13 ms·

How and Why I Taught My Toddler to Read (2010)

172 points by nkurz 11y ago

n0us 11y ago
I had friends who learned how to read when they were toddlers and it had literally no effect on them later in life other than that they were bored in school until everyone else had the chance to learn who did not have their parents expose them to this. On the other hand I learned to read in kindergarten like most people but had trouble reading until late in 1st grade when it "clicked" rather quickly and from that point forwards I was reading a higher level than most of my classmates until things evened out over the period of several years. My point is that development happens at different paces for different people. I would like to know if there are any pediatric studies on how this teaching affects a child and if trying to make them learn too early could have negative effects. Most parents just think "the earlier the better" because they can then talk to other parents and say "did you know my kid is already reading." I don't think this is necessarily a productive approach and when children are not able to live up to their parent's expectations it can cause confidence issues. Edit: I also have read more of this now and the author makes the point that children did not need to "re-learn" to read but from what I remember my friends did in fact have to re-learn because they had learned to memorize words, or read incorrectly some way or another so it was in fact more difficult for them as they had already learned bad habits.
- xvolter 11y ago
  I'd be interested to learn about parents who continued focused eductions throughout childhood. While I can see that entering a public school and knowing to read won't give a lot of benefit since the child would be held back by the other students catching up, if the parent homeschooled or similar, the child may be able to continue accelerating. I'd also be interested to know if children who learn early develop better habits for learning, and therefore can learn new subjects more easily. Even an increased interest level in reading has benefit though, and I suspect a child who can read can find entertainment in books and that seems like it may help them as well.
- ngoel36 11y ago
  My parents taught me how to read and do some relatively complex math prior to kindergarten - today I feel that I owe nearly all of my academic & career success to that. Of course, your first point is valid - this was only useful because I was lucky enough to have amazing teachers who took the time to issue me a tailored curriculum at a significantly higher level than my peers. I had teachers and programs which allowed me to stay at a cutting edge until early high school when these initiatives existed naturally (and I had the resources to explore intellectually outside of school). More than that, it gave me a ton of confidence as I found things easier than my peers. That's not to say that all of this didn't come at a cost - my social growth was definitely stunted. Instead of playing sports I did homework, and instead of sleepovers with friends I worked on school projects. In the end, I wish I'd had a bit more balance, but I'm really glad I was lucky enough to have the opportunities I did early. I truly believe our ability to learn slows down every single day, and the early years are most formative.
  - yareally 11y ago
    My experiences were similar in some ways. My parents taught me to read and basic math before and during my early school years. I had some teachers that tailored the curriculum for students like me (special projects, more advanced literature) and then others that kind of just left us to our own devices. In my case, I ended up doing all my schoolwork before lunch. The second half of the day I'd tinker around on the old Apple PCs my school had, read through the limited selection of interesting books in the school library or help some of my classmates with their schoolwork. Some teachers encouraged a few of us to tutor/mentor some of our peers, but I don't think it was encouraged enough. I can't directly relate that to where I am now, but I know overall it contributed to my ability to work/learn independently with minimal guidance. Might have also spurred my interest in problem solving and programming since I would be bored and become curious about how things worked around me. If there was a negative, it made me think much of school was really boring the first 8-9 years. When I had a teacher that was too busy to adjust their curriculum for more advanced students, I assumed this was how school would always be. I didn't want to have a negative opinion of the education system, but it was hard at the time to have a positive one. When I reached high school, I had to get out of the habit of thinking schoolwork (and homework) was some "busy work" chore I had to do in order to move onto the next grade. This was a bit harder in some courses than others--since I had to train myself to pay attention and actually take notes versus memorizing. Thankfully, I had some great high school teachers that helped me along the way. My high school education was overall a positive experience. Do I think I would have been better off being home schooled or in a private school with more attention? Hard to say. Perhaps better in some ways, but not in others. Always a trade off.
- c3534l 11y ago
  A scroll through google scholar seems to show it has no positive benefits. For instance, the abstract at http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleID=1360889 http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleID=13608... gave kids reading lessons "delivered at 4, 12, 18, and 42 months" and concluded that it "provided neither the anticipated benefits to literacy and language nor enhanced uptake of literacy activities at 4 years of age, even when targeted to relatively disadvantaged areas." Everything seems to show little to no effect, but as far as I can tell it's not inherently a bad thing to do. Kids just happen to learn to read at about the time they're intellectually ready for it.
  - zappo2938 11y ago
    This makes me want to ask the question if teaching children complex activities very early is pointless because they have not developed the neurological wiring in their brains at the early stages of development to make learning math and reading at a complex level worth while. At what point to children start to understand abstract concepts? I always thought the greatest thing a parent can do with a child is to read to them, Dr. Seuss. That does not mean teaching children to read before they are ready positively effects them.
