Is reading being pushed earlier?

amother

Thu, Apr 24 2014, 1:28 pm

I learned to read when I was 3, and was considered very precocious for that. I remember that they began to officially teach reading in first grade (age 6), probably about a third of the class knew how to read already and we were separated out into a group for more advanced reading. When I was in high school, I had a sibling in kindergarten (age 5), and the school- same place I went- was teaching reading to the class already then. Now, I'm hearing that reading is being taught at 4 and reading at 3 is a little advanced but not all that impressive. My eldest just turned 3. I don't think he's going to be reading by his next birthday. He knows all the letters and some phonemic awareness/knows some of the sounds they make, but I doubt he will be reading by his next birthday. I'm not particularly concerned and though I do emphasize letter sounds a lot when talking/reading to him, I figure he will get it when he's ready- maybe before kindergarten or maybe just when he gets there and they teach it. But already, I hear people saying he should be doing more by now and he's going to be behind etc etc. He is not delayed, he is very bright, but he is not ready to read yet. And anyway, I'm 99% certain the goalposts have been moved to earlier than they used to be. Is this the case, or should I be pushing him more? Has anyone else noticed that we seem to be asking more of kids at younger ages?

amother

Thu, Apr 24 2014, 2:17 pm

I was also reading at 3. I even remember how I picked it up.
So at 3 and 4 the nursery teacher had me reading to the class on occasion.

But most of my kids learned at 5 because the school they were in happened to teach in Pre-1A. It was considered early. Many parents were upset at the stress it seemed to cause their children.
I find that most schools commit to teaching in 1st but, even so, some kids pick it up earlier at home with parents or older siblings.

amother

Thu, Apr 24 2014, 2:32 pm

Where I went to school, basic reading was taught at 3-4 (many kids had a basic understanding on the preprimer level by then because parents had purchased hooked on phonics for them at age 2). We were taught short and long vowels and expected to write lines above them notating which it was. This method is an incredible way of teaching and is best for children ages 2-4. I wish that all schools would teach this way.

By 4-5 years old in kindergarten children were reading very well with curriculum including basic parts of speech and basic punctuation.

Anon because some people may know who this is.

First grade is honestly TOO LATE to begin teaching reading.

shabbatiscoming

Thu, Apr 24 2014, 2:59 pm

amother wrote:

Why is it too late? Gosh, adults can learn to read if they so choose. What exactly makes it too late? I dont get that at all.

Where I live, there are two different ganim for the year before first grade. One is a feeder into a specific day school that has the program to learn to read in this pre 1a gan. We specifically did NOT send our daughter there because we felt that we can let her learn via playing for at least one more year. Why should she have to sit at a desk already? She will have 12 years of sitting at a desk.

I think 1st grade is just fine for learning to read.

amother

Thu, Apr 24 2014, 3:34 pm

Honestly, I grew up in a very academic world. I am a BT. It is totally different in the frum circles. My classmates were disappointed with Brown or Berkeley. I believe that first grade is not too late to learn something new. Of course there is always time to learn anything, but I believe that as a first choice for teaching reading it is too late. I am well aware of the opinions who believe 6 is an appropriate age and of the opinions who believe 2 is an appropriate age. I strongly believe that children need a structured day with healthy, educational play from a young age. I like the idea of a structure preschool not one with sing song rhymes and outdated blocks, and I believe that educational structure fosters emotional and academic intelligence and maturity. If reading is apart of that structure, it allows teachers to have a wider variety of techniques/activities to employ with children in preschool. Reading allows helps in the development of strong comprehension and of healthy memories. Why do you send your kids to school if all they do until first grade is play with basic toys?

amother

Thu, Apr 24 2014, 4:17 pm

1st grade is definitely not too late. I nfact, pushing kids to early can turn them off to reading. And normally bright kids can sometimes be set back if they are not ready to read yet. Different children are ready at different times. I don't think it's so good if they are starting earlier. Anyway, if your child doesn't seem ready, he's probably totally normal anyway. Here's what happened with me:

When I went to school, they taught reading in pre-1a (age 5 or so, it's the year before first grade). Apparently I was not ready. Not because I'm not bright (I spent elementary school being bored and getting straight A's, and I am now a scientist. So intelligence was clearly not the issue). But my mother says I just wasn't ready then. At 5, I knew my letters already, and the sounds they made. But I guess I wasn't ready for the amount of time and concentration it took to learn to read. But they made all the kids learn, and you know what happened? I hated reading. I hated reading so much that I refused to read anything outside of homework. I didn't want to read books at all. I wouldn't read books unless someone read them to me. My parents were so sad that I hated reading. And I couldn't have cared less.

