Teaching your child before school has no impact

[mrz]

www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/7994612/Early-learning-at-home-has-no-impact.html
As a teacher I disagree what do you think?

I thought that how wealthy you were / gender / race was a better predictor of your exam results than your IQ. So I wonder if this study is just showing this again with a much younger age group?

I kind of agree with the study in that I spend almost no time teaching my youngest child and he is doing the best at school by far. And it doesn't matter how much work I do with my DD she never learns anything. So I wonder if it is also showing that?

mrz - do you really find that kids who start school knowing more are still doing the best at the end of reception? And if so, do you know that those children who entered knowing the most were actually taught the most? Or just picked it up because they were those kind of kids?

Well, I certainly don't think teaching your child to recite the alphabet has any impact on their reading ability in later life. And it's clear that children who pick up an instrument at about 7 will quickly reach the same level as those who started at 4 or 5.

So, I'd agree with what the study says - that spending time hothousing your child will not make a difference.

But being the kind of family where books are read, stories told, and music played will on average mean that your chldren will achieve well at school. So it's more about who you are in day-to-day life than what you consciously decide to do that makes the biggest difference.

Reading the quote from the expert towards the end of the article it seems that there is little difference between the frequency of home learning, ie no difference between home learning done once or twice a week or every day. I interpret this to mean that the frequency doesn't make much difference but that if its not done at all, then it would.

I think also that an able child will often find a way to find the resources. Or maybe I've been reading Matilda too much.....

I don't really understand how you could possibly spend any time with your child and not teach them things.

My DD is 2.4 and I'm always teaching her things and explaining the world to her.

She has known how to recite the alphabet since before she was 2 (although that is Elmo's to claim, not mine :o)

She can count, and knows all the letters and sometimes when she's drawing will randomly make a shape that looks like a W or a 3 and be very proud of herself.

The things she has learnt from me and from the books we read and the things I introduce her to have the impact of making her happy and interested in the world and proud of the stuff she can do.

Will it mean she is the best at the alphabet when she's 8? Presumably not. But unless you're a moron, that's not the impact you're going for.

I agree with the concept

playing, talking, singing with your child is more important than "teaching"

some parents think their role is to push early reading against a child's interest - if the child is interested and leading reading then encouragement is fine - but some parents I am aware of force pre-schoolers to "studey" for an hour a day

madness and counter-productive

involved parents lead to children doing well not teacher parents

"I think also that an able child will often find a way to find the resources. Or maybe I've been reading Matilda too much....."

Yes, you have. My Dad has taught in a very deprived inner city school for his entire career.

I was super-brainy in school, but always aware that there were kids in his school as clever as I who were going to leave school with few qualifications.

skidoodly - I wasn't talking about what children learn once they are at school, we were discussing what happens before.

I have noticed this in my children - a limited experience but all the same.....an interesting one.

I spent ages teaching my DD1 as she was my first; I did a lot less with my DS1 and hardly any early learning activities with DS2; yet so far they are all reaching similar milestones and have different interests and abilities anyway. I read a lot more with my DD1, for example, than with DS1, yet he is a bookworm.

I think wealth and parental aspiration have more to do with it than how much time you spend teaching your child the abc. If they are bright they can learn that in 10 minutes aged 4 anyway!

I'm somewhere in the middle on this to be honest.

I'm inclined to think that teaching pre schoolers to count to 100 and recite the alphabet is little more than a party trick. But I do think parental involvement plays a huge part in education.

I just personally prefer to direct it in other ways. Ds has just started reception and can only count to 12 and cannot recite the alphabet. He cannot read but knows most letters. He can only write his own name.

But he has a fantastic vocabulary and can use quite complicated words in context. He loves making his own story book (he dictates them to me then draws the pictures). He would have a good stab at explaining to you how a jet engine works and can tell you all the best places to look for insects .

He's got his whole infant school life to learn to read and write. I preferred to spend his pre school time finding out about the world in general rather than the alphabet. I agree with the comment about it being involved parents that count.

I know you were, and I was saying that those children, even though they were bright, didn't find their way to the resources.

marking my place to read later

I think children who have been taught nursery rhymes, counting rhymes and songs, are exposed to books (see adults reading and writing) and have a nightly bedtime story and are talked to have a big advantage when they start school. I don't think they need to be taught the alphabet or how to read or write in fact this can be a disadvantage for some children as they are fed up with it before they even get to school.

