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

"I have no idea how people can say that teaching yourself to read aged 2 or 3 without tutoring, doesn't make you inherently brighter" my son was reading fluently age 2 and by the time he started nursery was reading the FT. He had SEN to thank.

I'm a secondary teacher and don't know a great deal about phonics (but am a linguist, so know a fair bit about language). Both my dc (now 9 and 11) were early and voracious readers and excellent spellers, and both found phonics tedious and infuriating. I think I understand pretty much how phonics works, and I see that schools need to use the method that allows the fewest to slip through the net, but I have trouble understanding the vitriol expressed about the look and say method, when it taught generations of children how to read.

I started primary school able to read. Apparently my teacher refused to believe I could read and insisted on giving me the most basic beginners' books. Though normally a biddable child, I apparently refused to read them, so the teacher assumed I couldn't (even though my mother had explained my reading level to her). It is worrying to hear that children's aptitude or knowledge is still sometimes ignored because they have been taught 'the wrong way'.

Oh dear catkind is that really what they do in your child's school?
Well, I don't think it's policy! But that's our experience so far this year.

Her teacher is lovely and has really made an effort in some ways - DD has individual and appropriate targets, they tried giving her different tasks but that didn't work brilliantly as the tasks the rest of the class were doing looked more fun to DD. (Card matching games with friends vs sit down on your own and write a story for example?) I do think reading has been completely let slip. DD tells me if she's read to the teacher, and it gets written in her reading diary. She does sometimes read to friends at choosing time, so I guess the teacher could have "heard" her reading in that way, but not in any way teaching her anything.

IME it's accuracy and oral vocabulary rather than fluency that leads to better comprehension, Wombat. Personally I think too much emphasis is put on fluency in yrR and Yr1. It will develop naturally with practice.

In fact one of the least fluent readers I ever taught was among the top of the class in terms of comprehension. My niece wasn't very fluent but had phenomenal comprehension at the end of yr 1. Her older sister was the total opposite.

I was reading by 4 when I started school.
Diagnosed with dyslexia at 17! I have severe visual perception and memory problems.

I just learnt phonics very early and how to read from that and it turns its because I compensated early for my problems.

Personally I'd work with his nursery to find things he can do. Maybe he could read a story to his peers? Maybe he could write a short story for his friends to act out in a role play area?

I do believe some children play up because they are bored but more so because they lack skills to entertain themselves - all children develop at different rates and all behaviour is communication.

because they lack skills to entertain themselves
DD entertains herself for hours at home - role playing with her toys, reading, drawing and writing. At school she's surrounded by people and doesn't usually want to be entertaining herself on her own - but that means she has to compromise on what she plays so that the others can play too.

Personally I think too much emphasis is put on fluency in yrR and Yr1.

I agree, some of the most fluent young English readers I have ever met have been completely non English speaking!

I have no idea how people can say that teaching yourself to read aged 2 or 3 without tutoring, doesn't make you inherently brighter.

Brighter than what or who though? Turn that statement around though and you are saying that those not reading by aged 2 or 3 are inherently less clever. What I think that you might mean is that a child reading aged 2 or 3 have demonstrated the ability to jump over one academic hurdle, which I would agree with, it doesn't mean though that the child who isn't reading fluently until they are 7 or even 9 might not catch up with or overtake the child reading when they are 3. The skills of pattern matching for sounds and squiggles on a page are not the same as the skills required to form an argument or infer meaning.

Ds can read things which he cannot understand, hopefully with time and reading together he will develop the skill of inference further so that he will go beyond the general meaning and develop an understanding of the specific meaning of each sentence. Sometimes though even I need to stop and think about phrases to explain to him. I am not yet sure whether he will be as able at doing that as his sister who although 5yrs ahead of him has only been reading fluently 2 years more than him.

It is one dimension, one piece in the jigsaw otherwise there would be no need for the 11+, GCSEs, A-levels, degrees. Maybe we should just rank children by the order in which they learn to read - bit Brave New World. Yes it says something if a child reads early, but it is one bit of information. There is a lot to be said for the perseverance and determination developed through having to struggle a little though.

I could read prior to R class and they just got me to read to a TA with the one boy who could read x

IME it's accuracy and oral vocabulary rather than fluency that leads to better comprehension

I have to agree with this, as I can see it in DS2's case.
I taught him to read in the minority language just before he turned 4 in January, so he could read in our language before he started school in September. He learned really quickly, but then started trying to read labels and posters and anything he could see when we were out and about. I kept explaining that in English some of the sounds were different. As he seemed so interested I got him some phonics cards and decodable books (Songbirds) and I only had to teach him the sounds that were different in the second language. He progressed quickly and in 2 months he could read books that DS1 was reading towards the end of reception.

Then one day, as we were reading some of the old ORT non decodable books level 5 with the magic glowing key stories I started asking the questions at the end of the book that check comprehension and realised that even though DS2 could read all the words perfectly well and fluently, it didn't mean he understood them all because his vocabulary in the second language has not caught up yet, and it's not at the level of his first language.

So he can read, nice and fluent, but I have to make sure he knows the meaning of the new words he hasn't heard in English but does know in his other language.

And I was at the level where by the middle of yr 2 I had finished the yr 6 library - sometimes they placed me with yr 1 or 2 readings groups and sometimes they had me use the ks1 books and read them to the support staff or work experiencers x

I have no idea how people can say that teaching yourself to read aged 2 or 3 without tutoring, doesn't make you inherently brighter.

I was reading well before I went to school at age 4.5. No idea how I learned but I did. My memory of the first year of school is intense boredom during the reading bits (it was a long time ago though and not a very good school).

I am well above average in intelligence. And I did very well in school, college, post grad and the work world. Nothing extraordinary though imo . Reading is still my greatest pleasure.

I doubt very much that a child who gets reading before formal instruction isn't above average.

The corollary isn't true though. That those who don't read are below average. None of my children read before school and all are doing fine. I will say that the one who learned fastest is also the most successful academically. But that isn't surprising when so much of school work is predicated on reading and comprehension - even math and science.

OP at some point soon start reading library books. Real books rather then reading schemes.

Mine had to do all the usual class phonics but were on suitable reading levels and on set tables (lots of early readers!).

Also nursery should be free flow activity and not a mini school.

I was the kid who could read and write early. the most prominent memory I have from reception is being told off by my teacher because of complained of already read one of the books I'd been given to read. The TA was a bit better at letting me read higher level books but that teacher... I'm so glad I moved school at the end of the year.
And my mum kept my reading logs as proof. I loved reading and writing and had me do extra books for them. But I was lucky to have her support me and had a nan who was a teacher (she went on to teach me long multiplication and division by the age of 6-7) So I guess it depends.

My cousin on the other hand couldn't read properly until yr 7. No learning difficulties, just the fact that her mum didn't care and didn't help her and the school didn't do much either. Was really sad.
Speak to the school and see what they suggest. At the end of the day you'll want your kid to be looked after.

"I guess the teacher could have "heard" her reading in that way, but not in any way teaching her anything." That's absolutely shocking!

" It is worrying to hear that children's aptitude or knowledge is still sometimes ignored because they have been taught 'the wrong way'." No child should be ignored and teachers should know and plan for every child's needs often for early readers that need is filling the gaps in phonic knowledge (the bits they haven't managed to work out for themselves). It's not about being taught the wrong way it's about having the skills and knowledge needed as they meet increasingly complex and unfamiliar vocabulary.

I see a tiny gifted reader at our local library regularly. She is about 2/3, and sit nicely next her mum who is working on laptop. She reads the book(it looks like mainly fact books) aloud, not totally fluent, but decodes every word correctly. And she asks questions if she doesn't know the meaning of words, and have conversations with her mum while reading. She doesn't sound like she is just decoding.
I wonder what does she feel when she starts school. My gut feeling tells me she won't get bored.

I would advise parents to not teach their kids to read before school as they do get bored.

My child was told, 'don't tell the other children as you will make them sad.'

That was outrageous but there were mitigating factors I can't go into here.

He just could read - we hadn't hothoused him.

Why do you advice not to teach if you didn't actively teach your dc?
I think there's massive difference between children who learned to read because they wanted to, and ones who were forced to.
I don't see nothing wrong with helping a child who wants to learn.

I didn't actively teach my children to read before they went to school, they just picked it up through me reading to them. My youngest son could actually read very well when he started foundation, but phonics lessons weren't as big a thing as they are now. ( he is 17 now!)
He just progressed through the book bands pretty quickly, and staff worked on his understanding. I believe he did things on computer programs whilst the others were learning from scratch, so he wouldn't become bored.
Now we do Read Write Inc at (the same) school, and he would have progressed straight to the 'spelling and grammar' group with his ability.

I think there's massive difference between children who learned to read because they wanted to, and ones who were forced to.

This.

IME, there are some children who are 'driven' to learn to read very early (for my DS it was like when he learned to walk - also early - an unstoppable try-and-try-again self driven need), and those do tend to be children who are, in that one area or many, academically able at that age.

There are then parents who feel that by teaching their child to read before school, they can 'make them cleverer', because they see or have heard of self-driven early readers and think that 'looking like them' would be a Good Thing. These children may or may not be academically able relative to their peers.

In both cases, the 'early skill' may or may not be an indication of a longer term academic ability - or, as in the case of mrz's son and others, actually an indication of a specific SEN. However I would say that 'early home teaching' is NOT the same as 'early self-driven learning' - though both can lead top gaps that a good teacher will be able to work out and fill.

I would advise parents to not teach their kids to read before school as they do get bored.
We all know that hothousing is stupid and a waste of time. With an able and ready child though, I don't think it honestly makes a lot of difference. They'll be zooming ahead of the class in a few weeks anyway when they do start. Waiting for months when they want to be and easily could be reading, only for the sake of matching position but not velocity for a very few weeks at the beginning of reception, seems pretty futile to me.

DD learned by listening in when we were teaching DS phonics. We did support her and give her access to decodable books when she wanted though. About a year after she started decoding words, so not exactly pushing.

Mrz, I've long stopped being shocked at the lack of support for able kids. I was actually surprised how much they've done for DD. DS is able at maths and gets nothing that resembles what posters on here have said mastery curriculum should look like.

I think it all depend on teacher's willingness and ability, cat.
My ds's teacher last year was nqt, but she did try hard and I was able to see it.
While this year, the teacher meant to be more experienced and specialise in maths, she wasn't as much help for him as we expected her to be, knowing she claims her favorite subject is maths on the website. But that doesn't mean she is not a good teacher, she is better with bringing up standard for lower ability children. So some parents are raving about her. It's just mismatch of teacher to the particular child, ime.