Reading in the infants, am I missing something?

[Cortina]

A child that is a fairly advanced reader in Y1 - ORT 8 or 9 for example - is probably reading at this level because they've had more practice at home than others.

I know there is more to it than decoding but a child will usually become familiar with all the other aspects (comprehension, expression etc) if they've had lots of time to figure it all out and an adult's support.

So apparent 'talent' at this stage is really only hidden practice? Someone said that their child taught themselves aged three but these children are clearly unusual. This is what made me think.

They all tend to catch up and we are out of the infants now but surely, generally speaking the more practice a child has the better they get? Or am I missing something? Am not sure it's widely seen this way.

Penguin that apparently can about due to a fixed mindset & years of being told you are clever (as I am sure you know). When you do eventually get out of your depth you can believe mistakenly you've reached your ability ceiling and are failing to living up to your billing. In other words you start to think you are not really bright after all. Being labeled bright isn't a positive thing.

Should have written 'apparently can come about' above, sorry.

Of course there are some who are naturally better at reading than others, just like there are people who are naturally better at sport than others, or maths or music. For the vast majority of kids they will fall into the middle range, but there will be a significant minority who find reading nigh on impossible due to visual/auditory processing problems and there will be some who are clearly just gifted readers and for whom it comes very naturally. In terms of my own DC one has struggled desperately and as with Indigo there has been no end of practice and the other is already picking it up faster in spite of being three years younger and having been read to a lot, but not taught to read as yet.

With me and my siblings our mother taught us all to read before we went to school - although she said it wasn't hard and we just absorbed it. We were all given the same level of input and practised similar amounts. Within this range of "good" readers there was one of us who was fairly exceptional as a child - Dickens in yr3 etc. Nothing would explain it apart from natural ability. All siblings successful professionals, but the exceptional reader is still the "reader" and still absorbs written information in a way others don't

I think you are trying to over simplify things, OP and I'm not quite sure where you are going with this.

I do know one 7 year old who is gifted at reading. Reading fluently in Reception, she is easily reading Dickens now. It's nothing to do with secret practicing, it's just how she is. She can read a list of words once, and spell them back perfectly. She just has that sort of memory.

Children like that do exist.

Sugartongue you say: Of course there are some who are naturally better at reading than others, just like there are people who are naturally better at sport than others, or maths or music. For the vast majority of kids they will fall into the middle range.

These things can change, that's the point, they are not set in stone. Often what many take for talent is IMO hidden practice. Many teachers I come across would privately agree with you and the danger is if we think like this we fall into cognitive bias/self fulfilling prophecy territory and children will never be able to surprise us. When I hear a teacher say something like 'he's one of my middle ability pupils' or something like that I hold my head in my hands in despair. OK, if you mean middle ability NOW etc but IME most tend to assume this is a permanent trait and we can tell this about a child when they are very young. This is what worries me about our NC tracking system. Our top maths sets are filled with the Kumon children and parents that value education highly the 'B isn't good enough' parents, their children have been doing worksheets since they were four years old in some cases. Are they all 'naturally better' mathematicians than other pupils? I don't think so.

From a recent study on primary maths: Rachel Marks has said 'ability segued with intelligence is seen as a fixed hereditary quality genetically determined and characterised by upper limits and a sense of inevitability'. Also 'teachers lack any model of cognition containing plasticity' Kovas et al (2008).

The most dangerous thing of all about your view Sugartongue is that it leads to a fixed mindset, why try if you can only go so far? Most of us can incrementally get smarter what's sad is that IMO not enough see it. I'm a big Carol Dweck fan and evangelic about her book Mindset. I've achieved more than I thought possible when I cast aside previously held convictions about my 'natural ability'. I think this pervasiveness regarding ability may be a British thing. Some of my non British friends think any 'average' child is capable of grade 8 at piano, for example some may have to work much harder than others but they'll get there I am not sure many British would think most could get to grade 8 piano or even grade 6 piano with very hard work as only a very small percentage would be inherently clever enough.

