2-year-olds reading?

On Mar 25, 6:11�am, "Donna Metler" wrote:


What I've noticed in being online with other parents of early readers is
that there's two ways a parent can react.

The first is "I've found the secret"-which might be a commercial program, TV
program, or something they've done on their own, like this "Native reading".
And some then will go to the media, write a book, or try to publicize their
success.

The second is "What the heck happened!" when the parent is aware that
nothing they did should have taught the child to read, yet the child's
reading. These parents tend to try to find others in the same boat and sail
through their child's preschool years together.


I've noticed a third way -- where people find it hard to believe that
anyone else's child could possibly read so late, and secretly suspect
it must be poor parenting. (Cf. sleeping through the night, toilet
training, and all the other things that parents may have less
influence on than they like to think.)

Partly that's naivete -- I remember a childless friend of mine, most
of whose experience of children was of unusually scholarly kids,
babysitting a three- or four-year-old and saying in wonder, "He just
doesn't pay *any attention* to letters at *all*," as if it was
something she couldn't conceive of. "He's not dumb or anything, he
just doesn't *care* yet. I guess maybe this is what most kids are
like?" It was really an epiphany to her.

--Helen

All right, I'm trying to temper this with your later post that seems
more even handed, and even thoughtful, but I take real offense to
this:

Chookie wrote:
Rather than comparing this book to the work of an already-published scientist
in a professional journal, I think you should compare it with another popular
book written by a layman. Maybe Mein Kampf?

The idea that someone sharing an idea about how to teach kids to read
through play in any way deserves this comparison is completely
irresponsible. (An eggregious case of the "reductio ad Hitlerum"
pseudoargument.) As someone who read the book and found it interesting
and thoughtful, I think it is totally unfair to be "compared" like
this.

But even more, as someone who, despite being an atheist, is of Jewish
ancestry, has family members who were murdered by the Nazis, to see a
Mein Kampf reference thrown out like this -- completely gratuitously
and in such a throw away manner -- actually has me physically shaking.
And even if I didn't have any personal connection, human empathy
should have me shaking. I find it profoundly disturbing that Chookie
thought it a reasonable thing to do. He'll probably try to justify it
speciously, or argue that it's no big deal....

I know most people online would find this an absurd request. Too many
take the facelessness of the medium as a complete license to bully and
flame and the like. But I really think you should apologize, Chookie.
At best such an argumentative "tactic" is a bullying red herring, but
really, it's just wrong.

Just to clarify, in rereading the postings to see how I got blindsided
I realise that I was mistaken when I said:

argo wrote:
All right, I'm trying to temper this with your later post that seems
more even handed, and even thoughtful....

It was actually Donna, not Chookie, who made the later post which I
found critical, but thoughtful and even handed, for which I thank her.
It is obviously not something everyone is capable of, especially
online.

"Donna Metler" wrote in message
. ..
In the USA, most Kindergarteners are 5-6 years old, with most states
setting their cutoffs in August, September, or Early October. (There are a
few that still use a December cutoff, but those are gradually going away.
My state has an October 1 cutoff, and is pushing for an August 15 cutoff).
Because many parents believe that a child is better off as the oldest in
the class than the youngest (and because it's about the last time a parent
has complete control of their child's education), many parents hold their
child out until they're solidly 5, with quite a few children in affulent
areas turning 7 in K. The result of this is that many things which, a
generation ago, didn't begin until 1st grade now begin in K, including
worksheet-based assignments, a focus on reading, and quite a bit of
right/wrong assessment. It's not really appropriate for a 5 yr old, and
less so for a 4 yr old (who is only in K because the parents requested
it-no school in the USA regularly admits children to K who aren't 5 yet in
March, but many private schools will consider a parent's request,
especially if there's a shortage of private school students, as there is
in some areas), but it's much less inappropriate for children who are 6
and 7 years old.

