What happens if your child can read before they start school?

[SkyWalker95]

I know most kids learn to read in reception, but what if they can already read independently? Surely they have to teach to their ability and won't make them just sit there while the others are learning their sounds right? But what would they be doing instead? I don't really know how primary education works

Op, truly gifted/talented kids can find the ways to stimulate themselves in any circumstances. So, saying the reason for him being naughty is because he isn't stimulated enough isn't sit right with me.
For example, in yr1, ds had to make 10. All the children did 2+8, 9+1, etc.
My ds used all his knowledge back then. Used all +,-, x, / , and decimals, fractions, powers and square roots.

My ds was able to read any text entering school. Had never complained being bored, except for the time when he was put to practice times tables on computer again and again, which he already knew before school.

On the first day of school all the teachers run out of the classroom and cover the reading child in stickers while all the parents in the schoolyard clap and the mother gets a medal.

Him being naughty at nursery is more him not being stimulated enough

you are starting early! This excuse for naughtiness doesn't normally kick in for a while yet!

It is nonsense, and it doesn't matter how many parents repeat it how often, it is still nonsense.

Bright children are not naughty because they are not stimulated enough!

It is far more likely to be below average children that get bored at school. ever heard the saying "only fools are bored" not very PC these days, but you might have heard it from your grandparents!

I think the rule is, if you've met one gifted kid, you've met one gifted kid. So just because irvines DS can entertain himself in the face of fatuity, it doesn't mean that they all can. I speak as someone who got horribly bored in secondary school and behaved very badly when I was. But I don't generalise about anyone else from that, except to say that boredom is a possibility.

Also, the correlation isn't that obvious at this age, especially not to the kid. When DD was in yr1, she was incredibly badly behaved for the first two weeks of term - but at home not at school. We went in, and it turned out that the differentiation from reception hadn't moved up with her. That was put into place, and the behaviour disappeared overnight.

Seriously, though, most schools don't do that much group activity in reception, so I would be looking hard for another nursery which gives him either more freedom to play or some differentiated input for a bit of the day.

Bright children are not naughty because they are not stimulated enough!

No, this much is true. But gifted children can be. And their abilities mean that their behaviour can be out of sync in all sorts of other ways too. But none of this means that they shouldn't get an education suited to their abilities.

being able to read at nursery is an indicator that you have been exposed to reading, not that you are bright.

Different people have different strengths and weaknesses, obviously, but reading isn't intrinsically any harder then listening.

Deaf children of all abilities can be fluent readers of BSL and English writing at the same age and speed that a hearing child learns to understand spoken English

chopchopchop, yes I agree, my ds's behavior was out of synch, but I just didn't make any excuse by saying he is behaving badly because he was too clever and school wasn't doing enough for him. He has always been socially difficult, but that doesn't mean he was naughty. And also agree about adequate education suited for ability, and I am fighting every year so he can get appropriate differentiation.

So I really don't agree with people saying your child is naughty but it's because of school.

And I have to disagree with user1497, I think it needs certain intelligence to be able to read before average child can. So the child who can learn to read before expected age is somehow different/special.

Like listen to a story being read but they have to go slow for the kids who barely understand English.

You mean the bilingual children?

being able to read at nursery is an indicator that you have been exposed to reading, not that you are bright.

Up to a point, yes, but there's a big difference between the child who can read the lettering on a packet of Go Cat, and one who's reading chapter books before reception. And if all children could read chapter books at nursery, then our education must be missing something quite significant in its teaching.

Irvine, what I'm trying to get at as well are two things. One is that some children do express their frustration in terms of acting out in school - we are not all gifted with the ability to go and play inside our heads. (Although I would also question whether this is a good thing - one thing DD did learn in the early years was that she could get away with a lot of daydreaming and we're still reaping the problems from that years down the line).