I agree Sittinginthesun, those are unusual children though. MrZ earlier in the thread agreed that practice boosts performance once the basics have been grasped, I've seen it make a significant difference.

DD started talking properly at 2, and that's when we realised she was reading. She was reading the headlines of the newspaper loudly when both me and DH actually realised she could read. We have not taught her, in fact poor dd hardly get our attention as we have a child with SN.

She is not hyperlexic, her comprehension is brilliant. We had the bumblebee alphabet DVD which we played a lot for DS, somehow she self taught herself to read. She has just started reception and been sent home with ORT level 4 books, although her reading age is lots higher, her teacher felt it would be good for her to learn to read with expressions. I would love to claim the credit for her reading, but the reality is she has been left to get on with it most of the time, while her brother needs every help we can give. I probably read one book a year to her as DS suffered from severe separation anxiety and I had to be the one staying with him. DD is 4.5 now.

I agree with the OP to some extent.

DS1, having just started Y1 is on white band. We read with him at home. Every day in the holidays, he read something. So he has had lots of practice. DS2, in Reception is on green band. He wanted to read and it clicked very fast. I think reading is a bit like music, in that 10 minutes practice every single day makes a hell of a lot of difference. I agree, that like music practice, the only days you should skip reading practice are the days that you skip eating. But if children are motivated to read, and don't need to be superglued to a chair to get them to do it, why not let them.

I think if I didn't read with the kids at home, they'd only be a couple of bands lower, so I think they'd still be ahead of the crowd.

I think I understand where you're coming from - you are unwilling to accept that some children are naturally good at reading, because you fear that it means that children who don't pick up reading quickly aren't intelligent. But that isn't the logical conclusion. A child who reads early and well, will be of above average intelligence. However, a child who struggles to learn to read might just as well be intelligent, but their strengths lie in other areas or they have a disability which is holding back their reading - not their other cognitive ability.

I just wonder what your bad experience is that means that you make assumptions about people's opinion that is not there. I don't believe that only early readers are clever, but I believe they are clever. It's a non sequitor to say that early readers are clever therefore late readers are not - and no one's said it. I of all people would not hold this view - my DS has struggled massively with reading, he's a veritable dunce with a book but his IQ puts him in the top 2%

I think you need to stop worrying about this one tbh

That must have been a real surprise, someoneouthere, wow. Children like your DD and others who have done this are relatively rare though. I fully acknowledge they exist my point is it's possible for a child who is cognitively ready & has been taught at home by a parent well versed in phonics perhaps, has had lots of practice etc to get to a very high level in Y1 in terms of the reading scheme but be no more 'naturally able' child much lower down the scheme who hasn't had same input at home.

Not worried sugartongue, more curious, although sometimes frustrated when I come across people, particularly teachers, who believe ability is set in stone for reasons I explained in an earlier lengthy PP.

You are incorrect about me being worried that children who don't pick up reading quickly will be seen as unintelligent.

Matthew Syed got me thinking some time back (google 'Bounce' if not familiar - be interested in your view), as did Guy Claxton after I read 'What's the Point of School' and some of his other research. It's an area that interests me greatly and one I believe Matthew Syed is going to investigate possibly in his next book (ability in primary schools).

I've also seem children who spend hours practising and make no progress whatsoever while children who never/rarely practise storm ahead effortlessly

My child read early (not certain when it happened but certainly before the age of 2) and well with amazing comprehension considering his favourite material was the NATo deployment data and the Financial Times and he is SEN.

I thought you were on my side with this mrz :). How do you know what's going on at home though?

Interestingly I was a Dad the other day who has a son who is gifted in maths. We were bowling, it was his son's party and he used the language of maths in all he did with the children. This Dad loves maths so this was all done in an entirely natural, not contrived way. He got the children to add up the scores, divide the pizzas, count as they walked. It made me realise the conversation at dinner and every weekend etc would be maths based. This Dad also loves astronomy and science. He invites my son over for impromptu science lessons with his son.

