If you want a glimpse into the thinking of the teacher who doesn't want your child reading anything above grade level, here you go.
http://www.nais.org/Magazines-Newsl...Slow-and-Steady-Still-Wins-the-Race.aspx
From the article:
"The symptoms of the Harry Potter Effect persist well past kindergarten and first grade. They appear even more severe as these early readers seem to plateau in their growth just as their peers begin to catch up. Children suffering from the Harry Potter Effect feel these symptoms most acutely as they sense their status as the “best” is being threatened. Children whose self-esteem is bonded so tightly with their image as being “smart”—which is consistently the adjective parents and schools use to describe children who read at a young age—can experience painful resentment as they see more and more of their peers placed in the advanced reading group and thrive there. These first graders who had proudly shared with anyone who would listen that they were reading Harry Potter are at risk of becoming fourth graders who must be incentivized in order to read anything at all."
This gets into what I was trying to articulate with respect to developmental arc.
Some kids are like what this teacher sees.
Some are not.
So, this thinking is appropriate in some situations and not in others.
Second, it drives me nuts when teachers cheapen reading with external rewards. I made a conscious effort to undermine this with my kids in order to keep it intrinsically rewarding.
Almost all of my reading is based on external rewards, so it's certainly consistent with the working world.
Second, it drives me nuts when teachers cheapen reading with external rewards. I made a conscious effort to undermine this with my kids in order to keep it intrinsically rewarding.
I agree - at DD6's school they make such a big deal out of earning AR points to get all of these silly certificates that it turns a lot of kids off form reading. The only books in the library are books that have AR tests associated with them! Granted, most books now have AR tests with them, but why should a child have to take a test on every library book they read? Why can't they just read because they think it is an interesting book? I know some of DD's friends hate reading already in 1st grade because of the tests and the thought of not getting enough points to get the next reward before everyone else does.
" These first graders who had proudly shared with anyone who would listen that they were reading Harry Potter are at risk of becoming fourth graders who must be incentivized in order to read anything at all."
I don't know any kids like this. Does anyone else? A child who read HP or similar in first grade and then became a nonreader in 4th?
What really aggravated me (well, among other things) was her theory that kids who learn to read later become better readers than those who independently learn to read early. There is no evidence for this. Her private school background is probably completely deluding her here, in the sense that sure, there are indeed bright kids (what's the average IQ at her school--115, 120?) who read late and then catch up very well. But much of the time, the child who is struggling with reading in second grade is a child who is going to continue to struggle. Early problems with reading predict future problems for most of the population, and early success with reading, especially untaught, predicts future success. It's not a big mystery. This is established. As a literacy specialist or whatever, she really ought to know this.
Respectfully, psychland, I really disagree. That is, I agree with this:
When you have to work to decode text your comprehension of it is not great. It does not matter how bright you are you are still missing things.
Yes. When my kindergartener reads The Phoenix and the Carpet, he is missing things that his older sister does not miss.
But I completely disagree with this:
When you read a book for fun you should be able to decode all the words (with the possible exception of one of two, in the book NOT per page) and understand all of the nuances of the language used. If you can't do that you probably should not read it.
Very, very strongly disagree. I feel sad just thinking about that, actually. In the BOOK? So DD8 should have been able to decode every word in every Harry Potter book before I "allowed" her to read them? You are going to forbid your daughter to read them till she can decode every single word (but one or two) in the 700+ page tomes in the later books. How would you even know? Heck, there may be a few words in those books that *I* did not know.
I don't have a problem with it at an earlier age in an effort to improve reading ability. Of course, if a teacher want to limit a child from expanding their reading ability, there is no point. This year when homeschooling my DD8, we made her read longer chapter books. Initially, she took forever to read her one chapter for the day. She complained like crazy. After a few weeks, she was reading in 1/10 of the time from when we started. After a couple months, she started to actually like reading.
1) Reading comprehension as a skill and reading comprehension as evaluated by early elementary school teachers are not the same thing.
2) "Sarah" is spending most of her reading time reading alone, whereas "Aaron" is reading with adults. One is interacting with educated people and learning to analyze text, the other is not. Should we really be surprised that the one doesn't learn how to analyze?
I think this teacher has made a valid observation, but then she says, "Here is what I think is happening," and her hypothesis is wrong.
Also, I didn't get the impression that her observations extend past 4th grade. I think she might be surprised if she were to look at Sarah and Aaron in 10th grade.
And this part was just plain hilarious:
Children who begin to read independently at an older age approach the reading process more systematically and with more maturity. These students employ a variety of comprehension tools such as accessing background knowledge and drawing on a much larger bank of vocabulary.
Errr... late readers have larger vocabularies? In what parallel universe?
" These first graders who had proudly shared with anyone who would listen that they were reading Harry Potter are at risk of becoming fourth graders who must be incentivized in order to read anything at all."
I don't know any kids like this. Does anyone else? A child who read HP or similar in first grade and then became a nonreader in 4th?
My DD is in 4th, and read HP in 1st. A couple of months ago she was outraged that DW and I had visited a new second-hand bookstore without her.
" These first graders who had proudly shared with anyone who would listen that they were reading Harry Potter are at risk of becoming fourth graders who must be incentivized in order to read anything at all."
I don't know any kids like this. Does anyone else? A child who read HP or similar in first grade and then became a nonreader in 4th?
