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.

The fact that "practice makes perfect" isn't a convincing argument against the existence of natural ability in some people. It is perfectly possible for people to achieve an awful lot if they just set their mind to it and work hard. Take your example of grade 8 piano. Probably almost any child who was set that task could achieve it with enough time and practice - but a child who was naturally gifted with regards to music would achieve the same but faster and with less practice - and play with more musicality and feeling.

I'm not sure tbh. I always spent less time doing homework than my older brother and I still got better results. Despite the fact that my parents had much more time to support his early learning as he was then an only child: by the time I was ready to learn to read I had two younger sibling.

My youngest brother otoh had an amazing gift for technology: he was mending hoovers and sorting out the washing machine aged 5 without any tuition whatsoever; noone else in the family knew how to do it, but he could just look at a piece of machinery and know. He didn't need lots of practice because he got it right the first time he tried. And he certainly never needed- or got- any tuition; there was none available. By the time he got to secondary he was the one training the school staff in the use of computers, because they were new in those days and nobody else knew how to deal with them. He taught himself without any support or encouragement. He is now running a successful computer firm and regularly does DIY and building work (again without training) for the whole of the extended family.

Of course, we can all (barring SN) learn the basics - how to read a book or change a lightbulb. But that doesn't mean there is no difference. It doesn't mean I can do what my little brother can- or for that matter that he can do what I can.

As a university teacher, I do find it unfair that some students work so hard, putting in so many hours, and their arguments still aren't very clever because, frankly, they are not very bright. You And others can throw together an interesting and stimulating essay in a fraction of the time. You can learn to structure a paragraph or to put the apostrophe in the right place through practice, but mere practice won't make you creative, any more than mere practice will teach you to play the violin with great musicality or write poetry that will live.

But naturally this is not an argument against practice- and certainly not an argument for labelling children early. Most children that seem bright early won't actually have much of a gift, they have just got a good start. And some very gifted children may be late starters. And anyway, we don't have to decide as parents what is going to become of any one child: we can concentrate on providing the best opportunities we can.

I can understand OPs point I do think lots of encouragement, being read to and practice at home along with being taught phonetics could really help and may lead to a child being singled out as exceptional in an area. I think there are various exceptions for example learning disorders. Personally I think intelligence is very fluid (labelling can be very harmful) and that practice/hardwork and encouragement explain a lot of variation in achievement. I do think memory plays a very important part (there is probably an element of elasticity here as well).

The early readers mentioned how many were full word readers rather than decoders? Personally my DS was a precocious (full word) reader. I think there are a number of circumstances that led to this:

1. A mother with severe post natal depression that insisted on reading 3 child books a night to him this was the only really bonding time.

2. A house with lots of books in and he saw parents and family reading

3. An apparently very good memory

4. A good concentration span

I only have 1 child so cannot really state if his memory is better than average (but teachers and childminders have commented on this along with his concentration span). All children probably do have better memory than adults as they cannot write things down when that young so use it more.

His interest in books was greater than the other children at nursery (he was teaching himself to read-we found out later), so, self-motivated practice but STILL practice.

Other children socialised more first but now are catching up very quickly. Things were just done in a different order. Some children want to play Dr Who, Princesses, Chase etc or learn all about cars, some children learn to read. I do not think that there is much difference in intelligence just their interests (which can be extensions of their parents).

Personally I think the same goes for maths. I could be the maths Dad Cortina mentions. Lots of experiments and projects on the go for Ds. It is odd how at that age knowing times tables etc is seen as ?gifted? according to the school (we nearly all learn them, they are not difficult, he was exposed earlier) the more they enjoy something the more they want to do it.

Cortina, I rather like the idea that practice makes perfect, that anyone can achieve if they work hard enough. It's inspiring in many ways, and I'd like it to be true. But I don't think it's that simple.

I do believe that practice can make a huge difference, and I think a lot of "average" children could do much better in school if they were pushed harder - whether it's desirable for them to be pushed in this way is another matter, and not, perhaps, one for discussion on this thread.

But some children do have natural ability and just pick things up with minimal practice. My dd was an early reader - finished lime band in reception. We did read with her quite regularly, but not every day and certainly no more than many of the other parents did with their kids. Likewise with spellings - I would frequently forget to look at the weekly spellings with dd, but she was still coming back with full marks in each test. Academic stuff just comes easily to her, and she doesn't need much practice - whereas she has spent hours learning how to ride her bike but hasn't quite got it yet.

A couple of other very competitive motivated parents have asked me "how we do it" with dd, as if we have some sort of secret coaching method that we use, but in fact, we tend to let her get on with the academic stuff and try to practise more of the stuff that she isn't naturally good at. People sometimes make assumptions that there is loads of practice going on, even when there isn't.

