What does having a high reading age in reception or year 1 mean long term?

[Arewehumanorbones]

Just wondering if anyone knew if there is any research that shows an advantage in having a high reading age in infants?
Was having a conversation with some other mums and some thought it had no long term significance, while a couple of others thought it predicted great things.
I had / have no idea but am now curious!
A quick Google found me nothing butmight not have used the correct search terms...

Nothing. DD1 was a free reader in Reception. At age 7 she had a reading age of 15 (the highest in her primary school). Everyone catches up at some point. She’s now at university, but her academic progress to get there was less than stellar!

I agree with Northernsights that being an early reader indicates an aptitude for learning and parental interest in education.

While I’m inclined to expect things to even out later on, I can see how my DD (Y3) has benefited from being an early reader in her early school years (and don’t just mean an early decoder – I mean comprehension). These children simply see the information first, meaning they know the answers, which builds confidence. This sense of achievement leads to wider reading to maintain that bank of knowledge and keep ‘ahead’ of the subject. Exposure to richer vocabulary and different writing styles gives them a significant head start in creative writing too.

It genrally indicates that the child is from a supportive family that has encouraged the child to learn, and supported them if they have shown an interest. Early understanding of phonics and reading correlates with general high intelligence too, in my opinion. E.g. kids who were bright in Reception are still top of their class in Year 10.

I was reading fluently at the age of 3, was moved up a class at school, got a very good English degree... but am not a genius. Science is a mystery to me, for example.

Anyway, it doesn't do anyone any harm to have a high reading age (as long as comprehension is as good as their decoding skills).

My children have been early readers, and it's definitely helped in some respects- my yr 4 dd sails through spelling tests without having to memorize them, for instance. Which is great because learning spellings is so dull.

But it's not a game changer imo, and as others have pointed out, it's likely to be a result of invested parents and an ability to learn, rather than being a sign of genius.

Its been lovely to see them really start to enjoy books. That's the biggest advantage imo.

Kingfisher that may just be showinh that the oldest in yr r do well and continue to be close to the top.

hmm, well, when dd2 started reception there were 2 children who could already read. By end of year 1 they were no further ahead than any of the others in the top group, and now, in year 6, while they probably are on track to score well in SATS, they are not the only ones.

Some kids are early readers because they are incredibly bright, some because their parents have taught them (I think dd1 would have been if I had taught her, but chose not to) and some are just a bit quicker off the mark than others., or have a sept birthday, or older siblings, or are girls, all of which will tend to mean they are more likely to read early.

On the other hand, some kids are late developers (especially boys) and don't show their capabilites unitil later.

The best judge of a child that will do well later tends to be verbal skills. And the ones who are involved in great imaginative play aged 4 will produce the most creatvie writing aged 7 (that was proved in a study) not the ones who can read aged 4.

I should add that none of mine could read prior to reception, (although as I said I think dd1 would have if I had taught her) ds only really got it in year 3.

All 3 have passed 11+ for super selcetive grammars and are doing well.

Very little - some kids learn to read quickly some take longer but in the long run it's about the progression through school after year 1 that matters when their reading skills are put into practice. Of course being quick off the mark can mean they will progress quicker overall but not necessarily, don't book the Cambridge open day yet! Let kids be kids

I have an advanced reader. She is naturally good with words/spelling/language. She is terrible at maths. I see it as an area of strength and an indicator of this in the future and that’s it

Mine is also not as good at maths. I think it doesnt have the payoff at the end. Doesnt hold the attention in the same way to find out what happens next.
I did a code maths thing and she liked that.

I really wouldn’t give it any thought. I’d be pretty sure that racing through Biff Chip and
kipper books at an advanced rate aged 5 isn’t the best predictor that your child is going to end up leading the UN

Kingfisher that may just be showinh that the oldest in yr r do well and continue to be close to the top.

Heliz, I didn't mention age.

Some of the brightest dc in dd's year were older, some were among the youngest in the year.

All three of my DC could read before they turned 4, they were very keen to learn and found it easy.

So far it hasn't made a difference long term other than they have good vocabulary and can read nuances and different meanings in text.

I think personality has a much greater impact on learning and ability to do well at school.