This relates to the conversation over in the Tiger Parenting thread hyper-competition thread.
That article was similar to a lot of pseudoscience I've reviewed:
- She's probably taught a few hundred students at most in ten years and doesn't seem to be aware of the rare ones with very high ability (let alone the very rare ones).
- She didn't say anything about testing her ideas objectively. So there's a high chance that her conclusions are subject to confirmation bias (accept the information supporting my idea, ignore anything else). This is the worst thing about these types. They have no clue about how to actually test an idea, and most or all of the ones I've met have no desire to do so.
- The analogy to tooth development was completely goofy.
- By ignoring the nuances she bleats about, she makes things even harder for gifted students.
There's nothing quite like the arrogance of ignorance.
All she is saying is that this is the way reading develops and we should be doing the same for children. Reading a challenging book every now and then is ok but they are unlikely to develop a love of reading if reading is always challenging as opposed to relaxing and fun. Most of the peer reviewed research agrees with what the teacher in the article is stating. I think the point is as long as reading is developing in a typical manner there is no evidence that an early reader will be a better reader in the long run and much of the research being done at this time indicates that she is right.
Reading doesn't develop the same way in every child. It developed differently in all three of my kids, for example, and differently again in my neighbor's kids. Like linear growth, there are overall patterns, but few kids fit them exactly and many are way outside the bounds.
I agree with your note about not being made to read reading challenging books too frequently.
But "challenging" has to be defined by the person doing the reading, not a teacher who decided that Harry Potter is too hard for a given age group. Don't forget that being made to constantly read books that are too easy can also be detrimental.
Respectfully, psychland, I really disagree. That is, I agree with this:
When you have to work to decode text your comprehension of it is not great. It does not matter how bright you are you are still missing things.
Yes. When my kindergartener reads The Phoenix and the Carpet, he is missing things that his older sister does not miss.
But I completely disagree with this:
When you read a book for fun you should be able to decode all the words (with the possible exception of one of two, in the book NOT per page) and understand all of the nuances of the language used. If you can't do that you probably should not read it.
Very, very strongly disagree. I feel sad just thinking about that, actually. In the BOOK? So DD8 should have been able to decode every word in every Harry Potter book before I "allowed" her to read them? You are going to forbid your daughter to read them till she can decode every single word (but one or two) in the 700+ page tomes in the later books. How would you even know? Heck, there may be a few words in those books that *I* did not know.
Completely agree with Ultramarina. No offensive but "reading specialists" with this kind of mindset practically destroyed my son's love for reading. Actually they did destroy it. He is just now regaining it. And his comprehension is HIGH much higher than his decoding and always has been. He has always like to read books just a touch too hard. He does look for the sweet spot for him - if it's too hard he will abandon it (but he needs to be the one making that determination) but if it is too easy - forget it. He explains it this way - "if I am reading I want it to be worthwhile. I want words I don't know, I want the struggle. I NEED it." Granted, my kid is a bit weird. But now we both groan when we hear the title "reading specialist" and brace ourselves.
All she is saying is that this is the way reading develops and we should be doing the same for children. Reading a challenging book every now and then is ok but they are unlikely to develop a love of reading if reading is always challenging as opposed to relaxing and fun. Most of the peer reviewed research agrees with what the teacher in the article is stating. I think the point is as long as reading is developing in a typical manner there is no evidence that an early reader will be a better reader in the long run and much of the research being done at this time indicates that she is right.
Reading doesn't develop the same way in every child. It developed differently in all three of my kids, for example, and differently again in my neighbor's kids. Like linear growth, there are overall patterns, but few kids fit them exactly and many are way outside the bounds.
I agree with your note about not being made to read reading challenging books too frequently.
But "challenging" has to be defined by the person doing the reading, not a teacher who decided that Harry Potter is too hard for a given age group. Don't forget that being made to constantly read books that are too easy can also be detrimental.
Amen.
"Gifted children must get the dignity that his/her intellect deserves. When kids underachieve it's because we teach it so well."
1) I think this teacher has made a valid observation, but then she says, "Here is what I think is happening," and her hypothesis is wrong.
Well, it could be accurate for a significant subset of the human population.
I mean it could be 90% of what she sees.
Actually, while one child's reading development may look differently than another's, with the exception of some type of reading issues (deficits in phonological or orthographic processing, hyperlexia etc..) reading does develop the same in most children. It is an overflow of language development and exceptional readers generally take the same path to reading. They may do so on a different timeline but they follow the same steps. Sorry if I am not drawn in by anecdotal evidence but I would have given this article no weight if this teachers anecdotal experiences were not consistent with current empirically validated research. I think it is important to remember that very gifted children are outliers and not take offense to an article that is obviously not meant to address their experience.
psychland, I read widely in educational research for work. Though this is certainly not my specialty, I have never seen any research that supports this theory:
Here is what I think is happening: children who begin to decode at a very young age are positively reinforced with more and more reading material that becomes much too advanced for the very young child. That is, though some children are whizzes at breaking down two, three, and even four syllable words, they most likely do not have the vocabulary or the maturity necessary for understanding these texts. And, yet, because they read them fluently, parents (and unfortunately some teachers) continue to push them to read longer, more sophisticated books. Gradually, these decoding geniuses develop a devastating habit—they get used to getting the gist of what they read and that is what reading becomes for them.