It was the same for me at school - both teachers and other pupils assumed that I worked incredibly hard, but actually I was a lazy bugger who just happened to find the work quite easy.

full word here iggly, which is why we assumed she was parroting from memory rather than reading - until (grandma) tried her with something she'd never heard before. she has an outstanding memory as well though. like a bleeding elephant. and will correct you if you remember an incident slightly incorrectly.

wood - yy, it's really weird how you get approached by other parents - last year my three all came top of the year in the grade spelling bee thingy (and one of them won the school comp and went off to regionals etc), and soooo many parents commented (some negatively about how much hot-housing we must do at home or whatever) but truth be known, they don't even bother to learn their weekly spelling lists as it's a waste of time, they know them already (i assume from reading so much, no idea). so actually we do very little at home. (and i am extremely lazy. and dd1 spent three YEARS with stabilisers... i spot a pattern!)

Gosh, madwoman, have you got dd's long lost twin or something? Another "spelling champion" with a freaky memory here, and worse, another lazy parent.

I hate the fact that other people probably think we're secretly hothousing dd, as nothing could be further than the truth.

I struggle with your position is so far that likewise it infers that a child who struggles with reading doesn't have sufficient 'hidden practice' at home and that the parent may to some extent be culpable for not providing support. As a parent of a dyslexic dd I can tell you that the level of support at home does not necessarily correlate with reading ability

Also 1 in 10 have dyslexia but it goes largely undiagnosed

The most important thing, I think, is being able to love books and enjoy reading. My two cousins both learnt to read extremely early and could read anything you put in front of them from 4 even if the text was incomprehensible, but they must have got bored with it because they didn't seem to sit with thier noses in books as they got older and never wanted books for presents. My half sister, who was the same age as the older of the two cousins, struggled at 'getting it' and began to read independently a couple of years later than they did, however she fell permenantly in love with books and spent her pocket money on them and got so much joy from them. She went crazy for the 'Animal Ark' series. My DD1 was average I suppose, learning to read in Reception. She is 10 now and my problem is getting her to go to sleep as she can't bear to put books down and lights off means torch on! She isn't like a few of her more obviously academic peers who get through great, advanced, demanding novels, but I'm so happy to see her 'devour' Jaqueline Wilson and all the Diary of a Wimpy Kid' books and get so much pleasure from them. I love reading and I just want my girls to have access to that enjoyment. Too much forced practise could definitely turn it into a chore and spoil the relationship with books.

Probably should not post any further but frankly it alarms me how much ignorance there is....

but thinking about it logically - what that really means is the whole world thinks that how much work you do at home will directly correlate with how they achieve at school - exactly what wotsisface thingy writer bloke says with his anyone can do it if you put the graft in bolleaux, and what cortina thinks is not the belief of the majority....

i think i may have talked myself into a circle.

it's actually people's 'belief' of what's going on at home (whether that's other parents or teachers) that prove it is a commonly held belief. nurture not nature. i still don't subscribe.

Most don't seem to buy ideas around plasticity and recent developments in cognitive science - the idea that intelligence might be learnable. There may be genetic differences in people's intelligence to begin with but as Claxton says 'there is for everyone, a wide envelope of variation around that 'base point' that depends on experience, encouragement and self belief'. That's why an honest belief from an adult that a child can surprise them and most can get incrementally smarter is to my mind important.

Dweck believes minds are capable of being expanded and I have to agree with Claxton again when he says 'the way learning and achievement are influenced or 'capped' is much more to do with one's beliefs about ability than it is to do with any crude measure of ability itself'. It's been said that intelligence itself is about habits of mind and these are many and can be cultivated. It's this idea that we can cultivate our brains and these can sometimes produce some surprising results that many seem resistant to.

Woodbetween the worlds, thing is, 'coaching' works, I've seen it happen, I've seen 'Tiger' mothers get results where others don't (agree not necessarily desirable). With work many can dramatically improve their performance. When it comes out that someone is coached & they've done unexpectedly well (bottom half of the class at primary) there are usually lots of raised eyebrows and muttering parents saying 'tutored beyond his ability, that one' he's 'over-achieving ' and weak. Not many believe 'ah, he's obviously been taught demanding content and expected to make speedy connections' he's got smarter. On the other hand a child that's been top set material since they've been very young and seen as bright doesn't usually have this judgement rescinded after a run of unusually poor results. Excuses tend to be made 'bright but lazy' 'in with wrong crowd'.

