2-year-olds reading?

Anyone else out there heard of "native reading"? I was interested in
starting to teach my oldest to read early, and was googling around and
found a website called nativereading.com. It has two chapters of a
book online where the author makes a pretty compelling argument that
kids should begin learning to read right when they learn to talk.
Calls the method native reading. He says his kids learned at 1 1/2 and
2 1/2.

I actually found the what was on the website interesting enough that
I've already ordered the book. Still, I wondered what other people
knew or thought of this method.

Also, the author has a hypothesis that some cases of dyslexia might be
caused by late reading, and might possibly even be preventable by
native reading. He also makes a case that dyslexia is a "smart
disease" caused (at least sometimes) by making a kid relearn low-level
skills like decoding when their language skills are already too
advanced. I have a stepbrother who is dyslexic and I'm not sure about
the idea, but it made a lot of sense, too.

wrote in message
...
Anyone else out there heard of "native reading"? I was interested in
starting to teach my oldest to read early, and was googling around and
found a website called website snipped. It has two chapters of a
book online where the author makes a pretty compelling argument that
kids should begin learning to read right when they learn to talk.
Calls the method native reading. He says his kids learned at 1 1/2 and
2 1/2.

Well my kids were talking before 1 1/2, and reading some words before 2yo,
and reading fairly fluently before 3yo. 2 1/2 would be a late talker.
However quickly they learn to read their reading vocabulary is going to be
behind their speaking vocabulary, which is often behind their undersanding
vocabulary.

I actually found the what was on the website interesting enough that
I've already ordered the book. Still, I wondered what other people
knew or thought of this method.

Also, the author has a hypothesis that some cases of dyslexia might be
caused by late reading, and might possibly even be preventable by
native reading. He also makes a case that dyslexia is a "smart
disease" caused (at least sometimes) by making a kid relearn low-level
skills like decoding when their language skills are already too
advanced. I have a stepbrother who is dyslexic and I'm not sure about
the idea, but it made a lot of sense, too.
Don't think that makes any sense at all.

It's probably the case that *some* dyslexics read late because it's
something they struggle with, not because they weren't taught to read early.
Anyway. I was taught to read from about 2, was a keen reader (I read Lord of
the Rings at 6yo) and am mildly dyslexic.
And there's been research showing that dyslexia can be caused by a faulty
gene too.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3182251.stm

How are you making a kid "relearn" decoding because their langage is more
advanced on what they're reading? If they've lqearnt how to decode, then
they don't need to learn it again. If they haven't learnt it then they're
learning it for the first time, not re-learning.

Debbie

Hi --

A wise person once told me that it doesn't matter when a child learns to
read. What matters is how far they go before they stop wanting to
learn. And I have to tell you, I know quite a few people who didn't
learn to read until they were 5, 6, or 7 years old who went on to be
happy, engaged learners. And quite a few who were taught to read early
who never really did enjoy it.

I think that if you make the process fun, and back off when your child
doesn't want to read, that early reading is fine. But it's not
necessary.

If you have a family history of dyslexia, then you might want to look
more closely at alternate approaches to early reading. But without
that, the best thing you can do for your child is to tell stories, read
aloud, and in all ways expose your child to the more complex sentence
structures, plots, and background knowledge that will make reading
itself rewarding.

The background knowledge is very important. Take your child to the zoo,
go maple-sugaring, make play-dough at home and then use it, do science
experiments .....

I hope these thoughts help,
--Beth Kevles
-THE-COM-HERE
http://web.mit.edu/kevles/www/nomilk.html -- a page for the milk-allergic
Disclaimer: Nothing in this message should be construed as medical
advice. Please consult with your own medical practicioner.

NOTE: No email is read at my MIT address. Use the GMAIL one if you would
like me to reply.

I'm a "native reader"-according to my parents, they realized I could read,
as opposed to just memorizing books, at 2 1/2, when I read the headline on a
newspaper. I entered kindergarten reading off the top of the test they gave
at the time. So is my daughter, who began making comments indicating she was
reading signs at 15-16 months, and by 2 could easily handle anything as long
as the print was big enough. At 3, she can handle things that are labeled
for 2nd-3rd graders, but, again, print size is an issue, as is interest
level.