Eldest DC had a reading age of 10.6yrs on starting P1 (5yrs old), she is now about to sit Nat 5s and is clever but performs averagely at school. She is terrifically anxious and doesn't feel able to push herself for fear of failing.

Dc2 on the other hand started school with the same reading ability but is super confident, knows her own mind , has ambition and is successful at whatever she decides to take on

Dc3 is much younger and still in early primary so too early to compare.

Both early reading level and educational outcomes are influenced by parental engagement.

Reading level is also influenced by age, relative to the rest of the class, in the early years, but this balances out by P4ish.

Helix My summer born son started nursery as a fluent reader and I've taught many August born children who were the best readers in the class.

One of my boys could read before starting school. One didn't really get reading at all till he was 7.
They are now, aged 12 and 13, equally competent readers but the early reader is still more interested in book and finds reading a pleasure. The other finds it a bore.
So their skills have levelled out but their interests are not the same.

My dd is in year one and is ahead of everyone in the class with her reading

But she adores reading and does it a lot in her spare time too.

I don’t think it has affected her in class. She’s on par with everyone else when it comes to maths and literacy. It’s just the reading she’s very good at

DS was reading fluently by 4. Excelled across the board through primary and secondary. Now in final year in Uni and is hoping for a first. Still reads too.
Certainly in his case early promise was fulfilled.

In our case it meant our school limited book bands in year one and start of year two (this year) and ds7 got bored. We only got year 5/6 non fiction when we started to get inappropriate fiction books and I refused to let him have anymore. Tbf though my son learned to read in three months and school were a little surprised.

My girls now 10 and 13 both early readers words just come naturally to them same as dh and I. As a family we are avid readers guess they inherited it or picked it up. They both top of class for English- maths not so much!

Really interesting!
I must admit that I'd rather foster a love of reading and learning than have a high achiever or early reader. And certainly in reception I think they should still be playing and being outside lots. I am definitely in the minority in this opinion amongst the reception class mums, which really surprised me!
My eldest didn't really get reading until halfway through year 1, but now in year 4 is a voracious reader, and am told is excellent at descriptive writing. So I'm not worried, just interested

My dd learned ever quickly and early. She is now 14 and academic, not oxbridge standard but top sets and able to apply herself.
I had a fantastic reading age at 5 and not academic.

I don’t think fostering a love of reading and early reading are mutually exclusive.
I also found the philosophy that academic work was ‘boring’ and a ‘chore’ and kids had to be protected from it v counter intuitive. I taught my kids lots of things they found a little hard at first and was fun later- learning to ride a bike, swim. To me introducing numbers, letters, new ideas was the same. I was v v careful and I still am not to see school work or academic work in opposition to play/outside play. It doesn’t have to involve hot housing (I work FT and don’t have the time to hot house anyone) but I don’t think learning to read, or add or subtract should be seen as skills any different from other life skills like swimming or riding a bike. The problem is that a lot of parents who teach their kids early are blatantly hot housing/half way to Kumon. There’s a much happier medium to be found.

If it's a significant difference then it could suggest great potential I suppose but I think everyone learns at different rates and educational aptitude isn't a great life predictor. Eg I could read before I started primary school, several novels a week at age 7/8, gcse level maths work at age 11/12 because I was bored in class, superior IQ range but I didn't do well under test conditions and I find it very difficult in the work place because of various disabilities. If my child was thriving in a particular area of education I would of course encourage that but I'd keep things light, I often feel like I'm wasted potential and that's not very nice for anyone.

I think there have been quite a few studies done, but it would take some time to go through them, and there does not seem to be a definitive answer.
I taught dd to read before school and she is now a very fast reader, which is a help now that she is doing GCSEs.
However, she is more interested in maths and science. She had also been taught maths quite a bit before starting school. I do not think she would have been nearly as far ahead if she had just been taught at school and not at home as well.
Like PotolBabu, I did not hothouse. Teaching was through games and play books dd found interesting to do. It was only part of a broader mix of toddler groups, outing to various places, Cbeebies, etc.
IME teaching before school has made a difference to dd's academic ability. How could it not? Education does make a difference.