I think these are important things to consider. Outliers and other books of the type also touch on ability and have interesting points to make. I don't know about you but I'd want a teacher who viewed my child's mind and potential to be enormously elastic in front of my child rather than one that believed 'you can't get out what God didn't put in' in some way or another. A teacher with a growth rather than a fixed mindset.

Iggly - interesting, early praise certainly pushed me into 'virtuous circle' territory in some areas.

hmc, you miss my point and I agree. Not sure I put it well in my OP.

Blindcave, I agree - books should be a joy, not a chore!

Hmc, I hope that most people would recognise that dyslexia is a specific issue, and that there is no correlation with the level of support provided at home, or indeed with the amount of effort invested by the child. Just as some kids will find reading inherently easy, others will struggle - no matter how bright they might be, and no matter how much practice they may get.

Oh okay, I can be a little 'sensitive' about this issue.

I agree with you that for the neuro typical (but not those with spLD), it is possible to get incrementally smarter. I'd put myself in that category (moderate achiever at school but quite the academic now)....

ds1 is bright but lazy. he talks a great game, but can't be arsed to write anything down. he's going to be on the dole, i suspect, even though his teachers think he's einstein.

i kind of see what you're saying wrt labelling, cortina.

but your points about folk accusing parents of coaching etc proves that it is the commonly held view that you can achieve if you put the work in. (but most don't add in the reservations wrt genetic ability)

there's no one answer, tbh. impossible to suggest there is.

Basically every situation is so individual it's almost impossible to generalise. I don't know how children with dyslexia are taught to read, but I know that many of them do read, and I presume it involves some level of practise. I suppose some children require more practise than others, as with most things. Hopefully a good teacher would be unjudgemental and see the uniqueness of every case. I think there are different types of dyslexia too (is that right?) and different methods must be used for each of them????? So long as no child is left out, left behind or valued according to reading (or any other) levels, do reading levels matter in any way other than for practical purposes? Is there any big hurry? There is no mega destination at the end, just a journey to hopefully be enjoyed.

Ha! Madwoman, that must have challenged a few stereotypes! Good for your dd - hope it helped them to look at her with a bit more of an open mind!

it was v funny - from pitying glances and pats on the head to narrowed eyes and 'wtf?' in one easy rumour... the playground was never the same again.

Blindcave, I agree about the journey but I get twitchy when I'm told or I read - for example - that we might expect those whose projected attainment is a 4 at the end of KS2 to be using 'X' (easier) method years before.

I like to think that whatever our DCs are doing in the classroom is but a snapshot of 'now' and we should be prepared for them to possibly surprise us in a positive way.

I do remember learning about a (morally questionable) experiment about self fulfilling prophecies in sociology at secondary school... so, a very long time ago (I'm 44, so forgive me if the details are vague) in which children were divided into two groups at random and handed over to new teachers, who were told that the two groups were of more and less able children. By the end of the year the supposed more able group were out performing the supposed less able group. So labelling can be a powerful thing. It's like Capitalism: Unhealthy and dangerous but a big challenge to find a workable alternative. ?????????

I just tried to find this study and cofirm that it wasn't imaginary. For details, if you're interested, look up Rosenthal and Jacobson, 1968. It does exist.

I really don't know how you can deny that some people's synapses just fire faster, or differently. There are definitely levels of natural ability and it just isn't possible to make yourself an Einstein by hard work if you're not one to start with. Of course you can improve performance to a lesser or greater degree with sheer hardwork but to say that anything is possible is simply not true. I always tell my son - it may be impossibly difficult for you to learn to read, and galling to see other children doing it so fast, but you can't teach imagination or subtlety of thought and you've got that in spades so one day you'll be the one laughing.

I know it's all anecdotal, but I also wouldn't want to overstress the labelling issue either - the end result is mostly based on amount of work put in and the starting ability of a the person concerned. Had a friend at school who was definitely labelled "middle ranger" - but she worked so hard and had so much ambition - she would spend hours and hours preparing essays and revising; just an unbelievable work ethic. She came out in the end with 4 Bs at A level - the best she could have achieved, which is commendable in itself. I was labelled "bright but lazy" - I spent a couple of hours knocking out essays required, never did any revision, didn't often bother with my homework - I got 4 As in my A levels - probably not the best I could have achieved as I probably could have got full marks on the papers if I'd only done some work. It demonstrates two things: 1. working hard can only get you so far; and 2. labels don't need to define us - she had ambition in spite of being labelled average. You might argue I was defined by my label - but the truth of the matter was, that I knew from experience that I didn't need to work any harder so I decided to spend my time reading things that interested me instead!