In neither case were we "taught" to read-it was more like it was something
that just came. My parents were both readers, and read aloud to us from
birth on, pretty much (actually, since my mother was a grad student at the
time, and her primary means of studying anything is reading it aloud, I got
immersed in microbiology from an early age ) and the same is true with my
daughter, but except for "Sesame Street", and, in my daughter's case, some
playing around on Starfall, there hasn't been any formal instruction. I
figure there's just a gene somewhere which triggers early reading in females
(both my brother and DH did the "waiting to read until starting instruction,
then jumping from "I see the cat" to novels overnight).

Frankly, I don't see much benefit in having a 2 yr old reading-certainly not
something that would indicate a need to "Teach" the skill early. For us,
it's led to having to censor and be much more careful about what she sees,
because she does pick up on information and ask questions. (I realized she
could read the headlines on CNN headline news when she started crying
suddenly in a hotel lobby. She'd read that people had died at a college in
Virginia, and her grandpa teaches at a college in Virginia. Or, on a more
humorous note, it's having your toddler run up and ask- "Mommy, what's a
D***"-having read "Suck my D***" scrawled underneath a piece of playground
equiptment).

And it's wondering what the heck this kid is going to do in kindergarten,
because she's still pretty obviously her age in so many ways, but
academically, she was functioning above a kindergarten level in just about
everything not requiring writing by the time she turned 3. I know I spent
years reading below the desk and living in my own fantasy world, but I went
to school before everything became test prep and documentation driven, when
teachers had a little more leeway to ignore such behavior. It's having
people assume your child is older than she is due to her vocabulary and
conversation, then have trouble when she acts like a toddler-and sometimes,
I admit, that person is me.

And it's having a child who really struggles to find a place in the world
where she belongs and friends, because while she can get along with children
her age, it's hard for her to play at their level, while the older children,
who do have similar interests and ideas, usually have a limited tolerance
for a child who can't keep up with them physically.

Is being at the top of the class in school really worth years of boredom and
social issues?

On Mar 12, 7:13*am, (Beth Kevles) wrote:
Hi --

A wise person once told me that it doesn't matter when a child learns to
read. *What matters is how far they go before they stop wanting to
learn. *

A child who is reading at a much lower level than his classmates will
be hampered in all subjects and may reject school entirely. Parents
will try to avoid putting their children in this situation.
Conversely, I think my eldest son should be in 1st grade next year and
not repeat kindergarten, even though he will be only 5yrs 2mo this
September, because he is already reading (and doing arithmetic) at a
1st grade level.

wrote:
Anyone else out there heard of "native reading"? I was interested in
starting to teach my oldest to read early, and was googling around and
found a website called nativereading.com. It has two chapters of a
book online where the author makes a pretty compelling argument that
kids should begin learning to read right when they learn to talk.
Calls the method native reading. He says his kids learned at 1 1/2 and
2 1/2.

I think he has taken a sample size of two and generalised to "all
children". On the website, I could not find any description of any
other parent teaching any other child to read using his method.

I actually found the what was on the website interesting enough that
I've already ordered the book. Still, I wondered what other people
knew or thought of this method.

As an alternative to flash cards etc, I think it has to be a better
approach. But IME there is a point at which children 'get' reading, and
I think there is probably a genetic componant to it.

As an example one of my kids could sound out words phonetically by the
time she was five. She been surrounded by books her entire life, but
could only sound words out rather then reading fluently. But in the
space of about three months, she went from sounding out to reading
chapter books. Yes it was three years later then the author's children,
but she loves reading and had read the Hobbit by the time she was 8yo.

By all means read the book, and put it's methods into practise. But I
don't think it is necessarily going to help a particular kid to read early.

--
Penny Gaines
UK mum to three

Penny Gaines wrote:

I think he has taken a sample size of two and generalised to "all
children". On the website, I could not find any description of any
other parent teaching any other child to read using his method.

I realise the sample size issue. But I like that the author doesn't
pretend otherwise. There are plenty of scientists (especially in
medicine) who do tiny studies with sample sizes of ten or less, and
then hype the data to no end (especially when there's a new
prescription drug to be sold with a patent that only lasts so long!),
because they scraped by with a "significant" p value of 0.05.
Statistics are so misused (speaking as someone who has taught the
subject in the past).