Can you point me to it? Everything I have read about precocious readers supports the general idea that precocious readers continue to be strong readers. This doesn't mean children who are NOT precocious readers won't catch up, of course.
Yes, I have seen research that points to the conclusion that children must enjoy reading if they are to learn to love it, but I think we know that. That's not at all the same claim that reading books for fun that contain words a child does not know will harm him or her. It's also not the same as saying that forcing a child to read books way above his level in school is harmful. (I agree. But we are not talking about that! We are talking about withholding books from eager readers who are motivated to read them because the adult "knows better.")
Yes, I have known children who carried around Harry Potter without having read it or said they had read Harry Potter when they hadn't, but I don't know any who actually sat there for hours on end forcing their way through it when it was way beyond them for the sake of accolade. Children are easily bored little beings. My own daughter started reading Little Women in second grade, possibly because she thought it seemed impressive. I didn't say anything. She got about 40 pages in and gave up. It was not at her level at that time. I didn't need to snatch it away from her, because she was not going to sit there and push through it.
I can't think of a better way to depress and bore my two young precocious readers than to have limited them to books that contained only one word total that they did not know.
We keep seeing references to "the research" in this thread, but this is the first research-based information I found:
http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/nrcgt/reports/Trifolds/A9403P.pdfPrecocious readers almost always remain at least average in their reading ability, and most stay well above average as they progress through school.
Completely flaky. The author is basically saying that if a child happens to be an early reader, then as a consequence, the parents will push the child into reading books that are too hard.
I also found a
review of the literature on early readers. It was published in 2006. So it's pretty recent.
Given the subjective nature of the methodologies and the lack of specific criteria defining the stages, it is somewhat difficult to determine whether the stages reported by Anbar (1986) and Lass (1983) corroborate or contradict each other. ... No research studies, however, have used more objective means to define the stages, and, without such research, a true understanding of the process of early reading remains subjective.
AND, regarding the academic development of early readers over time (emphasis mine):
Both studies also revealed that more intelligent early readers (median IQ = 146.5) failed to maintain the earlier large gap between their skills and those of nonearly readers. The gap between more intelligent early readers and IQ-matched nonearly readers tended to decrease over time. In contrast, precocious readers of average intelligence tended to increase the gap between their performance and that of nonprecocious readers. That is, although precocious readers with higher intelligence tended to maintain higher overall reading achievement, their reading achievement test scores failed to increase at the same rate as the nonearly readers. Durkin explained this phenomena in terms of regression toward the mean, the natural tendency of extremely high (or low) test scores to regress toward the mean over time, and ceiling effects, the tests’ limited ability to accurately assess the progress of the precocious readers due to scores that were already near the tests’ ceiling on initial assessments.
In other words, they didn't "improve" because the tests
couldn't actually measure improvement.
Psychland, if you have a study that's more recent than 2006 that also meets criteria for objectivity, I'd be interested in a link to it. Vague statements about information on a website are far from enough. You should be able to at least find links to abstracts.
In other words, they didn't "improve" because the tests couldn't actually measure improvement.
We're also talking about a fairly basic skill here.
I'm not sure what we are worried about measuring or improving once you are at or near the ceiling.
Because at that point, you have learned the skill.
In mathematics, once you have learned the basics of calculus....you have learned the basics of calculus.
With my sample size of 1, I can say that decoding and comprehension aren't necessarily mutually exclusive at the early stages of reading, particularly for children who rely on sight words.
When DS first began reading, he relied mostly on phonetic decomposition, clues from first letters of words, and context.
Now, as an "older" early reader, he blends phonetic decomposition and sight words. Because the average complexity of the words he reads is higher, more information has to be stored in his working memory at any time when decoding. However, with a larger bank of retained sight words, understanding of sight words is immediate. So there's a natural trade-off in the speed of a cycle of decoding to comprehension as he acquires a richer spoken and read vocabulary. I imagine this process, or one like it, is seen in kindergarten HP readers, with a discrete jump as the child first makes the transition from classroom easy readers. That's learning.
From what I see, my son will gladly accept a slower processing speed in the short term for the benefit of greater ease in reading later. He's intrinsically motivated by the challenge and seems thrilled when he reads more (for him) complex words like "stopped" or "hippocampus". Having the power to unlock new knowledge seems intoxicating to him.
The notion expressed by the author that you should have full comprehension of all nuances of a passage is preposterous. That is tantamount to saying that there should never be any learning from reading. Total hogwash.
In other words, they didn't "improve" because the tests couldn't actually measure improvement.
We're also talking about a fairly basic skill here.
I'm not sure what we are worried about measuring or improving once you are at or near the ceiling.
Because at that point, you have learned the skill.
In mathematics, once you have learned the basics of calculus....you have learned the basics of calculus.
Exactly. Mastery is mastery.
I am aware of research showing that children who are explicitly TAUGHT to read early, in the classroom, do not maintain an advantage over children who have reading introduced later on. But that's not the same thing at all.
Because at that point, you have learned the skill.
In mathematics, once you have learned the basics of calculus....you have learned the basics of calculus.
Exactly. Mastery is mastery.
I disagree.
Mastering the basics of calculus (whatever that means, TBH) doesn't mean you can do differential equations, and you won't get there if your professor tells you that you're too young for it and that you have to keep practicing the chain rule and the substitution method for another couple years.