Luckily, this story has a good ending, because in 5th grade, a great teacher read us chapter books, and I grew so interested that I begin to read a little bit on my own. But I didn't start really reading for pleasure until the end of high school. Now I'm a total bookworm. I probably would have loved reading and would have been a bookworm all along if I hadn't been pushed into it at a young age. But all's well that end's well.

MaBelleVie

Thu, Apr 24 2014, 5:10 pm

amother wrote:

With all due respect, you clearly don't have a background in education. Believe it or not, sing song rhymes contribute to developing strong literary skills, and outdated blocks allow children to explore spatial concepts, learn beginning geometry, as well as a whole host of other visual/perceptual and motor skills.

amother

Thu, Apr 24 2014, 5:28 pm

MaBelleVie wrote:

Quite an ignorant reply, but I assume that you jumped to a conclusion about blocks because my lack of time to write an appropriate response. BLOCKS ARE EXTREMELY IMPORTANT AS ARE SONGS!!! There are ways of teaching everything. In my school all kindergartens were required to take one semester of piano and one semester of drums (in first grade they chose which one to continue with & in third grade added another instrument to the list). Teachers who were college educated in music instructed children on notes, rhythm, singing, dancing, etc. We spent hours creating our own music, learning to read music, and singing sweet songs. Everyday each child said hello to the kindergarten classroom while singing their own, name rhyming songs. THAT IS NOT WHAT IS GOING ON IN MOST SCHOOLS. Blocks? There are ways to teach spacial concepts to kindergartners which are far superior than simply letting them do what they want. Playing without instruction is acceptable for home and sometimes in school, but teachers can educate children in a way to be able to growth academically and emotionally to the fullest. There is a reason why top private preschoolers in the non religious world cost 25,000-50,000+. Trust me, those parents are getting what they paid for and it is worth every penny for them. Today kindergarteners can study music and tempos with ipads as well as with their own "cling-clong" toys. It is experienced, educated instructors that know how to use these basic toys/tools in the most academic way possible. In the frum world, it is not worth that because the focus is so different, not to mention that finding elementary school teachers with PHDs would be difficult if not impossible. Either way, I am not "dissing" the frum school system (it has other maalas), but I do believe (as do many professionals) that starting to teach reading in first grade is late (of course there are other opinions both professional and non professional that disagree).

octopus

Thu, Apr 24 2014, 5:31 pm

amother wrote:

children learn through love and play. It is that simple.

flowerpower

Thu, Apr 24 2014, 5:38 pm

There are ways to introduce letters and reading but not actually teach an intense reading program at an early age. It makes kids want to learn more and think. In our school reading starts lightly in pre one a which is age five. In first grade when they are mature and can concentrate they learn all the rules and fluency of reading etc. I think preschool is important for kids since it teaches them to share, take turns, patience, pretend play, social time, different themes like the five sences and much more. They learn pre math and reading skills too. No need to push full acedemics at that age yet though. They are little kids once. The very expensive preschools don't make the kids any smarter. Its a huge fad in the upper west side- who can get into a certain preschool so they can get into a certain primary school. Its one big pressure for the parents, kid, and the poor nanny that has to keep pushing more acedemics into the poor 2 year olds head. I was at central park a few times during the day. I have seen enough- fathers pushing their little toddlers on the swing while making then count till a high number and other silly stuff.

MaBelleVie

Thu, Apr 24 2014, 5:38 pm

Ignorant reply? I was responding to your post. I can't exactly read your mind.

There are obviously different schools of thought and different goals in education. The method you describe is effective in producing graduates with a specific skill set. It won't succeed in producing graduates with a different specific skill set. There is no one "best" way to educate kids.

Also, having spent lots of time in a variety of schools, including public, secular private, non Orthodox private as well as yeshiva type schools, I can tell you that there are certainly differences in the way different schools structure their curriculum and set educational goals. What I have not observed in any way at all is a pattern of teachers with higher level degrees doing more effective work as teachers. Some of the most highly educated teachers and administrators I've encountered actually do the most miserable job as educators (By no means am I dismissing the value of formal degrees, in case that's what is coming across).

amother

Thu, Apr 24 2014, 5:49 pm

MaBelleVie wrote:

Your last point is a EXCELLENT POINT. I AGREE ENTIRELY.

Specific skill set? Which one? How is exposing children to the best, most up-to-date information/programs/education/experiment available in the academic world (age appropriate of course) isolating them in to a specific skill set? It's not just that way in the music and arts department, but in the english, science, math, history, language, athletic, etc. departments as well. There are many e.c. activities and programs available. There are photography courses for all levels, cooking, teaching, gardening, model U.N., and almost anything you can think of. Actually, in my school if 3 students wanted a class that was not provided, we needed to present our desire to the board. Many times a new teacher was hired and the new class was approved (sometimes it was formally rejected with a letter why and permission to try again next year). How is this a specific skill set? My classmates are everything from clothing designers to attorneys to programmers to professors to many other careers.