Besides, when you consider just the responses to my post, there are
obviously other children who, while rare, read very early. And since
it's just the first few responses to one post, they must number easily
in the thousands. (And yes, that's just a guestimate, but think, what
is the probability that two or three other people who read this early
would already post here, if the number were anything less than many
thousand.) Actually, I mentioned the book to my wife after posting
last night and she said that, according to her dad, her uncle read
fluently when he was two years old.

As an alternative to flash cards etc, I think it has to be a better
approach. But IME there is a point at which children 'get' reading, and
I think there is probably a genetic componant to it.

I agree about the flashcards. That's why I liked the chapters online.
It's all about reading through social interaction and natural play,
analogous to the unstructured way we learn spoken language. On the
genetics issue, I personally think that's sort of a red herring. I
mean, I'm sure there is a genetic component to how and when kids read,
but there is a genetic component to almost everything! The point is
the environment matters, too. People lapse into genetic fatalism a
lot.

In making the case that very early reading might be possible for many,
if not most children, the most compelling argument of the book, from
what's online, is the argument that most children already master
learning to talk as toddlers, and reading, while more abstract, is
inherently an almost entirely analogous task. Why not use that natural
ability to learn to read, too?

I agree that reading early could raise issues in a world where it's
rare, but when you say "Is being at the top of the class in school
really worth years of boredom and social issues?" I have a hard time
thinking that the best solution is to make sure the kid stays a little
less smart. How about finding a better school and social environment?

I know this isn't always easy. It sounds like you and your daughter
have experienced the real difficulties of being at the "top of the
class" and I don't mean to minimize this, but I agree with one of the
other replies that being at the bottom of the class is pretty
difficult, too. (The grass is always greener on the other side, I
guess.) I didn't do to bad in school, and yes that occasionally was an
issue, but when I got older there was a real difference when those
standardized tests came along. For many of my friends their results
limited their opportunities, but for me opportunities opened up
because of my scores. If I had to choose, I'd rather my kids have the
choices. At least in my experience, the little bit of social
awkwardness that "being smart" (in deserving scare quotes) brought was
not a big deal growing up, and it entirely disappeared when I hit
college and hasn't returned since.

I admit, at least in some circles, this might be less true for girls
and women, which is unfortunate. There are still some men (and women,
too) who are threatened by a really smart person with two X
chromosomes. IMO, this is entirely their problem, not yours. Of
course, there are also guys like me who like nothing better than a
woman who can beat me in Scrabble!

As a friend once told me: "The grass is always greener on the other
side of the street, but it still has to be mowed."

(Of course, if you don't mow, you sequester more carbon, and reduce
global greenhouse gases!)

I also find the dyslexia hypothesis on the site really intriguing. I
admit, and the author seems to too, that it's probably only true for
some fraction of dyslexia cases, if it true at all. But it fits my
impression of dylexia in my stepbrother. If you haven't looked at the
site you might want to. It's a clean site, there are links to where
you can buy the book, but there aren't any ads or anything, and he's
got the whole chapter online there. And I still think the genetics
issue people bring up misses the point, in most cases. Yes, I'm sure
there is a genetic component to dyslexia, but that does not imply
genetic fatalism. It's nearly always genetics AND environment, rather
than genetics OR environment. No matter how genetically predisposed to
reading you might be, if you are raised by illiterate parents in an
illiterate rural community (as practically everyone was until
recently, btw) you are very unlikely to read. And even for someone
genetically predisposed to dyslexia, there may be some environments
where that predisposition won't express itself. And I think a native
reading environment might just be that for many kids.

IMO, people like the idea that "my genes made me do it" way too much.
(And I'm not minimizing the importance of genetics in saying this!)
It's not _entirely_ wrong, but I think a big part of the attraction is
that it absolves them -- and their parents sometimes -- of any
responsibility for their situation, whatever it is. In some cases it's
even more extreme than "genetic fatalism" and grades all the way to
"genetic astrology."

BTW, I'm not saying you're guilty of this, it's just a general point
that I think is too often the case.



Donna Metler wrote:
I'm a "native reader"-according to my parents, they realized I could read,
as opposed to just memorizing books, at 2 1/2, when I read the headline on a
newspaper. I entered kindergarten reading off the top of the test they gave
at the time. So is my daughter, who began making comments indicating she was
reading signs at 15-16 months, and by 2 could easily handle anything as long
as the print was big enough. At 3, she can handle things that are labeled
for 2nd-3rd graders, but, again, print size is an issue, as is interest
level.