This is precisely the situation that gifted kids are in at school, and precisely the situation that this so-called reading specialist is using and advocating: you can't read book x because I decided it's too hard for kids your age. And BTW, your test scores prove it: you're not getting better.
Never mind that you had hit the test ceiling last time. So here's a basic reader for you.
I'm kind of surprised to see this reaction from two people here?
This is precisely the situation that gifted kids are in at school, and precisely the situation that this so-called reading specialist is using and advocating: you can't read book x because I decided it's too hard for kids your age. And BTW, your test scores prove it: you're not getting better. Never mind that you had hit the test ceiling last time. So here's a basic reader for you.
I'm kind of surprised to see this reaction from two people here?
I was thinking more of "here's a library, now, go read whatever you want to read" once you have essentially mastered reading.
Ability to read at a basic level + dictionary = able to read just about anything that you feel like reading.
Ability to read at a basic level + dictionary = able to read just about anything that you feel like reading.
Mmm--I actually don't agree with this. Which doesn't mean I think kids shouldn't be allowed to read books that are a bit beyond them, or contain words they don't know!
Because at that point, you have learned the skill.
In mathematics, once you have learned the basics of calculus....you have learned the basics of calculus.
Exactly. Mastery is mastery.
I disagree.
Mastering the basics of calculus (whatever that means, TBH) doesn't mean you can do differential equations, and you won't get there if your professor tells you that you're too young for it and that you have to keep practicing the chain rule and the substitution method for another couple years.
This is precisely the situation that gifted kids are in at school, and precisely the situation that this so-called reading specialist is using and advocating: you can't read book x because I decided it's too hard for kids your age. And BTW, your test scores prove it: you're not getting better.
Never mind that you had hit the test ceiling last time. So here's a basic reader for you.
I'm kind of surprised to see this reaction from two people here?
Mastery of a skill implies you have knowledge that allows you to access more difficult material. There are only so many phonetic combinations that a child has to learn before virtually any word can be understood (possibly with a dictionary), so mastery occurs earlier in reading than other subjects, like calculus.
I understood Jon to be contrasting reading with calculus. Once you understand the basics of reading, you can apply them to infinitely more difficult contexts. With calculus, mastery of the basics doesn't necessarily imply you have the potential to immediately access more difficult material without more instruction. (Obviously, for some autodidacts, this will be untrue.)
Because at that point, you have learned the skill.
In mathematics, once you have learned the basics of calculus....you have learned the basics of calculus.
Exactly. Mastery is mastery.
I disagree.
Mastering the basics of calculus (whatever that means, TBH) doesn't mean you can do differential equations, and you won't get there if your professor tells you that you're too young for it and that you have to keep practicing the chain rule and the substitution method for another couple years.
This is precisely the situation that gifted kids are in at school, and precisely the situation that this so-called reading specialist is using and advocating: you can't read book x because I decided it's too hard for kids your age. And BTW, your test scores prove it: you're not getting better.
Never mind that you had hit the test ceiling last time. So here's a basic reader for you.
I'm kind of surprised to see this reaction from two people here?
Mastery of a skill implies you have knowledge that allows you to access more difficult material. There are only so many phonetic combinations that a child has to learn before virtually any word can be understood (possibly with a dictionary), so mastery occurs earlier in reading than other subjects.
I understood Jon to be contrasting reading with calculus. Once you understand the basics of reading, you can apply them to infinitely more difficult contexts. With calculus, mastery of the basics doesn't necessarily imply you have the potential to immediately access more difficult material without more instruction. (Obviously, for some autodidacts, this will be untrue.)
Yes.
This mindset (that the same proximal zone exists for a group of children of the same age, or worse, that one exists for a similar group of children) is downright toxic for kids who mastery literacy very rapidly-- and many of us here are parents to children like this.
I can't even wrap my head around the idea of FORCING my child to read material that she found too difficult. Honestly, all I've done since she mastered decoding is
steer her away from material that I thought was inappropriate in other ways...
"No, dear,
Silence of the Lambs is probably not a good book to read for a 6th grade book report, honey..."
Like UM, I said little when my then-7yo opted to pick up Bleak House and Great Expectations. She didn't finish either one until she was more like 12yo.
On the other hand, what does this Reading Specialist's view of the world say about
forcing barely-literate high school students through Othello and The Scarlet Letter, anyway??
Another two cents (we should save up for a gumball...)
Translating the article away from its own overdramtization to two key points:
1. Training in reading at an early age has indifferent long term returns and can actually have negative effects in attitude.
2. Children should work with reading material that matches their optimal challenge level.
She is a reading spcialist; I'm going to hypothesize that she sees kids who struggle early and kids who stumble later. Total sampling bias.
It's also the regular rotten tomato back-splash from the hyper-achievers who actually show up as statistically signficant, particularly anecdotally.
I see what you're both saying now, and agree somewhat. But the thing about the OP's link was that this teacher is arguing that precocious readers haven't mastered reading but have only given the appearance of having mastered it, and then everyone catches up (presumably in third grade). Her goofy analogy about teeth is that they grow at a certain rate that you can't accelerate, just like you can't accelerate the rate at which kids learn to read.
A really bad thing about that article is that she talks about children needing to be able to pick up nuances from texts, but completely fails to see nuances in how (and how fast) different children learn to read.
Ability to read at a basic level + dictionary = able to read just about anything that you feel like reading.
