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?

The problem is surely that no one system suits all children. My DD was frustrated at preschool (as far as is possible at 3-4) that her friend had reading words and she didn't. The preschool said she wasn't ready. But she hit school, as a March baby, not being able to read and flew through the levels and now would gladly spend all her time reading (y2). She adores reading, and picked up in the way the six year olds did above. She is not the only very good reader in her year. At the same time in her class there are children reading at much lower levels. No one system will ever fit all children.

Agreed Sue, but a system which looks more flexibly at starting age would surely be an improvement?

It might depend on the what is available to illiterate adults, irvine.

In terms of jobs, there is very little available for adults that are functionally illiterate in the UK. Particularly in cities and towns, probably more in rural areas. Putting food on the table and keeping a roof over your head becomes an issue.

I suspect in some societies, where perhaps being illiterate isn't a barrier to earning a living, it may be different. If you can contribute to your family and/or local community then it might be possible to be content without being able to read.

But parents don't always know what there kids can or will do. A friend of mine was all worried about her summer born because he is a summer born boy. She ignored the fact that he is a bright boy, and seriously considered starting him at Easter. He LOVES school, is reading at level 3, and not struggling in any way. I also think that there is too much 'defer little johnny so he is top of the class' rather than because he isn't ready. Having said that, I think if reception was softer for some children, and there was an option to stay there for two years, for those for whom that was appropriate, that would be ideal.

Perhaps you don't agree Jolie but that's the opinion of teachers from other European countries who've experienced their own and the English system. You may also have read a parents view on this thread.

Yes Sue, I think either staying back OR starting later might be the key

mrz I'm speaking as a "teacher from other European countries who've experienced their own and the English system" AND a parent

I'm not in education at all, but in Canada where I am they take quite a different view. They start school as early as 3, but all play based learning until about 6. Age 5 they start to introduce phonics but no "interventions" are done until the child is about 6 and not blending words. They then throw french immersion into the mix age 6, many tend to go a bit "backwards" with the addition of reading and writing in another language and the first standardized tests are age 8 roughly. We are urban and there are quite a few kids who are english as a second language who go on to learn french too.
For all kids 3-6 the emphasis seems to be treating other children well, self sufficiency (it's hard to a teacher to help a whole class to put 9 items of clothing on before going out in -30!) and comprehension and enjoying school. They are definitely more relaxed up until age 8. I do find the idea of giving a 4 year old extra homework because they don't know how to recognize ch/sh slightly alarming (as happened to someone I know in the UK). I can see both sides, an academic child will thrive in the UK, for others I know the constant assessment dents their confidence when from what I can see, it seems to balance out about age 9 or so.

When I had my first child I didn't realise it was unusual for a summer born boy to be reading fluently before nursery school (I didn't actually realise he could read ...does that make me a disinterested parent? [worried] ) He hated reception because they just played (with Lego according to him)

Snowman how many UK schools send home extra homework because a child doesn't recognise ch/sh etc ? ..none that I know of.

What's your point?

Are we actually comparing like with like when we talk about a gentle system and children coming out of kindergarten able to read and write? I ask because I think that the home environment for many children in the UK isn't conducive to learning to read and English has more complex phonics than some languages.

The Jolly Phonics program recommends that children who are having trouble with sounds and blending take home a sounds book to practice with.

What's that if not homework?

I started teaching mine to read before they started school but I know a lot of people whose DC started in reception. It just depends on whether they show an interest and readiness.

So only your experience counts Jolie and the opinions of other teachers and parents is incorrect? Or could it be that the issue is as much about different schools as different countries.

A colleague is considering sending her 3 year old to a neighbouring nursery because it is more formal than ours and teaches phonics and number bonds.

TheTroubleWithAngels I wasn't a teacher when my children were in reception

Being able to defer the start of school sounds great, but given the price of childcare, I worry that it would be unaffordable to many working parents unless an alternative form of early years education was offered. Whilst there is a plan for 30 hours a week 'childcare', I'll believe it when I see it.

Why are you wanting an argument mrz? Of course I'm giving my opinion formed from my own experiences. What else would I be doing?

Given that I'm a teacher, having taught in both systems, having kids in both systems and lots of teacher friends with kids in both systems I do feel quite well qualified to comment, yes.

I'm not sure why this seems to rattle you.

Really? My local school is in a very deprived area and has a significant illiteracy rate among parents. Children start in nursery with skills that are well below average and are still behind on entry to reception.

They teach phonics from the start of reception. Nearly 100% achieve level 2 at the end of year 2 and 100% level 4 at the end of year 6. Usually with at least 55% at level 5.

Their reading doesn't appear to be suffering at all. Quite the opposite.

Level 5 in writing would seem to be the thing that suffers in children with less than ideal home backgrounds. I'm not sure anyone has the answer to that yet.

Thing is, learning can and SHOULD be fun. We don't complain about children learning to talk. It is possible to learn things like numbers and letters through play.

The Jolly Phonics handbook doesn't suggest sending home a sound book if children are having problems with sounds and blending it suggests sending home a sound book for every child .

TheTroubleWithAngels, I think it really depends on a child. My ds could have benefitted if he started formal education at 3.