In our school, most boys are red-shirted, so many start kindergarten ate age
6 turning 7. Our cutoff is December 2 and school starts in July. We did
have a boy start kindergarten as the youngest child in class. He had an
October birthday, which makes him 4yo when school started, and his parents
did not request he start early. It was just the year he should have started
because of the birthday. His parents did not red-shirt him.

Kindergarten started out very difficult. There was loads of written
homework from day 1. They started writing sentences the second week of
class, which I remember, because I just couldn't believe it. Of course,
there were kids who couldn't even trace the alphabet or knew their letters,
so it was ridiculous. And it took hours to get DS to write that sentence
and then he had to color, which he hated. Luckily, he likes to color now.

In article , "toypup" wrote:

Kindergarten started out very difficult. There was loads of written
homework from day 1. They started writing sentences the second week of
class, which I remember, because I just couldn't believe it. Of course,
there were kids who couldn't even trace the alphabet or knew their letters,
so it was ridiculous.

Crazy. How long did it take before they started treating the children like
children?

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

http://chookiesbackyard.blogspot.com/

In article
,
argo wrote:

I know most people online would find this an absurd request. Too many
take the facelessness of the medium as a complete license to bully and
flame and the like. But I really think you should apologize, Chookie.
At best such an argumentative "tactic" is a bullying red herring, but
really, it's just wrong.

It was, and I apologise for hurting your feelings and for Godwinising.

I still think your Einstein comparison is a bad one. Kailing might be a
scientist, but he isn't in his field (whichever it is) and is not writing for
academe. Einstein was.

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

http://chookiesbackyard.blogspot.com/

In article ,
"Donna Metler" wrote:

True, but he's got an awful lot of mileage out of n=2!

What I've noticed in being online with other parents of early readers is
that there's two ways a parent can react.

The first is "I've found the secret"-which might be a commercial program, TV
program, or something they've done on their own, like this "Native reading".
And some then will go to the media, write a book, or try to publicize their
success.

The second is "What the heck happened!" when the parent is aware that
nothing they did should have taught the child to read, yet the child's
reading. These parents tend to try to find others in the same boat and sail
through their child's preschool years together.

Yet, if you talk to both sets of parents, often the parents did much the
same thing.

Very perceptive, Donna -- I've somehow escaped seeing the former type of
parent, so books like this one are new to me.

The bottom line is, a vast majority of children will learn to read sometime
between age 2-6 (with a few outliers on both sides), assuming reasonable
exposure to language, and provided you're providing a print-rich
environment, it really doesn't matter much WHEN a child learns to read.
While it is true that most children who are spontaneous readers as toddlers
are gifted, there are also very highly gifted children who didn't learn to
read until they entered Kindergarten or later. It's not that reading early
makes a child gifted. It's that, sometimes, being gifted leads a child to
read early.

I don't think this book will hurt, and, if a parent needs instructions on
how to read to their child, I support them getting it. (Although I'd
probably suggest Jim Trelease's "Read Aloud Handbook" instead, since it
doesn't come with any expectation that reading to your child will create an
early reader, and is therefore less likely to build frustration in the
parent.)

Whereas I do think it's possibly hurtful. There is certainly an expectation
that children can and will learn to read early -- but what if a reader's child
turns out to be one who reads at 6yo? How will the parent cope with that?
And why is there an entire chapter on how this particular method "might"
prevent dyslexia? That's the bit that gets my goat, because prevention of
reading problems is the only good reason I can think of to bother with early
reading... and the book acknowledges that the author is speculating.

And, given that my 3 yr old asked me what "Erectile Dysfunction" was
(loudly) due to a Pizza place having a sports event on (with sound turned
off) that showed a Viagra ad, I'm not convinced early reading is such a
blessing .

We were off on a long drive and nearly died when a booming 6yo voice from the
back seat said: "WANT LONGER LASTING S*X?" Then he grumbled, "I don't even
know what that means!"