Mmm--I actually don't agree with this. Which doesn't mean I think kids shouldn't be allowed to read books that are a bit beyond them, or contain words they don't know!
Constrained by what the child can reasonably be expected to understand (relative to the individual, not a group), I'd say.
Like UM, I said little when my then-7yo opted to pick up Bleak House and Great Expectations. She didn't finish either one until she was more like 12yo.
This.
If material is too hard, the intrinsically motivated child just won't read it all. Does this mean that the child shouldn't be allowed to bump up against the ceiling of his/her ability? I'd say no. That's where learning occurs (and interest is piqued)!
Like UM, I said little when my then-7yo opted to pick up Bleak House and Great Expectations. She didn't finish either one until she was more like 12yo.
I led my DD to explore the nonfiction adult section of our public library when she was 5-6yo. And then I barely batted an eye when she set aside chapter books to re-read her old picture books. The message was the same: no limits; read whatever you want.
On the other hand, what does this Reading Specialist's view of the world say about forcing barely-literate high school students through Othello and The Scarlet Letter, anyway??
I disagree with encouraging, nevermind forcing, anyone of any literary ability to read either of the above, because, bleh.
If material is too hard, the intrinsically motivated child just won't read it all. Does this mean that the child shouldn't be allowed to bump up against the ceiling of his/her ability? I'd say no. That's where learning occurs (and interest is piqued)!
Exactly this.
This philosophy of "don't let them read anything with a scary big word" seems to me to assume that children's interest in reading is extremely fragile and terribly easy to destroy. I suppose it can be at times, but I think children who WANT to read a book should not be discouraged, for God's sake. IIRC, when Harry Potter first broke out and got big, there was a lot of excited crowing about how it got a ton of kids into reading who had never been into it before--even reluctant readers or those who were rather low ability for grade. Some of those kids finally "got" reading for pleasure due to HP. Heaven forbid that some well-meaning adult should have forbidden them access.
Like UM, I said little when my then-7yo opted to pick up Bleak House and Great Expectations. She didn't finish either one until she was more like 12yo.
This.
If material is too hard, the intrinsically motivated child just won't read it all. Does this mean that the child shouldn't be allowed to bump up against the ceiling of his/her ability? I'd say no. That's where learning occurs (and interest is piqued)!
I think this is more about interest. Great Expectations can be a very boring book to many adults. The story isn't necessary of interest to a 7 year old. The story is convoluted with multiple plots lines, and characters. It is not a book I would think a 7 year old would be interested in. It's one of the reason I found non fiction the best way at that age to challenge the reading ability, while keeping the subject interesting.
One of the fallacies in Rachel Zivic's analysis is that she assumes there is one "right" way to read. This is an academic perspective and not very pragmatic.
In my daily job, I need to read a lot of material. Speed and the ability to rapidly extract essential points are far more important than deep comprehension.
A well-balanced society requires diversification. We need people with different variants of skill across all fields.
The key to effective teaching is to feed the natural passions of children. If a kid loves to read, it's ridiculous to withhold books. If a kid loves to pore over complex equations and guess at their meaning, it's silly to tell him he can't.
Many of the world's greatest geniuses were once children who had the passion to learn and pushed themselves well beyond the limits of their understanding and eventually beyond the understanding of everyone else as well.
The ability to stretch beyond the need for prerequisites and synthesize knowledge for oneself is a valuable skill. It should be encouraged wherever it's found.
Like UM, I said little when my then-7yo opted to pick up Bleak House and Great Expectations. She didn't finish either one until she was more like 12yo.
This.
If material is too hard, the intrinsically motivated child just won't read it all. Does this mean that the child shouldn't be allowed to bump up against the ceiling of his/her ability? I'd say no. That's where learning occurs (and interest is piqued)!
I think this is more about interest. Great Expectations can be a very boring book to many adults. The story isn't necessary of interest to a 7 year old. The story is convoluted with multiple plots lines, and characters. It is not a book I would think a 7 year old would be interested in. It's one of the reason I found non fiction the best way at that age to challenge the reading ability, while keeping the subject interesting.
Oh, that's
definitely not the case for my daughter (or for me, either at that age)-- I
loved language. Loved prose, loved poetry... just... loved WORDS, and I loved the narrative and dialogue, too. Great Expectations is a
deliciously complex story.
DD found the
story very engaging. It was Dickens' writing that she wasn't prepared for at the time. Definitely. She was
smitten with the story itself. She
loves (and always has, evidently) the multiple-narrative device in fiction. She
did polish off a 'juvenile' version of the book intended for middle school audiences just fine-- but then wasn't that interestedin slogging through the original after she knew the story, see.
She could have cared less about most non-fiction then. She liked sci-fi and fantasy (Susan Cooper's Dark is Rising, L'Engle's Wrinkle in Time series, etc), and to a lesser extent, contemporary realistic fiction. Thrillers and horror came slightly later. Biography,
some was interesting enough to her-- but not all.
So I'd say "if you've seen one young consumer of literature, you've seen one." I do
not believe that all elementary students respond well to a diet heavy in non-fiction. Some do, of course-- but there are many who don't, too, because it isn't that interesting to them personally. I think that CCSS makes this error in the early grades, quite honestly.