I rarely discuss maths :) and I suddenly realise how much beneficial this was and what incidental learning was going on in their family. There is absolute passion and conviction that 'maths is fun and simple' that shines out from the Dad, this has to rub off and will no doubt positively influence the son's performance in maths.

I can only take parents word for what happens in the home Cortina but I do know how much practise a child has in school and some children just fail to make progress even with many hours a week practise

Cognitive issues aside I wonder if a fixed mindset ever makes a difference? I wonder if a child believing they 'can't do' reading and find it difficult can block their learning and make them switch off? The mind is powerful. That maths boy I mentioned earlier will have started at school with a growth mindset and a feeling that concepts were well within his grasp.

I'm not sure about that either we have a child who has amazing belief in his reading ability (daily stops me to tell me he is the best reader in the school) and he reads at a very basic level.

Mmmm think you're making some big generalisations, Cortina.

Eg DH is very mathematical, talks about it in simple terms wrt cakes, sharing, time, change etc etc - it's not heavy stuff, honestly.

Neither DC are confident with maths at all.

Do you teach my son? How funny would that be. He may surprise you one day, I'm all for ambition.

Possibly AS Byatt but I think lots of incidental learning goes on at home.

my ds1 could read when he got to school, I never taught him how to read, but once he started school he never sounded a word out, and could just do it, same with spelling. we rarely practised at home apart from the reading book, and then he would read to himself.

DS2 is a completely different kettle of fish.
We had to practise, practise, practise and now he's 8 he's still not what I would call completely fluent, same with spellings, we practise loads, but it still takes him a long time forever to get them right, and he really isn't a good speller at all.

I will be interested to see what his cat scores are at the end of the year.

Cortina, I've just been reading the Bounce book, and I can see where you are coming from with that.

But I think Syed does oversimplify things a bit. To give you one slightly glib example, I am never ever going to be a ballerina, even if I had practiced since age 4, as I have a size G bust. So here are some physical limitations - and I also suspect there may be mental ones too. I did maths up to Further Maths A level, but then hit my limit. I practiced and practiced, but I was still not as good as the boy who got the Oxbridge Maths scholarship. And it felt like I had hit a mental wall.

More subtly, I think that having an aptitude at something gives an incentive for practice - either because it is fun or the praise is rewarding. It becomes a virtuous circle. All of which is another reason I never became a ballerina; I was quite comedic in a tutu.

Syed says you need the basic hardware but beyond that it's all in your head. Have you seen the webchat on here with him? Some good questions asked to get him to clarify a few points. Not sure how to link to it but a search should bring it up. I believe we can do more that we know and sometimes a fixed mindset really limits people.

Cortina I doubt he is your son unless you are in the habit of staying in bed all day and not sending him to school - in three years of school he has attended the equivalent of 4 terms

interesting you see it as a british mindset, cortina... completely coincidentally i had an e-mail from dd1's (yr 7) science and social teacher yesterday, with a brief outline of course content etc, and a quick blurb about her own personal ethos. she went on to say if anyone was interested in reading more, she recommended 'Mindset' by Carol Dweck.

we also get regular bulletins from the school (this time from yr5 - ds1 - of interesting essays by educational theorists, esp those working with the more 'able' students, warning of the dangers of labelling...)

and i've also had an invitation to an education conference being held locally ('21st Century Learning Leadership Forum - with two talks: 'Create the Learning Revolution - Please' followed by 'Impressed but not Convinced'...

i should add that we are no longer in the uk. (all other posts refer to uk experience)

i do agree with onesandwich though. dd2 might have been reading early and have a higher iq than her paediatrician, but there is now ay on this earht she's ever going to be a ballerina. there is a limit as to where practice and encouragement alone will take you without the genetic and natural make-up, imvho.