the option to home educate in this country (if you hate the system so much) which is an option that does not exist in countries, such as Germany.

Most countries do not start children until six. Most? No. Go to www.nfer.ac.uk/nfer/index.cfm?895B1835-C299-53CD-A8FB-0A1DEC8286BF

Only Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Iceland, Republic of Ireland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Norway, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey start at 6. Some start at 4 - Northern Ireland. Some start at 5 - England, Malta, Netherlands, Scotland, Wales. Some start at 7 - Bulgaria, Estonia, Finland, Lithuania, Sweden. And some have options: Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Luxembourg,Romania, Denmark, Latvia and poland.

Did you know the The Netherlands came top of a league table (the Unicef one) for child well-being across 21 industrialised countries? Guess what age they start school? Yes! At 5. Just like England. news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6360517.stm

If you really must quote an article, the following is more useful. www.literacytrust.org.uk/Database/earlydebate.html The first sentence says it all: There seems to be general agreement that early exposure to books helps children develop an interest in books and reading.

There's a lot more to this education lark than compulsory school starting age.

the Telegraph is always waffle!

mumofhelen, I think there are a few different arguements going on here, but I don't think anybody is saying that early exposure to books and reading isn't a good idea.

Why is 10 too late?

Because by 10 - I hope - a child can have some independence. In our society, you tend to achieve more if you can read: a child will need to make decisions.

1. An example is when eating out with friends at a restaurant. Not all restaurants menus have pictures of the dishes. If a 10 year can't read, they need someone who can read to help them make a choice and a decision. It doesn't have to be a restaurant - cinemas, playcentre, even schools dinning hall - all use the written word. They all require you to have the ability to read - even at 10.

2. For the 10 year old's own safety. Very often, safety warnings are in writing, whether at a park, playcentre - even on toys. All have safety advice and usage instructions, usually in writing. Pictures can be ambiguous - that's why most manufacturers prefer written warnings. If a 10 year old can't read, again he/she will need someone to read the warnings to him/her. This restricts a child's options of things to do and when to do them.

3. Reading is a form of communication. If a 10 year old can't read, he/she has one less method of communication - a fairly vital skill in fact. Some people from other countries and cultures don't necessarily understand the spoken word, but are able to read.

4. Watch any 10 year with an electronic gadget and you can see their excitement. Whether it's receiving messages by phone or e-mail, a 10 year old needs to be able to read. In this respect, 10 year olds inability to read can leave them open to social isolation.

5. In order to write, you need to be able to read what you've written in order to know and understand that it is correct. Are you saying that 10 year olds don't need to write either since they don't need to read?

6. How exactly are you going to teach a 10 year old that can't read? Can't use books, can't use worksheets. How can a teacher gauge what a child knows? In a class of 36 children, a teacher simply does not have the time to interview each child - one on one. Schools can not provide 6 hours of individual tuition every day of the week!

Basically, if a 10 year can't read, he/she can't make decisions for themselves. They will rely on someone who can read to help them make choices. Their independence is restricted. Their ability to think through choices are limited. Their opportunity to assimilate information in their own time is denied.

Trust me, in a competitive world, those who can read do have that edge. Reading is a skill that requires practice. Those who can read at 7, have a 3 year head start on those who only began to read at 10.

At the end, it's each to their own. If you are happy to allow your child to be illiterate at the age of 10 - then that's your choice. But please do not enforce this on everyone else by wanting it to be impose on a national level!

I don't think anyone on this thread is advocating illiteracy for ten year olds! Quite the reverse in fact.

I have already made the decision that if my son starts to struggle with reading etc I will home educate for a year or so until he is ready for formal learning. I have seen too many children (especially boys) learn that they are 'failures' in formal school situations.

That certainly looks like most countries in Europe starting school at 6 to me, mumofhelen. What am I missing?

I had no intention of enforcing illiteracy on everyone else's child. I was just curious to know why someone would seemingly write off a child because they couldn't read by the age of 10 and that it was too late somehow.
I do, however, agree that children at school may fall behind if they can't read by a certain age as the curriculum doesn't really allow for them to develop their skills at their own pace.

I would also like to add that I have no intention of enforcing illiteracy on any child including my own of course. It's not the end of the world though if it takes any of my children a bit longer to get to grips with reading than by some externally prescribed age.

mumofhelen - I don't see anyone suggesting that children should not be taught to read until they are ten. What I said was that in schools where formaal teaching does not begin until six/seven, the children catch up quickliy, so that by the age of ten (ie, in three years) they are reading at the same standard as children whose formal education began at four.

The list you gave of school starting ages seemed to show that out of 26 with an age given, 21 started at six/seven, and only 5 at four/five.

Nobody is advocating 'illiteracy' or withholding of books in the home. Its just the belief of many people that it is unnecessary for the formal teaching of reading and writing to begin at four, and may even be counterproductive.

I wish my dd to be able to enjoy her childhood and to learn through play, song, actions, copying those around her, seeing the world and having the time to stop and look at something when it takes her interest, etc, until she is six/seven. I have therefore chosen to send her to a Steiner kindergarten, and in Spring will be taking her travelling for a year. Her independence is not limited by that (in fact she is a very independent child), and she is not socially isolated. She is simply being given the chance to enjoy her early years without the pressure to 'succeed' just yet.

agree with stripymama

can see your point mumofhelen, that a child who isn't reading at, say 7 or 8, who is in the traditional state system would suffer. But this is a failing of the system, not the child, and means the system needs to change to accommodate different learning styles and individual 'time tables'.

On your point about 10 year olds using technology, I think that is just the sort of real life 'literature' that children should be exposed to - as well as books, newspapers, signs, magazines, recipes, instruction manuals etc etc.

These things are real literature with real meaning and are far more interesting and useful to children than "the fat cat sat on the mat" stories. And when children engage with real literature, they can see for themselves that reading is useful and are motivated to learn to read because it interests them, not because they will fail if they don't.

The countries where children start later are not taught in english! Countries that start later usually have very simple languages to learn which take a native months rather than years to read and write.
In american children start at 6 and are 2 years behind a student of the same age in other countries.
As a I said DS didn't learn to read until he was 10 and had to do most of his qualifications as an adult. He school life was wasted as he was a very intelligent man and was capable of so much more.

In Australia they start at 5-6 (depending on the state) and have a very high educational standard.

Whats more, children throughout Europe learn in their old language as well as learning English!

I'm sorry to hear about your DS christywhisty, but don't you think it was the systems failing (that your DS schooling was a waste because he couldn't read) and not your DS's? Why should children who learn to read later be made to feel like a failure?

Astrophe - my turn to agree with you!

If the system is one in which formal teaching does not start until later, then how/who will children be 'behind'? What about the immense benefits for the many children who are simply not ready at four, who are deemed to be 'failing' when all they need is a bit more time?

And I don't really care if dd is 'behind' other children for a few years, as I said before it is the end result that is important. My two younger brothers did not start learning to read or write until 6-7 - both have gone on to sixth form college, and one is now reading Classics at university. He has an A* at A-level in English and Spanish, and is learning Greek and Latin now - so his language development has not exactly suffered.

Regarding some children being classed 'failures' when al they need is a bit more time -

A friend of mine (in Australia) is a special needs teacher at a private primary school. The school introduced a policy that no child would be accepted into kindergarten (reception) until they were 5 year - and not a week earlier. My friends special needs group for year 1 and 2 fell from around 40 children to around 5 over the next 3 years!

Most of her 'special needs' kids were simply kids who hadn't been ready for school, and yet those poor souls were labeled as having learning difficulties and disabilities.

btw, I meant to say that children in Europe learn their first language, not their old language