In neither case were we "taught" to read-it was more like it was something
that just came. My parents were both readers, and read aloud to us from
birth on, pretty much (actually, since my mother was a grad student at the
time, and her primary means of studying anything is reading it aloud, I got
immersed in microbiology from an early age ) and the same is true with my
daughter, but except for "Sesame Street", and, in my daughter's case, some
playing around on Starfall, there hasn't been any formal instruction. I
figure there's just a gene somewhere which triggers early reading in females
(both my brother and DH did the "waiting to read until starting instruction,
then jumping from "I see the cat" to novels overnight).

Frankly, I don't see much benefit in having a 2 yr old reading-certainly not
something that would indicate a need to "Teach" the skill early. For us,
it's led to having to censor and be much more careful about what she sees,
because she does pick up on information and ask questions. (I realized she
could read the headlines on CNN headline news when she started crying
suddenly in a hotel lobby. She'd read that people had died at a college in
Virginia, and her grandpa teaches at a college in Virginia. Or, on a more
humorous note, it's having your toddler run up and ask- "Mommy, what's a
D***"-having read "Suck my D***" scrawled underneath a piece of playground
equiptment).

And it's wondering what the heck this kid is going to do in kindergarten,
because she's still pretty obviously her age in so many ways, but
academically, she was functioning above a kindergarten level in just about
everything not requiring writing by the time she turned 3. I know I spent
years reading below the desk and living in my own fantasy world, but I went
to school before everything became test prep and documentation driven, when
teachers had a little more leeway to ignore such behavior. It's having
people assume your child is older than she is due to her vocabulary and
conversation, then have trouble when she acts like a toddler-and sometimes,
I admit, that person is me.

And it's having a child who really struggles to find a place in the world
where she belongs and friends, because while she can get along with children
her age, it's hard for her to play at their level, while the older children,
who do have similar interests and ideas, usually have a limited tolerance
for a child who can't keep up with them physically.

Is being at the top of the class in school really worth years of boredom and
social issues?

On Mar 12, 10:42 am, argo wrote:
I agree that reading early could raise issues in a world where it's
rare, but when you say "Is being at the top of the class in school
really worth years of boredom and social issues?" I have a hard time
thinking that the best solution is to make sure the kid stays a little
less smart. How about finding a better school and social environment?

I know this isn't always easy. It sounds like you and your daughter
have experienced the real difficulties of being at the "top of the
class" and I don't mean to minimize this, but I agree with one of the
other replies that being at the bottom of the class is pretty
difficult, too. (The grass is always greener on the other side, I
guess.)

I was often at the top of the class and never felt that problematic.
Yes, my parents worked with all of us on our skills at home, but it
also was never under pressure to be at the top of the class. I was an
early reader not because my parents decided to make me own, but
because I had an interest and they offered me books.

Programs specifically aimed at making your child 'the smartest kid
around' disturb me, as I think it puts far too much pressure on the
kid. There already is so much pressure on kids today to be the best,
they spend all their spare time in programs aimed at preparing them
for college. This, at 6 years old! Kids need time to explore and be
kids. They'll learn most, IMO, from what they discover themselves.
That doesn't mean leave them to figure everything out on their own,
they need to have the tools at home (a home with no books and a kid
will never learn to read), but I think pushing the issue only makes
kids more stressed and frustrated. There's an epidemic of ulcers in
teens these days.

But maybe I am just lazy. My 20 month old has a love affair with books
already. It involves pulling them all off the shelves. At this point
she's most interested in figuring out how to open every container she
can find. I'm not too worried about her not reading by the time she's
2. As long as we keep reading to her, and she sees us reading, it'll
become appealing to her when she's ready.

I apparently taught myself to read by reading street signs because my
mom bought into the idea that we shouldn't be taught to read early. My
sister did not do that, but in her case I think it was because she was
very nearsighted and could not SEE the street signs, until she got
glasses after first grade. I played school with her and taught her to
read before she went to kindergarten.

One of my grandchildren was VERY quick to memorize the books that his
parents read to him, and could recite quite long books perfectly when
he was very little (like 3) . But he also reads well above his grade
level now.

Donna has listed some of the reasons why early reading might not be an
advantage. My sister used to read Parents Magazine and try to figure
out when our parents were using their advice on us. It's like when
you can no longer spell things if you want to communicate without the
children understanding what you mean.