Why is my 5 year old not "getting" reading or writing

[ThoseFemalesAreStrongAsHell]

Its really stressing me out .

Hes a bright boy with an amazing memory but hes still on reception level reading with all of his peers miles ahead. Hes left handed but his writing is messy and he just doesnt get it.

We read together every night but like i said hes got a good memory so the first time we read a book he wont know any words and ill help and the next he'll know the words 'read' them but its actually just him remembering from the day before. I just dont know where im going wrong.

[girlwhowearsglasses]

Sorry his identical twin is right handed

[maizieD]

But if we look at the word from he doesnt know what it says.

Are you expecting that he should sound out and blend a word once and then be able to read it 'on sight' from then on? Because for some children it can take many repetitions of the sounding out and blending process before they can do this.

give him the same word in a different context other than the book we are reading he has no/little clue.

So, can he sound out and blend the word in a different context and then recognise it ? Or are you expecting him to read it straight off? I'm a bit confused as to your expectations and his capabilities.

You don't say what sort of books he is being expected to read. I presume he is in Y1 so he should still be having systematic phonics instruction and will not have covered all the letter/sound correspondences yet. So he should be getting only decodeable books to read which cover the correspondences he has already learned and is currently learning. These are vital to getting enough practice in using what they have been taught. The fact that you refer to him getting 'reception level' books makes me suspect that this isn't happening. If he's getting old 'Look & Say' books then he will be encountering words containing correspondences he hasn't yet learned, which will make it all more difficult for him and they won't be giving him the necessary practice for consolidating the phonics he has already been taught. They are useless for practising specific letter sound correspondences as none of their text will contain enough of them.

To those who are pointing out that in other countries reading isn't taught until children are older I would say that there is no particular optimum age for learning to read but I would agree that we do start very early in England. This is partly because our complex orthography means that there is more to learn, but also I have always suspected that the start has got earlier and earlier over time as reading has been taught so badly that the early start was thought to be necessary to compensate!

Finland is so often quoted as an example but Finnish is very easy to learn to read and children generally start 'formal' schooling at 7 already able to read.

[brilliotic]

maizieD, just picking up on your comment re having to start earlier with reading instruction in English speaking countries due to the complexities of the English language orthography.

It's a point that is frequently made. I find it very illogical!

If something is more complex, it requires more mental skills/abilities to master, so you should start teaching it later, not sooner. When the children's mental development means they are ready for this more complex thing.

Say, algebra is complex, requires abstraction skills, so should we start teaching algebra at age 4? We could leave addition and subtraction until later, as that is way simpler isn't it, and doesn't require a lot of time to learn.
No that doesn't make sense as 4yo do not generally have the mental development to be able to abstract for algebra. All the time trying to learn algebra at age 4 would be wasted and counterproductive.

The only time I'd say it makes sense to start sooner because there is more to learn is when it is something that younger children DO generally have the mental capacity for. Say if learning to read where mainly a task of memorising many, many words (as in the Look&Say method...). By all means, start early, and gradually build a stock of memorised words. Whereas languages that can be read by phonics, by applying a method rather than by memorising... just like Finnish. Or German (method a bit more complicated.) Or err... English? (Complex method, but still a method)

So IMO the push to start learning to read so very early is all twisted up with the idea, not that English has a very complex phonetic code (which would implicate later starts), but that English is a language that needs a lot of memorisation in order to be learned to read.

Not saying that some children aren't ready to learn how to read (or to do algebra) at very young ages, but many aren't. WHEN they are, they could learn all that they covered in e.g. three painstaking, frustrating, demotivating years within one year full of feelings of success and confidence.

And it is also often said that those countries with later school starts will have had children learn basic reading and numeracy in 'pre-school' of whatever kind there is in that country. I am sure this is true in some cases, but not all. E.g. Germany and Switzerland; Kindergarten is often not compulsory though one year is recommended, two years possible. So children CAN start Kindergarten at age 4 or 5. But Kindergarten will be half-days at most. And by the time the children start school at age 6 (the youngest ones) or 7, they are expected to ... be able to recognise their names. Perhaps count to 20, and recognise numbers 1-10.

In those countries, teaching children to read before school is often seen as spoiling their childhood. There is plenty of time for learning to read, there is no hurry, and isn't their pre-school time much to precious for that? Never again will they have this freedom of childhood. In England we cut that freedom down to 4 or 5 measly years.

(I have nothing against early readers. My own DS was well on the road of learning to read when he started school just after his 4th birthday. I am however concerned about early schooling, and trying to teach children things for which they do not have the mental development yet.)

[Lndnmummy]

This is an excellent thread! I had no idea there was this wealth of knowledge around. It has taught me so much. Thank you

[sirfredfredgeorge]

If something is more complex, it requires more mental skills/abilities to master, so you should start teaching it later, not sooner. When the children's mental development means they are ready for this more complex thing.

This hypothesis of yours isn't proved though, and the algebra example is not a good one. Since the reason not to teach algebra is not that it's hard, but that it requires other skills first - you need to be able to add and multiply amoung other things to be able to learn algebra.

So it's not the complexity that stops it being learnt earlier, it's the pre-knowledge that is required. Complexity is not the thing which defines order of learning.

[ErrolTheDragon]

Complexity is not the thing which defines order of learning.

After all, most 5 yos can speak their parents language(s) quite grammatically by 5, irregular verbs etc and all.

[brilliotic]

I agree, we can learn complex things e.g. language at very young age, but we wouldn't necessarily 'teach' it. Children learn their grammar without knowing any single grammar term. They apply grammar rules without having any abstract knowledge of those grammar rules. When a toddler makes grammar mistakes we do not tell them 'look, you need a verb in there or it isn't a full sentence' ... but we do teach 5 year olds 'look, sometimes you need to use these letters to make that sound and sometimes you need those.' It is a very different way of learning.

Maybe not complexity as such, but learning something that has one-to-one correspondences (a language like Finnish) in contrast to something that has many-to-many correspondences (a language like English) and is thus more complex, requires less of something. I could imagine it is that you need an ability to hold conflicting 'rules' in your head and use strategies to figure out which one works in this case. In addition to knowing the correspondences, of which there are more. I'm not a developmental psychologist but in my experience many young children do tend to struggle more when there is ambiguity. Clear 'rules' that always apply make it easier. I can imagine that giving children time to mentally develop further before throwing the English code at them would mean that they could learn it faster.

I do not think of this as a hypothesis as such, let alone a proven one - I just find it illogical to think 'it's hard, so let's start at an earlier age'. Ok if it is deciding between teaching something at 24 or 27, but very different if you're deciding about teaching something at 4 or 7. Because all without being taught, the child's brain undergoes such a huge development in those years, making many things easier/possible that were hard/impossible before.

Sometimes it is not only the pre-knowledge/previously acquired skill that is required that determines the order of learning. You do also need the mental development. But my idea is not really about the order of learning, but rather about the age (developmental level) of learning/teaching.

And btw algebra can be taught/learned (up to a certain level) without needing addition/subtraction/multiplication at all. Like the Dragonbox app does.

[catkind]

I can think of a number of reasons it might be easier to learn reading younger rather than older. 4 yr olds absorb new information very very quickly. They're tolerant of repetition still. They're more easily engaged by simple stories - can't imagine DS at 7 sitting still for "Top Cat", at 4 it was the funniest thing ever. Much less need for repetitive practice and simple stories in a language that is more regular.

[catkind]

I think languages are an interesting comparison. I think it's generally accepted that the younger you're exposed, the better you can learn a second language. Reading is a bit like a language in some ways.

[ErrolTheDragon]

The fact remains though, catkind , that it seems to be a fairly common phenomenon that some kids just dont 'get' reading and writing till they're 6 or 7, regardless of their intelligence. They may not turn out to love books so much as precocious readers, especially if they're made to feel there stupid or that reading is a chore.

[Monkeymonstermum]

girlwhowearsglasses bit off topic but I'm most intrigued by identical twins who are right and left handed!

[girlwhowearsglasses]

monkey it's quite common - I know another pair where one is right and one left.

Some people call them mirror twins but it's not as simple as that - their hair twirls in the same direction

[Londoncheapo]

I just find it illogical to think 'it's hard, so let's start at an earlier age'.
I agree that it's harsh, and I wish with all my heart that English did not have this stupid spelling system. But there is no easy way round this, because the problem is that children need to be able to access the curriculum by 7 (read their books and materials in history and geography, word problems in maths and so on) or so, so they need to able to read reasonably fluently by that time.

To give a practical example: children can't progress in maths unless they can do word programs as well as abstract problems from seven or so, because word problems are an essential part of checking that children truly understand what they are doing and are able to apply maths in real life. If our kids couldn't read quickly fluently enough to understand word problems until they were nine, it would hold back their maths education. It would also probably be too late for many kids to develop reading for pleasure as a habit by then--the kids would have found other hobbies to occupy them.