    - c3534l 11y ago
      I think sometimes parents my age (late 20s early 30s) try to force their kids to engage in a lot of activities the kids aren't ready for and aren't interested in because they want to show everyone how much better their kid is from everyone else's. Helicopter parents are one extreme. Kids should have some room to breath, explore, and play. You shouldn't force them into something they're not ready for and of course every kid is going to develop differently. There's a good middle ground, I'm sure. Just my 2 cents anyway.
    - lintiness 11y ago
      ha. dr. seuss is a tricky one because the "things" in his book are so totally made up. i often find myself reading him to my toddlers and wondering if any of it makes sense.
- zappo2938 11y ago
  There are two links to educational websites in the article. One of them is to Starfall (http://www.starfall.com/ http://www.starfall.com/) and I'm impressed with simple presentation of lessons. The author presented a lot of studies that show learning to read early has beneficial effects. It would be nice if he at least presented some anecdotal evidence how his son fared academically and intellectually. I have heard of a study that says people who read books are happier and another study shows they have longer attention spans. I couldn't find any studies supporting those assertions when I searched just now. Sounds plausible. Also, an early start can counteract a relative age effect [1] likely in this case where older children have an advantage entering kindergarten and first grade. It's possible to have a child a full 11 months older than her classmate in kindergarten. If they are 4 or 5 then that is a big difference in growth giving the advantage to the older child. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_age_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_age_effect
- maaku 11y ago
  > I had friends who learned how to read when they were toddlers and it had literally no effect on them later in life other than that they were bored in school until everyone else had the chance to learn who did not have their parents expose them to this. This tells me that their parents failed at step 2, perhaps thinking the school would take care of the rest.
- scotty79 11y ago
  > how this teaching affects a child and if trying to make them learn too early could have negative effects I know this question is always asked. But if you love your child and give it all attention it needs does any teaching have any negative effects on the child? Apart from knowing too much without the need, which affects many people even as adults.
  - m0skit0 11y ago
    >> knowing too much without the need How is knowing "too much" ever? One never knows enough.
    - Jtsummers 11y ago
      In general, you're correct. The problem is differentiating useful knowledge from trivia. Knowing pop culture references is useful from a social participation standpoint. Knowing the top 10 songs for each week of the past decade, not so useful except as a party trick. Or, less trivia more general knowledge, for most of us it doesn't pay to know the ins and outs of every world conflict. They're beyond our control (mostly), so knowledge past a certain point only really helps create a sense of despair and helplessness. There's no reason to remain glued to those news feeds after a time because they'll only keep you from living your life. However, when it comes to skills like reading, math, logic, athletics, creative, or production type things, you can only know too much if there's a set of skills you can't use or your breadth is so great you're mediocre or worse at most of them.
  - leppr 11y ago
    That's just an intuitive hypothesis, but wouldn't the early focused teaching of a skill (especially a communication one) naturally introduce a kind of "thought determinism"? [1] It's something I think about often and the first critique that came to my mind when seeing this book, but the author's defense only seems to be about emotional well-being and performance. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity#Linguistic_determinism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity#Linguist...
  - kohanz 11y ago
- nthcolumn 11y ago
  People like to try crackpot theories and experiments on their children apparently. I'm sure they mean well. My kid is gorgeous too BTW! She learned to walk really early. Kind peoples said 'ooh look! so bright! so more advanced than Jonny or Bea!' I said that I didn't think that she is going to be any better at walking than Jonny and Bea ultimately.
  - nightspirit 11y ago
    > Kind peoples said 'ooh look! so bright! so more advanced than Jonny or Bea!' I said that I didn't think that she is going to be any better at walking than Jonny and Bea ultimately. Now you reminded me how I hated when parents used me for such dick waving contests. My typical reaction was to stop whatever I was being praised for and quickly do something to piss off both them and whomever happened to be the target of their bragging. If you are a parent - just don't do that.
- murbard2 11y ago
  > I had friends who learned how to read when they were toddlers and it had literally no effect on them later in life other than that they were bored in school until everyone else had the chance to learn who did not have their parents expose them to this. It sounds like the issue was putting them through school, not teaching them to read early.