The other is that gifted kids have social problems in part because they don't fit in, it's almost a part of the whole social set up. But schools like to bash you over the head with this instead of giving them differentiation. Well, a lot of schools do.

And I have to disagree with user1497, I think it needs certain intelligence to be able to read before average child can. So the child who can learn to read before expected age is somehow different/special.

It depends what you are exposed too, most children can if pushed, but why would you push them? As I said, deaf children are often pushed, so they have a means of communication with the hearing world. I pushed my sons because I am severely dyslexic and this can be inherited, so I wanted them to have the best head start possible, just in case. Neither are dyslexic, and both were reading by 3.

You can train children in many things, but it isn't necessarily in their best interests, and they miss out on other things. My children would have preferred to have been doing singing and dancing, cooking, messing around with paints and clay. I would have preferred it too, in different circumstances.

You can probably make most children read before school, but they would miss out in other development. So most children reading chapter books at this age would I guess by theoretically possible, but at huge cost to other areas of education.

That is what I mean by it being an indicator of what you are exposed to, rather than of being bright.

You're making an awful lot of assumptions there, which mostly are that all children are a) the same and b) the same as yours.

Dd could read chapter books before reception. We did not push her. We did not even teach her to read*. She has never, ever been taught phonics because by the start of Yr1 she had reverse engineered the ideas for herself and had a spelling age of 10. She did also do lots of singing, dancing, drawing, messing about, forest school. Five years down the line her reading age is still way ahead of her chronological age, but she still does lots of other things too.

*I would not know how to do this, because I learned to read the same way she did, just by hanging around books.

You're making an awful lot of assumptions there, which mostly are that all children are a) the same and b) the same as yours.

no I'm not, and i was just using my children to illustrate the point, which I have seen with hundreds of other children

I said

Different people have different strengths and weaknesses, obviously, but reading isn't intrinsically any harder then listening.

reading early does not mean that a child is bright, or that a child is not bright

Exposing is good, but pushing isn't maybe? I don't know. For me, I always followed my ds's lead. I got him all the resources I can for him if he has shown interest. Also we were fortunate enough to get all the second hand stuff from his cousin. So, he had a lot of things to learn from, if he wanted to.

And I don't believe you can make most children read before school, unless you are total dictator, they don't want to do what they aren't interested, surely?

And I don't believe you can make most children read before school, unless you are total dictator, they don't want to do what they aren't interested, surely

well, yeah, I was talking about it being forced. It can be forced, but most people wouldn't and there would certainly be no benefit to the child.

What I'm saying is that is is within most children's capabilities, but whether they actually learn or not before school depends on many different factors, health, resources, parental attitudes, opportunity, personal taste, etc etc etc AND ability too, but ability comes some way down the list. You can learn without being particularly bright. You are more likely to learn if you have an interest and are bright, but you can also have an interest and learn, without being bright

And what? What is your point? I don't get it, sorry, maybe I am too thick.

Those people who say they/their children taught themselves to read, does that mean independently working out phonics/how to decode words, rather than just recognising what certain words look like?

Its not even that important, to be honest, some posters were equating being an early reader with being bright, but there isn't necessarily much of a correlation, that's all

similarly with music, chess, etc, if parents choose what to expose a child too as a priority, they will almost certainly become advanced at that, to the detriment of other areas. it doesn't mean they are bright, or "gifted" etc.

Johnny, I don't know about others, but yes, for my ds. He had a phonics poster I bought from library, he watched tv with subtitles because I always did, and I never read him bed time story regularly since it wasn't the thing in my culture, but he was able to decode any words he saw . So, not just recognising what certain words looked like.

I started reading before I sent to school. Not chapter books but short stories like the Runaway Bunny, short fairy tales etc. The school had a couple of reading volunteers who would come in and listen to us read while the others were learning their phonics. When we had exhausted the supply of books available at first school they borrowed from the middle school up the road. It wasn't a problem at all.
Also don't think being an early reader necessarily equates to being naturally bright, but it can set you up quite nicely to learn things independently as you're able to look things up for yourself from quite a young age. Once you can read, a whole new world of knowledge opens up to you. So it can (doesn't always) equate to better academic 'success', even if it doesn't necessarily equate to better innate intelligence.

