"when there's no pedagogical or cognitive-developmental reason"
How much of a reason is there for the standard time frames? I don't remember any of it making much sence. When I talk to people (I was browsing curriculum books on a discount shelf a few weeks ago, and those were VERY nonsensicle about when to teach what -- to the point of "teaching" completely inaccurate information most of the time in an effort, I think, to make it accessible to the age group they immagined) it never makes much sence at all. As far as I can tell, 90% of the "teaching" people's kids get in school is really compliance. Not so much "can you read this?" but "will you read this when I tell you to, the way I tell you to?"
It seems to me that a "pedagogic" reason for teaching something would be something like the "proximal development" stuff, or else some kind of formalized structure for noting a child's interests and attentions. A cognitive-developmental reason would be something like "readers who learned between the ages of X and Y have brains structured more like Z" where Z is desirable.
I don't think there's much of either of those in formal schooling.
Which is not to say I'd try and hot-house reading so a teacher will "get it," though that might count as a "social developmental reason." I have serious doubts about wether it would WORK. When DS (then 19 mos) went to an SLP, despite having to tick off a whole lot of ahead-of-age-range boxes on her form, she declaired him "delayed." She even inserted the modifier "insignificant" apparently to clarify the situation. She just wasn't interested in seeing a kid with a small spoken vocabularly as a successful communicator. Lots of people won't be interested in seeing a young child as a reader. People usually see what they expect to see.
If I wanted a DCP to "Get" my kid better, I'd just talk to them about him candidly. Not sure that would work EITHER, mind you. Actually I have nothing useful to say. But wanted to point out that the standard ages aren't magical as far as I can tell.
-Mich