I don't understand the billboards either. If it involves nasal delivery, they
must be doing it wrongly ;-)

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

http://chookiesbackyard.blogspot.com/

"Chookie" wrote in message
news:ehrebeniuk-84B04D.22055531032008@news...
In article ,
"Donna Metler" wrote:

True, but he's got an awful lot of mileage out of n=2!

What I've noticed in being online with other parents of early readers is
that there's two ways a parent can react.

The first is "I've found the secret"-which might be a commercial program,
TV
program, or something they've done on their own, like this "Native
reading".
And some then will go to the media, write a book, or try to publicize
their
success.

The second is "What the heck happened!" when the parent is aware that
nothing they did should have taught the child to read, yet the child's
reading. These parents tend to try to find others in the same boat and
sail
through their child's preschool years together.

Yet, if you talk to both sets of parents, often the parents did much the
same thing.

Very perceptive, Donna -- I've somehow escaped seeing the former type of
parent, so books like this one are new to me.

Maybe it's a USA thing? It's not as common with early academics, although
getting more so, but the number of "Toilet train your child by the age of 2"
books-when you discover that the only child the writer has potty trained is
her own, or "Get your child to behave, eat better, sleep through the
night..." books when the writer either is talking only about their own
family, or, in some cases, I strongly believe was on the lecture circuit and
only home occasionally, then assumed that the ONE TIME they told the child
to do something was what taught the child, when actually the SAHP or Nanny
did all the background work for months in advance! are legion. Any US parent
pretty much HAS to either have a really good BS detector by the time the
child turns 3, or have just plain stopped reading books and articles.

You see it in giftedness, too. We had a local news article recently about a
little girl, darling, bright, bilingual, doing long division at age 7, who
had just been accepted to MENSA. Pretty normal gifted kid profile, except
that most parents don't bother to try to get their gifted kid into Mensa,
because either the parents are often members themselves, in which case the
family can attend events anyway, or the parent tried it back years ago,
didn't like it, and doesn't see the point (which is where I fit. I'd rather
socialize with people I have some common ground with besides a test score
number).

Reading the article, the parents credit her success to Kumon tutoring at age
5, because "she was so late to learn to read". Uh-bilingual child? 5 is
hardly LATE to read! And this little girl followed the usual Gifted kid
path-which was once she learned to read, she jumped ahead quickly.

I'm sure the local Kumon franchise loved the article, but honestly, I think
if the parents had waited a few months for her to start kindergarten, she
would have learned to read and had the same net effect.


The bottom line is, a vast majority of children will learn to read
sometime
between age 2-6 (with a few outliers on both sides), assuming reasonable
exposure to language, and provided you're providing a print-rich
environment, it really doesn't matter much WHEN a child learns to read.
While it is true that most children who are spontaneous readers as
toddlers
are gifted, there are also very highly gifted children who didn't learn
to
read until they entered Kindergarten or later. It's not that reading
early
makes a child gifted. It's that, sometimes, being gifted leads a child to
read early.

I don't think this book will hurt, and, if a parent needs instructions on
how to read to their child, I support them getting it. (Although I'd
probably suggest Jim Trelease's "Read Aloud Handbook" instead, since it
doesn't come with any expectation that reading to your child will create
an
early reader, and is therefore less likely to build frustration in the
parent.)

Whereas I do think it's possibly hurtful. There is certainly an
expectation
that children can and will learn to read early -- but what if a reader's
child
turns out to be one who reads at 6yo? How will the parent cope with that?
And why is there an entire chapter on how this particular method "might"
prevent dyslexia? That's the bit that gets my goat, because prevention of
reading problems is the only good reason I can think of to bother with
early
reading... and the book acknowledges that the author is speculating.

Actually, in the long-term studies of the "Doman Babies", there are MUCH
higher rates of LD (and of specific, rather uncommon LDs) in that
population, which indicates that focusing on one area of brain development
to too great of an extent early on may have repercussions.