Johnny, with the same disclaimer as Irvine, yes that's how it worked. She could read fairly fluently before starting school, and they tested her phonics knowledge at the start of Year 1. She'd - somehow - worked out all of the phonics rules for herself. I'd never been taught with phonics, nor did we have any phonics books in the house.

Same for me! I only bought phonics poster along with dinosaurs and flags of the world and times tables and wild birds/animals, etc.
Didn't know a thing about phonics back then , let alone teach him!

Are some of you really saying that by letting my son do what he likes to it makes me a terrible parent. And my son must be dumb because he doesn't like to participate in things that he finds too easy. Can you hear yourselves, honestly 😂

My DS started reading at 3.5. He read a mixture of phonics books and Peter and Jane which are look and say books.
He was 5 in the September he started school and by then was reading L6 of Peter and Jane and reading fluently out loud.

He had been at nursery in the school he joined in reception. The nursery teacher knew he was reading and had worked with him each week from when he was 4. This involved covering the early stages and then KS1 sight words (this was about 4 years ago when there were about 50 reception age words) and covering the phonics scheme books to Level 5. Because he then continued into the school with the EYFS profile partly completed, the reception teacher knew where he was up to.

I think he did spend time on the carpet while children covered ah,ah, ah ant, with the actions moving up their arms. In their class they only read to a teacher or TA once a week, but he was quickly moved up to higher levels because at the start of receptionhe was fluently reading Enid Blyton out loud and to himself.

Interestingly, he was both a sight and phonics reader. So he was able to decode new words without any particular problems, but he also read fluntly and speedily, which I think comes once you are also a sight reader. These days I think people are encouraged to learn phonics first and then the sight reading comes a bit later.....but until there is a level of this,needing is very stilted and not fluent. He certainly understood what he read.

I think we got a reasonable experience of reception compared to many. It was partly because his reading ability was already known from nursery, I pressed when I thought there wasn't enough provision for him and they did respond. The big thing that helped him progress though was that he read to us every single night and read to himself too from mid reception - it was one of his favourite leisure activities. I know all schools encourage parents to read every night....it honestly is the thing that makes the biggest difference. It's just too easy to see it as a chore and take days off, especially in the early stages when reading is hard work. By starting quite early, our DS had gone beyond the hard work phase by reception and reading really was enjoyable.

I agree that it's not necessary for many children to read before school, but equally there is no need to delay if they are ready to do it. I think that generally schools are not geared up for it, doubt that children truly can read and are a bit resistant to moving them on. You often do have to push a bit to get proper provision for a child who can already read,and I think they will spend time sitting through very basic stuff. In itself some of that isn't a problem and is probably useful reinforcement as long as they also get stuff to stretch them too.

I agree that being an early reader isn't necessarily a sign of being really bright. Some children do just learn without any real input. That is bright, but unusual. Most who learn early are exposed to it and encouraged. If they learn quickly, I would say that is an indication that they have reasonable intelligence at least - they are unlikely to then really struggle with reading, even if others quickly catch up.

Those who were early readers were sometimes caught up by others. No problem. However, their early reading also advantaged their early writing and often their numeracy too - so I believe there was gain. Few of those who were early readers ever ended up moved off the top tables. Of course others ended up there too who weren't early readers, but I think the early advantage is rarely totally wasted or lost.

The key thing is to develop an early love for books and for reading. To me, that is absolutely priceless and will always be a boon for a child. I just remember being thrilled to be out at the shops with my 6 year old who would sit in the chair and read his Enid Blyton or his Horrible Henry or his Naughty Little Sister with pleasure and feel so pleased that this was what he wanted to spend his time doing.