But there is an alphabet song, so knowing it is just like knowing any other rhyme. It's not something you get taught, it's just something you imbibe. Or not, if it's not a song you hear a lot.

Surely nobody actually sits down with pre-schooler and teaches them the alphabet? That would be weird. But they probably have letter magnets on the fridge and letters on blocks, and letters in books etc.

Actually I think it reads as if the headline misrepresents the thrust of the study - not that home learning has no effect at all, but that wealth and social status have much more effect. So even if I, as a graduate in a well-off household, don't consciously sit down and teach my child the alphabet, he'll still, at 5, have better outcomes in terms of academic and social skills than the child of more disadvantaged parents who may have been exposed to more formal learning.

This is from the TES article on the same report:

"Children with better educated mothers also displayed greater literacy and social skills. Children whose parents had degree-level qualifications were an average of six months ahead of their peers with less educated parents.

This remained true regardless of how often the wealthier or better-educated parents helped their children to learn, according to the research.

Parents with higher levels of education were better equipped to develop their children's academic interests, making connections between the curriculum and everyday experiences, Dr Hartas said.

"Educated parents are likely to interact with their children in different ways, and may be more resilient and resourceful when dealing with economic adversity."

Poorer parents cannot be expected to compensate with enthusiasm for their lack of education or financial resources, she added."

skidoodly - OK thats your experience. Not mine. My mother has been a teacher and EWO for over 40 years, working in a variety of areas.

She also has experience of many children hothoused from an early age by pushy parents who rebel and crack up.

Both extremes are sad.

lol just reread my post

thats the children who rebel and crack up not the parents....

Your experience tells you that all children who are bright find their way to the resources?

Doesn't that somewhat beg the question?

I agree tbh. I have had a similar experience to emy . My DS LOVES books( he isn't even 2 yet, but prefers books to cars, and will spend an hour on his own pouring over them!), despite me not reading to him as much as I did with DD.

My DD knew her colours, could count to 10, recite alphabet, from quite an early age. However she then had a long period of time where she didn't outwardly appear to have learnt anything new that was quantifiable IYSWIM .

She was in nursery class in school for a year, and they sent her home with books, flashcards, and encouraged phonics, but to no avail. Not interested in the slightest. Then in the past few weeks she has sussed the majority of the phonic sounds, and started wanting to try to read books (she's 4 btw), and has come on unbelievably fast. With some children it can't be rushed IMO.

skidoodly being able to sing the alphabet song doesn't mean a child knows the alphabet if they haven't got a concept of what the A- B- C relates to (can't link the words to letters /graphemes)

PMSL @ pushy parents rebelling and cracking up :o

Now that I would like to see.

I think that there is a difference between teaching specific skills and encouraging children to be learners.

A child who can recite the numbers to 20 and the letters of the alphabet like a robot at 3 who has been coached and pushed by their parents will probably be overtaken at school quite quickly. But the child who understands the properties of numbers and has an open mind to the world around them and so is ready to learn will absoloutely thrive in school.

I find the last line of the article very depressing though: "This suggests that a more settled family life and access to more expensive equipment had the biggest impact on children?s education." This seems so sad, to suggest that no matter what we do a disadvantaged child is destined to remain disadvantaged :(

mrz

I know that, you're right. But people were talking about "reciting" the alphabet as a party trick, which doesn't require knowing what the letters are.

I do remember as a child though that the rhyme gradually resolved itself into the letters (and when the word elemenoepee finally made sense to me :o).

I've seen the same with DD. She now understands that the song she has has been singing is all the names of the letters. She didn't used to know that, it was just sounds.

I doubt she has a notion what a grapheme is though :)

It should but doesn't howeverI am not surprised by this study. I think the bright children are not stimulated enough by EYFS so if a child is shows an interest in reading for example and a parent helps that child this generally isn't continued in reception. Therefore the levelling out begins early, then the cramming for KS1 sats begins.

no skidoodly - I said often. I mean they can see letters on cereal packets, they might watch tv, eg AlphaBlocks, I don't mean they have access to the Bodleian library.

I get lots of parents telling me their little darling knows their alphabet and numbers up to a hundred and can read War and Peace and ...
when what they mean is they can recite the lot but they could be doing it in Swahili for how much they understand