She has
never had a problem reading whatever interested her. Period. Now, I recognize that she isn't most kids, but I cringe to think that she might have been
restricted from reading as she liked by some well-intended but (frankly) ignorant teacher or school staffer. Luckily we've been blessed with city librarians that have always been ready, willing, and happy to help her find what she was after. Regardless of her age.
Heh, what do they do at school after the middle of the class masters decoding? They teach them comprehension through oral and written book reports. A few years later the class masters the basic retelling of a story, then they teach them more comprehension by explaining themes in literature and such. I think reading comprehension is one of the things they teach in school. I think they forgot to teach the early reader because if she didn't already know it then she sure wasn't ready to be taught it. C'mon. Teach those kids something.
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'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.
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 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.
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.
Well said. Aristotle may agree, as this quote is attributed to him: "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts."
I have two sons. Both have been exposed to a text rich environment from birth with both parents modeling reading, both parents reading to the children. Both children were very curious about print from a young age.
Older son broke the code in Kindergarten. He did whatever the teacher asked him to do all school year at school but didn't really show that he was sounding out or attempting any reading at home. Still enjoyed bedtime stories. Spring break he woke up one day and showed us all he could read...no sounding out, no emerging halting bumbling...he went from 0 to 100 miles an hour. If I had to guess I would say very fluent late second grade level. He was off to the races. Comprehension was right there too. He always had been one to make connections (abstract, book to book, book to life, book to imagination) and that continued at this reading level and all through his school career so far.
Younger son, at 4, looked around the house and came to the conclusion that he was the only one present who couldn't read. He asked me to teach him. I took out the book Teach Your Child to Read in 100 lessons. He did the first 10 lessons in the first session with me, he wouldn't stop. The next day he did another 10. The next day the lessons were getting harder and I stopped after 5 but he wouldn't put the book up and worked through parts of the book by himself (you would have to see the book to understand). He then took the book back to his room and in a few days he was a reader. He would read or attempt to read anything posted. Our night time reading became half me reading to him and half him reading to me because that is what he wanted. Also one of those kids without what I would call a long emergent reader phase. He entered K reading 3rd grade books. His comprehension also completely on the same level of his decoding. His instructional level in 4th grade (with a skip of third grade) is 9th grade level (he isn't getting instruction at this level but that is the tested level). He reads from the library 4th grade to 7th grade books (his elementary school doesn't have many books higher than 7th grade).
The article assumes so much about Sarah. I would love it if Sarah's MOM could give her story. I bet it would be so much more informative.
Heart-warming! I could picture this as I read it.
Yes, some may say the article was about the school's benign neglect of a once-advanced reader.
Indeed. I don't feel my DD10's reading skills have really been challenged at school, sadly. Although she continues to read/test well above grade level, I don't think she is as far above as she once was (though I don't have numbers to prove this--it's just a suspicion). Is she leveling out? Or has she not been appropriately stretched? What I see her doing is answering terrible reading comp test prep questions, day after day.
Exactly, UM.
We've joked over the years that we handed our (public) school a fully literate 6yo with a four hour attention span, and they've given us back an impulsive, indifferent 14yo with a two minute attention span and a desire to be entertained.
{sigh}
It'd be a lot funnier if there weren't significant truth to it. I've mitigated the worst of this "ADD" method of teaching her literacy (and other things)-- by "blocking" things into larger amounts of time devoted to individual learning activities to encourage depth-- but the assessments are what they are, YK?
Not sure why this article has stuck in my mind... but I was thinking about the teeth analogy with the dentist saying: “There is absolutely nothing that we can do to make the process move any faster and, most of the time, the teeth that come in later, when they are good and ready, are so much stronger.”
Interestingly enough DS8's teeth are growing too fast, his adult teeth (teeth normally due in between ages 10 and 12) were being blocked by baby teeth that hadn't fallen out. Last couple of weeks they had to remove 6 baby teeth. An opinionated dental assitant said to not worry, an orthodontist had a more professional pov. If there hadn't been intervention to remove barriers to his naturally accelerated rate his teeth would've come in sideways (a couple were already) with a good chance of needing jaw surgery as a young adult.
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 claim the jerk prize, for having wondered whether the underlying motivation for the article was to allow the author, who perhaps always assumed her own children would be early readers, to convince herself that it's actually a good thing her 4yo isn't reading yet. Of course this may be entirely wrong in several different ways.
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 claim the jerk prize, for having wondered whether the underlying motivation for the article was to allow the author, who perhaps always assumed her own children would be early readers, to convince herself that it's actually a good thing her 4yo isn't reading yet. Of course this may be entirely wrong in several different ways.
I really just want an heartfelt apology.
That's all I'm asking for here.
Not sure why this article has stuck in my mind... but I was thinking about the teeth analogy with the dentist saying: “There is absolutely nothing that we can do to make the process move any fasterand, most of the time, the teeth that come in later, when they are good and ready, are so much stronger.”
Interestingly enough DS8's teeth are growing too fast, his adult teeth (teeth normally due in between ages 10 and 12) were being blocked by baby teeth that hadn't fallen out. Last couple of weeks they had to remove 6 baby teeth. An opinionated dental assitant said to not worry, an orthodontist had a more professional pov. If there hadn't been intervention to remove barriers to his naturally accelerated rate his teeth would've come in sideways (a couple were already) with a good chance of needing jaw surgery as a young adult.
