We invite you to share your experiences and to post information about advocacy, research and other gifted education issues on this free public discussion forum. CLICK HERE to Log In. Click here for the Board Rules.
My son read Harry potter at seven in second grade. I was holding off for third but his teacher actually gave them to him. I tried to stop him at number three but there was no stopping him. Just this year he went back and reread them all at nine years old.
I can't count how many times I reread little women.
I recall asking for Les Miserables at the school library and being informed it was not a children's book. The first week of junior high I marched into the library, checked it out, and read it easily. It stretched me in some ways (old-fashioned quirks), but it wasn't difficult vocabulary or content.
There are several kids in DD's second grade class reading Potter now. Some parents will have them stop after a few (which I tried, but DD was desperate! And wasn't disturbed at all. She's stone cold. She loved them! But I guess she gets its fiction. And she certainly "comprehended" them!)
Same!
Except, yeah-- my dad was my biblioholic enabler parent.
DD is similarly stone cold-- she quailed at the "giant snake" in the film version of HP2, and it put her off the books for about six months, when she was five. At 7yo, she finished book seven faster than I did. She stayed up all night after the midnight release. Yes. We let her. It was July-- and I don't know how I'd have stopped her.
By the time she was ten, she was happily blazing Dickensian fiction, which is every bit as harrowing as Les Mis. She definitely "gets" that part of things-- for her, she is a person who enjoys vicariously experiencing the full range of the human condition, I'd say. She's been like this since she learned to read. I've never restricted her reading materials other than to mention that something had "sexual content that you might not be comfortable with yet."
I was the one bawling like a baby for Dobby and Snape, by the way.
I'm completely mystified by the assumption that young fluent readers must not be "comprehending" what they are reading. In what sense?? I mean, I can recall DD telling me all about books that she was reading when she was five and six-- so I know that she was really doing it, and really into them.
I'm completely mystified by the assumption that young fluent readers must not be "comprehending" what they are reading. In what sense??
It's merely a failure of imagination on the judgmental adult's part. Can't imagine a kid who is this different from the norm, can't take the perspective of such a kid, can't flex to see what's happening in front of them instead of what they assume they should see...
I'm completely mystified by the assumption that young fluent readers must not be "comprehending" what they are reading. In what sense?? I mean, I can recall DD telling me all about books that she was reading when she was five and six-- so I know that she was really doing it, and really into them..
Yup, only substitute my son for your daughter. But I only encountered it once with his first grade teacher. Everyone else has totally gotten it. Even before me.
If the argument is going to be, "Children shouldn't be exposed to literature until they're mature enough to FULLY UNDERSTAND it," then that argument could be expanded to the point where nobody should ever read Shakespeare, the source material of any religion, or any other documents of significant historical value. For example, most of our serving Congressmen should not be allowed to read the US Constitution, as they clearly don't understand it.
Throw satire into that category, too. There will always be parts that sail over your head the first time through.
Or, perhaps we can just let kids read what they want and assume that they're getting something out of it, or else they'd quit reading it?
If the argument is going to be, "Children shouldn't be exposed to literature until they're mature enough to FULLY UNDERSTAND it," then that argument could be expanded to the point where nobody should ever read Shakespeare, the source material of any religion, or any other documents of significant historical value. For example, most of our serving Congressmen should not be allowed to read the US Constitution, as they clearly don't understand it.
Throw satire into that category, too. There will always be parts that sail over your head the first time through.
Or, perhaps we can just let kids read what they want and assume that they're getting something out of it, or else they'd quit reading it?
Well, I'm sure there ARE part of Harry Potter my son doesn't understand--by which I do NOT mean plot (I periodically ask him about a plot point and he always is correct--he would pass any typical surface reading comp quiz on the books), but deeper themes. DD didn't start to really get the tragedy of Snape until recently, for instance, and neither of them cry when Cedric's father comes out into the arena in the movie (I always do). They are children, and the books are designed to read on many levels. This is why I am happy DD is still re-reading them, and hope DS will as well. It WAS a slight hesitation for me in having him read them so young...just that he would miss some of the deeper meanings. But not that he would not FOLLOW, no.
Quote
If the argument is going to be, "Children shouldn't be exposed to literature until they're mature enough to FULLY UNDERSTAND it," then that argument could be expanded to the point where nobody should ever read Shakespeare, the source material of any religion, or any other documents of significant historical value. For example, most of our serving Congressmen should not be allowed to read the US Constitution, as they clearly don't understand it.
Right. As I said before, I think special attention (and special hand-wringing) comes about with HP because it is so popular and so many adults have read it and feel like "WELL, but HP is HARD and MEANINGFUL. They can't possibly GET it." Yet of course, many children's books, even those with deceptively simple writing...even picture books...have deep themes that not every child or adult will fully understand or appreciate. Of course, they can generally also be read on another level. This is one of the beauties of children's books.
The librarian sounds dreadful but...we also have to take into account that they have some things working against them. So, let's say Mrs. X gives HP to an interested 1st grader and that child starts to read it right away and then takes it home to his ultra conservative, devoutly religious family. The same family that heard in church on Sunday that witchcraft is a sin. The family freaks out, tells everyone, writes letters, places calls, goes to the school board, etc. I go to my children's teachers and librarian every single year and give blanket permission for them to read anything they would like. It saves heartache for everyone.
The librarian sounds dreadful but...we also have to take into account that they have some things working against them. So, let's say Mrs. X gives HP to an interested 1st grader and that child starts to read it right away and then takes it home to his ultra conservative, devoutly religious family. The same family that heard in church on Sunday that witchcraft is a sin. The family freaks out, tells everyone, writes letters, places calls, goes to the school board, etc. I go to my children's teachers and librarian every single year and give blanket permission for them to read anything they would like. It saves heartache for everyone.
Great point. Our DD's first grade reading group (of 1) was assigned HP, but the library in the same school has no copies of Captain Underpants, due to parent complaints. There was a mom when my kids were in elem who tried to get Geronimo Stilton banned because it contains the word *sexy*. I kid you not.
Then again, my DD's English class is reading Pope Joan right now, historical fiction about a woman who disguises herself as a man and becomes pope during the dark ages; at the end of the book she dies in childbirth. Lots of great ideas for discussion, but I have to admit I am amazed that there have been no parental complaints on this one- I am assuming they haven't read it (or perhaps the parents of the honors level kids are a bit more open-minded?).
Well, but then Harry Potter is a problem for all grades, not just first, and should be on a "parent permission" shelf. Mind you, I feel this is an insanely slippery slope. The number of kids' books with "occult" elements is huge.