This is not a problem, by the way, for bilingual children who are accessing the curriculum through another language. Welsh medium schools typically teach English at a slower pace because they concentrate on Welsh, so the kids' English reading is about a year behind on average (they catch up eventually), but this does not matter as they do things like maths in Welsh instead.

It is also not a problem in countries where the writing system has a "children's" version with a simplified script so that children can quickly learn to read children's books, even if mastering the adult system takes a while longer.

[CamperVamp]

I had a v bright summer born boy who nevertheless seemed very slow to read.

Despite the MN effect, I read that the average age for kids to read is 6.

Don't stress. Read the book, and each page, through first to him before he starts reading it. They lose the sense of the story with all the laborious sounding out, so no wonder they aren't bothered.

We got on much faster when I started doing this.

Mine just got an 8 for English at GCSE.

Don't stress!!!! This is rule no 1,2and 3

[BertieBotts]

Yes to the phonics stuff.

But also - try not to worry about it. We moved to Germany when DS was 5 and he would have been due to just start school (autumn birthday) so he hadn't learned to read yet. He'd done a little bit of phonics so we carried that on but he went back and forth on reading until he was about 6 and it suddenly clicked, but even then it's only been this last year that he's really started to enjoy and seek out reading on his own - he's very nearly 9 now.

It's a big contrast to me as I was 4 when I learned to read (summer birthday) and I haven't ever really stopped since then! But he genuinely loves reading and gets excited by books etc now.

[BertieBotts]

Also YY brillotic - DS didn't learn any kind of reading or writing except how to print his name (which he already knew from UK nursery) in kindergarten. It was so unusual that he could read when he started school that lots of people commented. FWIW if he'd gone the year earlier, which in hindsight he really should have done, he wouldn't have been so unusual.

[blueberrypie0112]

Maybe this will help: www.sightwords.com/sight-words/lessons/

I use it on my five years old (she has to know 100 sight words (fry) or so

[user789653241]

blueberry, I don't think it's a good idea to teaching sight words method to 5 year old...
They should be learning to read by decoding, not by memorising.

[GrabbyMcGrabby]

Some words cannot be decoded and are high frequency which is why they are taught by heart along with phonics.

OP, my DC is in the same boat. Left handed. Finds forming letters difficult and reading a challenge. If writing is a problem, take it back a stage and work on fun things which will help strengthen hand, arm and shoulder muscles. Will help fine motor skills. I bribe mine with 1p for every attempt at reading a word. This and doing it before school is working.

The giggly comments from parent helpers about how poor their reading is doesn't help, but I have chosen to ignore them

Try not to stress. He'll get there when he's ready. Praise the stuff he does do well.

[Norestformrz]

"Some words cannot be decoded and are high frequency which is why they are taught by heart along with phonics." Sorry but this is totally false. All words can be decoded although a very few have unusual spellings reflecting their origins. High Frequency isn't a synonym for "must be taught by heart" they should be taught as any other word.

[blueberrypie0112]

Sight words were taught when my son was in preschool (now 16 years old) and now my daughter’s teacher is asking us to go over these words. Sight words is popular with deaf kids because they don’t always hear it phonically (like me) so it seem to be working in my experience

[GrabbyMcGrabby]

Some words cannot be decoded and are high frequency which is why they are taught by heart along with phonics.

OP, my DC is in the same boat. Left handed. Finds forming letters difficult and reading a challenge. If writing is a problem, take it back a stage and work on fun things which will help strengthen hand, arm and shoulder muscles. Will help fine motor skills. I bribe mine with 1p for every attempt at reading a word. This and doing it before school is working.

The giggly comments from parent helpers about how poor their reading is doesn't help, but I have chosen to ignore them

Try not to stress. He'll get there when he's ready. Praise the stuff he does do well.

[GrabbyMcGrabby]

Oops, sorry for the double post!

[user789653241]

Yes, I agree, for some kids, it works, blueberry.( My ds has great memory so he could have done well with mixed methods.)
But before doing proper phonics learning to decode, which go until well after 5, learning to sight read rather than decoding can damage some kids' reading ability, imo.

[blueberrypie0112]

I think it goes hand in hand. My son was also taught phonics (the cat sat on the mat type of thing) too. He is a better reader than I am and it didn’t damage him at all as he is in taking college courses in high school (he will be graduating with a associate college degree and a high school diploma)