Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion Spooky.

I think if the girl(Sarah?) had had the same amount of instruction at her level (I'm assuming she didn't because the good readers never do and her self image wasn't allowed to become so tied up in being the best (easier said than done I know) then she wouldn't have developed the problem. I also suspect she was a little hot housed and a people pleasing little girl.

My guess is that this article was aimed at parents of all Sarahs out there and they are many. It's not uncommon for parents these days to want their children to be fluent readers before Kindergarten. I won't share all the details since well, they are not mine to share publicly here but sometimes, I have to ask twice to make sure I heard them right. On one instance, I was ready to call either building security or police for child abuse. This happened before I had DD and it made me swear that I'd never force a child who isn't ready to learn to read to read. Some parents really need to take a chill pill and realize that pushing reading early just isn't worth it in long run and it's not necessarily harmless. These hothoused advanced readers/skimmers often learn to guess their way through multiple-choice tests and their gaps go undetected for years.

I've mentioned this before but there is no way my DD would read a book that she doesn't fully comprehend. She'd squirm and stop reading after a few pages. But I can imagine that there are compliant little girls out there who would sit through a book that is too difficult out of their willingness to please their parents and teachers.

Early literacy brings a lot of insecurities from parents who care about education. The author was probably trying to reassure parents of emergent readers that it is okay to let the process unfold organically.

The problem for parents of children who are actual early readers is that we get mistaken for hothousing parents and even worse, our children are treated the same way as "Sarah." I don't have a solution to fix this and I'm not looking forward to kindergarten.

I read science non- fiction for pleasure. Most often, I can comprehend about 50% of what I read in these books but I LOVE reading them. So sometimes just reading for reading sake is pleasurable. Ps. I do not think I am gifted, just a tad above average.
Dd who I think is gifted has a different problem. Her comprehension is better than her decoding skills. She can listen to classic literature and make connections to real life or other books. But she struggles to and actually hates to read beginner books. Finding a book that is easy to decide but rich in meaning is proving to be quite difficult.

I just don't know if I buy this. Like I said, sure, kids will carry the book around and say they've read it. Perhaps the author was taken in by such children. But actually sit and read it when they can't follow it? At age 7? It's an unusual young child who is so focused on pleasing that he or she will take the hours it takes to read HP book 7 when it doesn't make sense to him/her, for the sake of approval.

Again, I don't think my children are at all unusual in that when they start a book that is too hard for them, they let it drop pretty fast. They do sometimes read books that are pushing their abilities, and I know they miss things. When the book is a classic, this sometimes makes me squirm a little, but I'm not going to forbid. If I control, it's simply to try to strew the appropriate book in their paths at the appropriate time--but there are shelves of books in the house and no one has put them under lock and key. They also have the run of the library at school, and it's a good one.

I also wonder if some of the kids who are "reading" HP in K, as discussed disparagingly there, are mostly being read it and sometimes reading a few pages solo. I know a lot of parents who've done it that way and I don't see a particular issue, though it's not really a case "Look--he's reading HP." This might explain a child whose precocity isn't as much so in later years. Perhaps the parents exaggerated it. That's much more believable to me than the child basically "faking" reading comp he/she doesn't have.

I don't mean to be a huge jerk, but I will note the age of the author's kids--4 and 18 months, was it? She may be a teacher, but her own children are not (probably-- I imagine the 4yo would be encouraged to stop if he/she did read!) of reading age yet and she doesn't have the understanding of what it is to have one's own child reader and how this process can evolve in the home.

I wondered this too so obviously you're not a jerk .
I remember when my DS was fluently reading at 3, friends just not believing we'd hadn't hothoused him, that he was completely self taught. At the time (DS was our first) I couldn't understand their incredulity but my next 2 were both still emergent readers in kinder. I can understand now how unless you've experienced the true self taught early reader it's really unlikely you'll get it. So different from a kid who has been taught to read at an early age where they are decoding for parental reward rather than an intrinsic desire to know. I think the author doesn't get it.

As for not always comprehending everything, particularly in a classic, for me one of the joys of reading is to go back and re read favorites. I'm continuously surprised by how my life experiences make me re evaluate stories I've loved and see them in a new light. I often think did I really get this when I was x? Heh perhaps I'm a failed early reader who only gets the gist of the text.

As for 'Sarah' I'd say the school failed her if they weren't doing regular comprehension checks. It's not a problem with early reading more a problem of poor teaching.

Edited to add: why is Harry Potter held up as the great example of early reading. DS 8 has been stuck for around 2 years now in the 3rd book - not because it's scary, it just doesn't do it for him. He's read far more challenging books though.

I get the general gist of what the author is saying.

She is comparing two students and extrapolating to the population in general.

She is overlooking the negative impact of the school not providing appropriate curriculum and pacing for the early reader, to help that child read deeply, make inferences, discuss stories.

She is overlooking the negative impact of the school allowing high reading group placement to be something to be grasped at, and allowing children to be praised for placement rather than for progress.

She is reveling in the damaged self-esteem of the early reader when competition for reading group placement shifts to verbal skills.

She is boasting of making labels for people.

She is conflating anecdote for research data.

Unfortunately she may also be indicating a type of negative self-fulfilling prophecy about early readers evening out and falling behind... and writing a recipe for how to make this occur in a research study by providing/withholding developmentally appropriate instruction and also by creating fixed or growth mindset.

Sorry if any of this is wrong, there were no pictures to read but I did my best to create a story line and discuss my predictions. (shrug)

LOL. I agree with your story line and predictions.

(I think Harry POtter is used as an example both because it's popular and because the later books are very long and somewhat difficult due to complex plot and language. I love HP, but I also do think there are better books out there. "Difficulty" is something that's quite...difficult to gauge anyway, as one comes to see after checking enough Lexiles. A book can be challenging due to themes, use of symbols, pace, language, length, plotting, sentence structure, subtlety of ideas, references...and a short book with simple language can be difficult.)

I think the teaching of reading and math has become more and more mechanical. The learning and comprehension is an organic process and I always have trouble agreeing with the way that these things are broken down into a few dozens of items that a teacher can check off on a list. It's like they are building a machine. Same with math.

In our elementary school, I know some teachers tie the assessment of reading levels with what they are prepared to let the kids read. So, if a 2rd grade teacher only intends to let kids read the "just right" books for 2nd grade, she would test the kids only with the checklist for 2nd grade. Then on the report card you will see your kid, who has read HP books in 1st grade, reads at "end of 2nd grade" level--because that's how far the testing went. Then the teacher will give your kid 2nd grade books because "according to the assessment your kid is reading at the end of 2nd grade level".

Parents do know a lot about where their kids reading levels are. I remember one parent, when DS was in K, asked me what books DS read. I said that he was reading history books on the Civil War, the first and second World Wars, etc.. Then she said: "OK, I see the difference now. My kid can also 'read' those books. He knows how to pronounce the words. But there is no way he'd actually understand what these books are talking about".

I just don't think teachers necessarily always know more about education than parents, just because they have a certificate. Teachers know more about ongoing educational theories and standard practices, but how good these theories and practices are is still a question.

Well said. Aristotle may agree, as this quote is attributed to him: "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts."