Anyone heard the one about reading ability being linked to loss of first tooth?

[sameagain]

DS2 (YR1,just 6) is struggling with reading, to the extent that the school have identified special needs and he has the appropriate plan etc, which is great.

My mum (ex teacher) told me yest that she has heard on the radio that reading is just like walking - they do it when they are physically ready and this will often be around the time they lose their first tooth.

Now, DS1 was a very good reader in reception, but he did lose his first tooth while in the reception class. DS2 still has all his milk teeth. What do you think?

[CripsSandwiches]

My DS is a good reader and hasn't lost a tooth yet. DD struggled at first and lost first tooth just after turning four.

[user789653241]

We know it's a zombie thread. Still, it's quite fascinating topic so people keep posting I think.

[boolifooli]

Why does it matter if it's a zombie thread? How ridiculous would it be if you made a comment about some issue and were told by the other person that they didn't want to talk about it because they had already had a previous conversation about that issue.

[Ifailed]

ZOMBIE thread.

[HardcoreLadyType]

Correlation is not causation.

[Okite]

Total rubbish for us because mine all seem to lose their first tooth late (around 8) but all are good readers way before that.

[Brokenbiscuit]

My dd didn't lose her first tooth until she was nearly 8 and in year 3. She was reading fluently by her fourth birthday. So I think this is bollocks!

[boolifooli]

I don't see the connection myself. But you'd think there was based on how people gush with self congratulatory pride when their child is the first to lose a tooth like it was down to parenting

[toptomatoes]

Doesn't work for us. DS1 was 6 when he lost his first tooth and was a very good reader. Ds2 is 6 now, he has his first wobbler but is also a very good reader.

[crapfatbanana]

Probably an old wives' tale but weirdly it fits us. I have two lots of twins and in both pairs, one has had swift global development and one has had delayed global development, so both my twin 2s lost their teeth much much sooner AND have been much quicker at learning to read than my twin 1s.

[Cantseethewoods]

Presumably school entry also screws it up a bit. DS started reception when he was 3 days off being 5, DD when she was 360 days off being 5, so DD learned to read at an earlier age just by virtue of being an August rather than September b'day.

[hippyhippyshake]

H h

[Chrisinthemorning]

Sounds rubbish to me (dentist). Dental age and actual age can vary a lot.
DS is 4 and seems to be picking reading up nicely and has no wobbly teeth.

[mrz]

The whole Steiner theory behind the belief that learning is related to tooth loss is mumbo jumbo

Steiner claimed that when children are born their "bodily organism are by no means perfectly formed it may be said that the head is the only part of the body which is born in something like a completed condition. During the early years of life the forces within the child's organism are directed to one end, that of forming the bodily organs, straightening and streng­thening the limbs and generally building up a strong and healthy body so that it may be a worthy dwelling-place for the soul and spirit. These health-giving life forces (Rudolf Steiner has called them the etheric formative forces) normally complete their initial task at about the age of seven, the age when the milk teeth are thrown out. This changing of the teeth is not only a physical occurrence, it is the manifestation of a deep spiritual change in the child's nature. For these etheric formative forces have reached a certain culmination in their work of perfecting the physical body and are now partly metamorphosed into an activity of soul-they now appear as forces of thought. If we try before this time, to teach a child to read and write."
And severe nervous and organic illnesses may arise in later life as the result of such treatment if children are taught to read and write before their milk teeth fall out

In a course of lectures he claimed

"The time of the change of teeth was, in Greece, the age at which the child was given over to public education. And now let us try to envisage this contact of the Spirit with the human being, the relation of the Spirit to the human teeth. It will seem strange that in discussing man as a spiritual being, I speak first of the teeth. It only seems strange because as the result of their modem culture, people are quite familiar with the form of a tiny animal germ when they look through the microscope, but they know very little about what lies directly before them. It is realized that the teeth are necessary for eating-that is the most striking thing about them. It is known that they are necessary for speech, that sounds are connected with them, that the air moves in a particular way from the lungs and the larynx through the lips and palate, and that certain consonants have to be formed by the teeth. It is known therefore that the teeth serve a useful purpose in eating and speaking. "

He further claimed

"Strange as it sounds today, the child develops teeth for the purpose of thinking. Modem science little knows that the teeth are the most important of all organs of thought"

Does anyone really think there's any truth in this nonsense?

[Tomorrowillbeachicken]

Depends on the cohort and where they started tbh. DS is in a state school where yellow would be seen as above average at this time of the year.
School is in a very economically deprived area with low starting levels educationally for a lot of the students and red is standard atm.

I really do think it is a 'light turning on skill' though and practice on top of that. I've been lucky with my DS though he is interested and so from the start we have practiced a lot and taught the diagraphs before school as he needed them.

[user789653241]

Sorry to be blunt, but yellow at 5 isn't exactly well above average at some school this time of the year.....

This is old NC levels, but still shows age relevance...(New NC demand higher levels, I assume)

www.beckstone.cumbria.sch.uk/curriculum/reading_levels.pdf

[bangingmyheadoffabrickwall]

Codswallop!

DS is 5, in YR and well above average for reading (yellow book banding already) and he is able to write basic sentences (with 'and' and mostly punctuated with a full stop).

No wobbly tooth in sight! So for him, he does not fit the mould.

But it does say 'likely' which does not mean 'they all do' ...

[thesmallestpotato]

Er, no! DS is 7, not lost any teeth and reads fluently. He's had no problems at all learning to read, always been in the top reading group. What a load of rubbish.

[youarenotkiddingme]

Interesting! My ds has always struggled with reading and had 12 baby teeth in October just after his reading age was assessed as 8.3. (He's 12). He's lost 7 teeth since then and reads at an appropriate age now!

[Groovee]

My Dd picked up reading pretty quickly but didn't lose any teeth until she was 7.

[hippyhippyshake]

I had to listen to this farty bollocks from a Steiner teacher during my Early Years degree. Apparently they don't actively teach reading until the loss of the first tooth. This would mean all children like dd3 would have to wait until year 5 for specific instruction. I don't think so

[PhilODox]

but tooth loss and reading definitely has some sort of impact on children that don't have specific learning difficulties other than just not being ready..
Really? So none of the children in your classes can read until they're 6 or 7.? Really?

[PhilODox]

It's utter bullshit- i read at 2, lost first tooth at 7.5
Ditto my children.
My DH couldn't read until 9. Lost first tooth at 6.
What arrant nonsense.

[user789653241]

I'm that poster who revived this thread was a teacher who want valid research into this....