Learning to read at 4/5 or later?

[Pico2]

This is just out of curiosity. Looking at children in reception, some learn to read really quickly and others after 2 terms are still struggling with the one letter sounds. I know that many countries start formal learning later. Is there any evidence (for reading English) that those children who will spend the next couple of years struggling would do better or worse if they started at 7?

Hopefully they learn something between 4 and 7. I've not seen a struggling group being taught, but I'd find it stressful learning something I found that hard and I wonder if the gain from starting early is worth that.

Also, is there some sort of 'readiness' that comes at different ages for different children, or would those not ready at 4 still not be ready at 7 without some sort of intervention?

I really don't understand the purpose of your comment, mrz. Are you talking about illiterate people who had no opportunities to learn to read for some reason? Aren't they quite rare nowadays? (Obviously excluding some illness or disability.)

Sorry to disillusion you Irvine but the World Literacy Foundation estimate there are 8 million functionally illiterate adults in Britain.

I'm not a teacher so my opinion is based on my 3 kids.

Ds1 was at a Kindergarten in Germany and did the first term at school (age 6). At school they could whizz through the equivalent of Reception phonics in weeks because children had developed their writing muscles and German is a very phonetic language unlike English. After the first month he could sound out and write lower/upper case of each letter of the alphabet.

Wow, that's shocking, since England is one of the country which children start school so young compared to others, and fine parents for children not attending school. There must be some fundamental problem in education system.

I think it can depend on a fantastic educator (not necessarily a teacher) catching your child at the right point. My son went to a Montessori nursery, where he could observe 4 yr olds learning sounds at 2 1/2, it was the right time for him to absorb and learn, and was an able reader from an early age. My second ds didn't really get into reading until he broke his arm on two separate occasions last year, and could do little else (he is 9).

Not as rare as you would think, irvine. Especially among the prison population and some other parts of society.

It's much less talked about than being bad at maths, which is seen as something of a badge of honour. It wasn't unusal in my old school to find that parents had fewer reading and writing skills than their yr 1 children. Parents that couldn't read much more than their name were rarer, but still existed.

The USA has a similar percentage (32 million ) while 46% of Australian adults are functionally illiterate.

Canada 42%

Frustratingly we know how to change it. There just doesn't seem to be enough impetus to do so.

We can do whatever we like with the school starting age. Personally I think a year later would be fine, but it isn't going to make a blind bit of difference.

I am very sorry if I was insensitive about the subject. My father in law was almost illiterate until adult, since he hated school. Then he some how managed to learn to read on his own. Now his home is full of books. That never stopped my dh to learn to read, although he hates reading books.
There are so much things I still don't know about England.

Obviously the being forced to learn too early theory can't be true as Australia has a later school starting age and lower literacy

Anyone who has worked with young offenders will tell you that many report they simply weren't interested in books/words.

I really didn't have any clue about so many people in the world are illiterate.
But then, they must have normal, happy, full life without it. It seems silly to be so worked up about levels etc. I wonder which is better, be literate and compete with others, or have a simple life without it.

And for the record there are dozens of definitions of what constitutes "reading readiness" (most include far more criteria ) so I was interested to know whose definition we were using .... Apparently Jolies which I agree isn't rocket science compared to other theories

Irvine estimate is 785 million adults world wide

TheTroubleWith if you talk to teachers who have experienced early education in Englland and some other European countries they say children here start earlier but have a much gentler introduction to learning.

Reading readiness, I agree with Jolie. I think if you are interested parent, you would know if your child is ready or not. It's a shame that children hasn't got a chance to develop with their own pace in England. They are simply forced to learn so early, and pressured with tests so young.

I don't agree it is gentler mrz.

Admittedly my experience is confined to two systems (which is one more than a lot of people) but what could be gentler than kindergarten until 5, with no formal learning, then a very gentle preschool year (and the one I've got experience of is so gentle that if the kids are counting to 20 they are seen as advanced!) before formally starting at almost 7?

Compare putting them in little uniforms at 4 and starting phonics and number when a lot of other countries still have them doing playing out and singing all day.

The U.K. System seems bonkers if not inhumane to a lot of countries which still regard 4 year olds as babies. I'm not felt surprised that a lot of the youngsters I see in the U.K.system (especially boys) take a loooong time to become interested in reading.

I agree with Jolie again, I don't think English system is gentle. In my country, children learn to read and write, maybe count etc. in kindergarden, but it's not formal. There are no end of year targets or test or anything. But surprisingly, most children arrive at school ready when they are 6/7 years old.

DS went to school 2 weeks after he was 4 in the UK - he took to reading immediately, and now we've moved, is over a year ahead of his peers at his international school (writing not so much, but then he's never been into art/painting/playdough, and it's taken time for his hand muscles to get strong enough)

We've just spoken to them to move him up a year because he's repeating work in fact, and a pointed comment was made about UK schools pushing reading (new book every night if the kids wanted, vs. international school when we're lucky to get a new book 3 times a week).

Personally I think that DS enjoys reading because it doesn't take any physical effort (he's not into anything fiddly), and it frees him to play computer games that he couldn't before, or find things in shops etc. - he's definitely found the world's opened up a bit now that he can read those secret squiggles.

IMO the uk could do much to improve its system if it let late born or otherwise not ready children stay back a year or start a year later. The insistence upon everyone arranged neatly by chronological age just seems pointless.

A late born child should at least be able to start a year later than a September born. I can't for the life of me see why that's not more normal
In the uk.