There is nothing I could do to make my older son read before spring break of K...he got it when he got it....and conversely there was nothing I could do to slow down my younger son. When I would tell him this is enough for today he went off on his own. I couldn't get rid of all the text/signs/words he ran into in his daily life and when he demanded I let him read to me at night there was no stopping him. Sure I could have stopped visiting the library and supplying him with new books but the bazillion books we already owned were still there. I could have done dishes or folded laundry instead of listening but he would have read to me while I did chores.
The piece did just make me all the more grateful for DS6's teachers this year, neither of whom has ever suggested that he is some egotistical, approval-obsessed faux-reading automaton.
Again, I can just imagine. "No, no, DS! I have not vetted that book to ensure that you are at 97% comprehension of every page." (yoink)
(children riot and burn the house down)
There is nothing I could do to make my older son read before spring break of K...he got it when he got it....and conversely there was nothing I could do to slow down my younger son. When I would tell him this is enough for today he went off on his own. I couldn't get rid of all the text/signs/words he ran into in his daily life and when he demanded I let him read to me at night there was no stopping him. Sure I could have stopped visiting the library and supplying him with new books but the bazillion books we already owned were still there. I could have done dishes or folded laundry instead of listening but he would have read to me while I did chores.
When my children where younger I used to tell people that by my definition a child was a reader (vs. an emerging reader) when they can't help but help but read everything around them. Words are not something to decode anymore. My older DD wasn't there till 7, while my son hit this by 4. You couldn't stop him from reading, anything and everything around him. Having had kids on two ends of the spectrum gives me an interesting perspective. It's not just at what different ages they hit this milestone, but at how quickly they moved from sounding out simple words to reading without having to think about it. In the case of my two kids is exactly the opposite of the two in the article, the slower reader was the one with comprehension problems.
The piece did just make me all the more grateful for DS6's teachers this year, neither of whom has ever suggested that he is some egotistical, approval-obsessed faux-reading automaton.
Again, I can just imagine. "No, no, DS! I have not vetted that book to ensure that you are at 97% comprehension of every page." (yoink)
(children riot and burn the house down)
Well, THAT would certainly call for a heartfelt apology.
From, you, I mean-- if you're talking about my house, anyway.
" These first graders who had proudly shared with anyone who would listen that they were reading Harry Potter are at risk of becoming fourth graders who must be incentivized in order to read anything at all."
I don't know any kids like this. Does anyone else? A child who read HP or similar in first grade and then became a nonreader in 4th?
What really aggravated me (well, among other things) was her theory that kids who learn to read later become better readers than those who independently learn to read early. There is no evidence for this. Her private school background is probably completely deluding her here, in the sense that sure, there are indeed bright kids (what's the average IQ at her school--115, 120?) who read late and then catch up very well. But much of the time, the child who is struggling with reading in second grade is a child who is going to continue to struggle. Early problems with reading predict future problems for most of the population, and early success with reading, especially untaught, predicts future success. It's not a big mystery. This is established. As a literacy specialist or whatever, she really ought to know this.
My son, in a way. Younger than what she is discussing, though. He entered preK already knowing how to read- self-taught, no flashcards, no phonics, just learned through osmosis. Then in kindergarten, his teacher* insisted he had to re-learn reading through The One True Way of Phonics, and it threw him for a loop. For a full year to 18 months, he read very, very little and had to be incentivized for that little he did read. Fast forward a couple of years, and he is again a child who reads 24/7, anything he can get his hands on.
She might be admitting that the school screws up kids without actually realizing it.
*She was called a teacher, but to my son she was really the Killer of All Desire to Learn.
Oh, MonetFan, that makes me so sad for your son.
*She was called a teacher, but to my son she was really the Killer of All Desire to Learn.
Yes, unfortunately, I've known a few teachers like this. One in particular was...I can't say much because I believe in not saying anything if I don't have anything nice to say about someone.
I'm glad to hear that your DS recovered from the experience. If gives me hope that some of the past students of the above-mentioned teacher have healed from their ordeal.
Oh, MonetFan, that makes me so sad for your son.
Thanks HK. Thankfully he is now fully recovered and old enough to understand that the wrong teacher can mean a really bad year if you let it but that there are a few ways around it. Especially if your mom is kind of a subversive!
I think your daughter and a number of children of other posters have had it far worse, so I'm glad this and his constant boredom is the worst we've seen so far. Unlike some of your kids, other than perhaps his kindy teacher (who was very subtle about it and/or him too young to completely notice), he's not seen any outright hostility like some of your children.
insisted he had to re-learn reading through The One True Way
Honest to pete, how do they think people in literate cultures learned to read for thousands of years before they and their Extremely Neccessary Methods came along?
Sometimes I feel amused by the fact that of the four of this in thie family, not a single one of us:
1) Was taught to read
2) By anyone
3) In any way that anyone really noticed
It's like we're the blind leading the blind over here. People teach you to read? In school? What is this system with the worksheets and whatnot, now?
insisted he had to re-learn reading through The One True Way
Honest to pete, how do they think people in literate cultures learned to read for thousands of years before they and their Extremely Neccessary Methods came along?
They'd probably tell you that they didn't
really know how to read, at least not in the way that Language Arts Experts (tm) understand it today.