Having said that, I don't think dyslexia was any more common among this
population. What was more common was visual-spacial and perceptual-motor
learning disabilities, which more commonly lead to dyscalculia than
dyslexia.

However, the kids we studied weren't generally those who had the "How to
teach your baby to Read" "How to teach your baby math" "How to give your
baby universal intelligence" programs, which is what popularized the Doman
method, but those who recieved very intensive physical therapy designed to
remediate "brain injury"-and since all these kids had diagnosis such as
cerebral palsy, downs syndrome, mental retardation, infantile stroke, and so
on, it's hard to say that the LDs are truly a result of the therapy, as
opposed to a symptom that wouldn't have been noticed without the drastic
improvements in other areas.

The biggest problem I can see with Natural reading-or with any book or
method that says it will teach your child to read, is that if the parent
sets up an expectation that the child will read, and the child doesn't,
there's three possibilities. The first is that the parent feels that they've
failed their child, which isn't great for the parent-child relationship. The
second is that the parent blames the child for the failure-which is a hard
load to put on a child in the preschool years, let alone in infancy or
toddlerhood. The third is that the parent decides that the book is a load of
something stinky and throws it out.

Hopefully, most parents are able to respond in the third way. There are
enough "this is what I did, and it worked for me" books out there in the USA
that any parent should have a pretty finely tuned BS detector by the time
their child turns 3. Just discipline and behavior management alone has
enough books where the author has applied one family's experience and now
thinks they know the secret (and there are some behavior "experts" who I
truly believe were out on the lecture circuit while their wives raised their
children!), and can filter what works for them and move to what doesn't.

But I do agree that if a parent chose to take the book as gospel, with the
expectation that if they do everything right, their child WILL read by the
age of 3, they're probably going to a) be disappointed and b) harm their
relationship with their child and c) miss some of the wonderful growing up
things a toddler does every single day. But from what I've seen, few parents
take a single book to that extreme, so for the average family, it's probably
harmless, and I'd certainly rather them pick up this one than the Doman
book, and spend huge amounts of time sticking flashcards in front of their
infant!

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

http://chookiesbackyard.blogspot.com/

On Mar 31, 6:13*am, Chookie wrote:
In article , "toypup" wrote:
Kindergarten started out very difficult. *There was loads of written
homework from day 1. *They started writing sentences the second week of
class, which I remember, because I just couldn't believe it. *Of course,
there were kids who couldn't even trace the alphabet or knew their letters,
so it was ridiculous.

Crazy. *How long did it take before they started treating the children like
children?

There are different opinions about what this entails. How do you know
that your expectations are the right ones?

I am surprised that 5-year-olds of normal intelligence would not know
the alphabet. What have their parents been doing with them? Both of my
sons have done so long before their 5th birthdays. If schools are
clear about what entering kindergarteners are expected to know, I
think many parents will prepare their children accordingly. Children
who are slow in learning the basics should not hold back everyone
else.

Beliavsky wrote:
On Mar 31, 6:13 am, Chookie wrote:
In article , "toypup" wrote:
Kindergarten started out very difficult. There was loads of written
homework from day 1. They started writing sentences the second week of
class, which I remember, because I just couldn't believe it. Of course,
there were kids who couldn't even trace the alphabet or knew their letters,
so it was ridiculous.
Crazy. How long did it take before they started treating the children like
children?

There are different opinions about what this entails. How do you know
that your expectations are the right ones?

I am surprised that 5-year-olds of normal intelligence would not know
the alphabet. What have their parents been doing with them? Both of my
sons have done so long before their 5th birthdays. If schools are
clear about what entering kindergarteners are expected to know, I
think many parents will prepare their children accordingly. Children
who are slow in learning the basics should not hold back everyone
else.

It is *NOT* developmentally normal or appropriate for
kindergarteners to be expected to do "loads of written homework"
or to be "writing sentences the second week of class." There
may be children who can do that, but there are boatloads of them
(even among the very bright) who cannot.

Best wishes,
Ericka