Oh, sure, people like Nathaniel Hawthorne and the Bronte sisters wrote some books, but they probably would have bombed out on our worksheets when they were kids. And besides, writing a novel is totally different from verbal comprehension skills, and
just because you can write Jane Eyre doesn't mean you understand the critical thinking skills necessary to decode a text and choose the best answer to questions about relationships between concepts and actions in the passage (phew).
SNORK!
Where is our "like" button around here?
When I read the article I was bothered (at first). How many of us have heard a teacher tell us "they're not really reading," when we, as parents, know that out they are, really.
In defense of the author (and I'm only talking about my DS), there are strong "decoders." My DS7 has strong technical skills, but his stamina and comprehension lag about 1-2 years behind those skills (and still a few years ahead of first grade). The decoding (again, my opinion) is part of DS's giftedness. We don't worry about it- but for purely selfish reasons, I'm not handing him the Hobbit (I want him to love it!) until we can have a meaningfully discussion about the themes.
It was actually the author's condescending tone toward decoders that got me--a kid who can read (even at "only" a technical level) a book like "Harry Potter" at six, and accurately pronounce words meant for fifth grade and up, has some gifts (probably in memory and phonetic skills) that should be tapped.
My DS7 has strong technical skills, but his stamina and comprehension lag about 1-2 years behind those skills (and still a few years ahead of first grade)
I certainly agree that these kids are out there. But as you say, if they are strong in decoding but not as strong in comprehension, they will naturally be lower in stamina. They may still be rather gifted in reading, as you point out. But it's like the author has scorn for these children, and finds them almost offputting.
Exactly-- and the fact that the author seems to presume that such feats are the outer LIMIT of what children are capable of at five or six years old... just... well, it makes me sad.
Children like mine (and many parents here) learn rather quickly from such educators that their authentic skills (literacy in this instance, but also in other domains) must not be "real" and that they should hide them or risk "intervention" to "fix" them as learners. I truly wonder if this kind of attitude isn't what sows the seeds of imposter syndrome.
I wish that educators could set aside what they know for a change, and examine what is actually in front of them in any particular child. Broad over-generalizations aren't really helping anyone. How ridiculous would it be to state a logical statement which is diametrically opposed to this author's clear thesis, after all?
Oh, illiterate adults can't really exist. They're just not giving themselves enough credit for comprehension. They've all been taught to read, after all... therefore they all possess basic decoding skills that have been developed through years of exposure to print in their daily lives. Of course they can read.
Sounds pretty ridiculous in the face of adults who genuinely cannot decode, (due to disability or other circumstance) right? But I don' see that statement as being fundamentally different than this author's. It's based on parallel assumptions about development, some of which are clearly flawed.
When I read the article I was bothered (at first). How many of us have heard a teacher tell us "they're not really reading," when we, as parents, know that out they are, really.
In defense of the author (and I'm only talking about my DS), there are strong "decoders." My DS7 has strong technical skills, but his stamina and comprehension lag about 1-2 years behind those skills (and still a few years ahead of first grade). The decoding (again, my opinion) is part of DS's giftedness. We don't worry about it- but for purely selfish reasons, I'm not handing him the Hobbit (I want him to love it!) until we can have a meaningfully discussion about the themes.
are making a good point, and we have discussed elsewhere on this forum how some of us have kids with this particular combination of strengths and weaknesses, where they read early but have lagging comprehension skills, simply because that's the way they are wired.
However the author does
not make this point at all, and I doubt that it has ever even occurred to her. Instead, her premise is that early readers are always hothoused, which causes them to crash and burn eventually.
Wow. I was a total Sarah.
I think Zivic is competently biased against kids who are early readers in a way that is very harmful to the kids she teaches. I don't know why I was an early reader, but I sure did love to do it. I also felt, until high school, like no teacher ever really liked me. Maybe this is why. Maybe they were all Rachel Zivics.
I read whatever I wanted. I, too, read with second graders. I got sent to the library for three years during reading class. What I didn't get was reading instruction. EVER. No teacher ever taught me anything about reading.
So did I learn those strategies she mentioned? Not until college. Don't blame that on the kid. If the school offered me reading instruction at my level in K-3, maybe I would have been able to build my foundations systematically too.
In my mind, this is just another call for true differentiation. Every kid deserves the attention of a teacher. For what it's worth, in my case it turned out okay. I've always loved to read and I became a writer. But I did that in spite of my instruction, not because of it. Perhaps the "painful resentment" comes from not getting the same instruction everybody else does and then watching them pass you by. What's abnormal about that?
For those who may be interested to read the OP article, the link has changed.
Article -
The Harry Potter Effect: Slow and Steady Still Wins the Race
by Rachel Zivic
Spring 2012
NAIS (National Association of Independent Schools)
New link to the article on the NAIS website -
https://www.nais.org/magazine/indep...potter-effect-slow-and-steady-still-win/The article at the original link is backed up on the WayBack Machine, internet archive.
Link to archived article -
https://web.archive.org/web/2016040...slow-and-steady-still-wins-the-race.aspxAlso (cut and paste) -
https://web.archive.org/web/2016*/http://nais.org/magazines-newsletters/ITmagazine/pages/the-harry-potter-effect-slow-and-steady-still-wins-the-race.aspx
At the time the article was written, the author's role was described as learning specialist and literacy coordinator. At the newer link on the NAIS website, the author's title is given as director of curriculum and instructional support at the same academy. The academy website shows she is presently head of school.