- zeidrich 11y ago
  One thing that I want to teach my child(ren) is how to function in school, and what the purpose of school is. I was always ahead of the class, and similarly I was bored and it actually hurt me in grades (but not what I learned). I learned later in life that the purpose of school isn't to learn. The purpose of school is to try to guarantee a standard of knowledge. The other lesson to learn in school is that it's your teacher who determines your qualification, and that they're a person who gets frustrated, tired, can be lazy, can be angry or petty, but can also be happy, proud, encouraged, inspired, etc. As an adult, I know how to behave in a classroom. I understand why showing off is not appreciated. I know why I have to go over things that I already know. Because I know these things, they don't bother me. There's always boredom, but you pay attention not because you need to, but because it helps the teacher, and making the teacher's life easier is better for the class and your evaluation. The goal of the game isn't to understand the material, the goal of the game is to be evaluated highly. Understanding the material is only half the game.
daljeetv 11y ago
Anne Fernald (Stanford) has done some really impressive research on talking to children and how that affects how well they do in school. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpHwJyjm7rM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpHwJyjm7rM)
steven2012 11y ago
I would love a follow up from the author on whether or not it made any actual difference. My bet is that it probably didn't, but I can't think that the article wouldn't be biased since he obviously thinks that his son is gifted.
- gliese1337 11y ago
  Eh? Where do you get that idea? He repeats over and over again that this should not be taken as a sign that his kid is overly gifted, that it didn't work just because his kid is gifted, and that he is pretty sure most kids could accomplish the same thing if their parents tried.
- eyan 11y ago
  You obviously didn't read the thing.
- J-dawg 11y ago
  Read the comment in this thread from Luc. It's likely that it will make a difference simply because the author's son will be labelled as "smart" from his first day in school. This might have as much bearing on the outcome as his innate "giftedness"
- Illniyar 11y ago
  From the site: " UPDATE 2 (Oct. 3, 2011): my son is now five years old. He is now reading daily on his own, and has read himself a couple dozen chapter books, including The Story of the World, Vol. 1: The Ancient World (314 pgs.). UPDATE 3 (Dec. 16, 2012): at six, my son switches between “serious” literature which he reads with a dictionary app, including Treasure Island, Tom Sawyer, and The Secret Garden, and easier literature including Beverly Cleary books, the Hardy Boys, and Encyclopedia Brown. If his answers to regular comprehension questions are any indication, he’s understanding what he reads pretty well. UPDATE 4 (Mar. 26, 2013): I’m delighted to report that my second son, following methods similar to those I used with my first, is now 2.5 years old and reading at a first grade level. UPDATE 5 (Aug. 25, 2014): my second is following in his brother’s footsteps, reading a version of the Odyssey (he’s crazy about Greek mythology—go figure) at age 3.5: "
guidedlight 11y ago
What about the perception that greatly advancing your toddler's learning before they start school, may mean your child will be placed into an education system that simply isn't designed to cater for them?
- gliese1337 11y ago
  I feel like that was addressed, in bits and pieces. If you're worried about your kid ending up "abnormal" or "out of place"... well, yeah, they will. But the author (and myself) have no problem with "abnormal". "Normal" is not necessarily good. He does say that he's worried about boredom (and again, I agree), but that is much more easily fixed by looking for teachers or special programs that can cater to the child's needs, maybe skipping grades... or, if that fails, continuing to enrich your child's education yourself.
- scotty79 11y ago
  I don't think education system is properly designed for children that don't learn before they start school either.
ScottBurson 11y ago
I learned to read very early through nothing more than being read to. No flashcards, no phonics, no refrigerator magnets. Of course the books my parents started with had small words and lots of pictures, as appropriate for a beginning reader, but they were not even explicitly trying to get me to read -- they were just trying to stimulate my mind generally. This is just one more anecdote, of course, but I think it's an interesting contrast to Sanger's story. Because of my experience I am a little skeptical of the whole phonics and sounding-out-words thing. While the connection between sound and spelling is certainly not arbitrary, English is not exactly phonetically spelled either. I suspect an excessive emphasis on phonics makes it harder for kids to learn to spell. But that's a quibble. I think it's great that Sanger has done this and would encourage any parents so inclined to do similarly. Edited to add: reading on, I come to this line: Some critics say that, even if very small children of average or low intelligence can memorize words, they’re just memorizing the overall shape of the word—they aren’t sounding out the words or learning phonics, and so they aren’t really reading. By the logic of these critics, Chinese speakers never "really" learn to read! Obviously, I quite disagree. I think recognition of the shape of the word is very much reading, and makes one a better speller too.
known 11y ago
Tell toddler to teach you;
z3t4 11y ago
If you want to make your kids smarter, read books/stories with them! It will make them better at understanding the context, making them better readers when they get older.
otabdeveloper1 11y ago
Where I live, a child who enters first grade without knowing how to read is an abnormality. In fact, the school system assumes that any child who enters first grade already has the basics of literacy and numeracy -- a child who doesn't know how to read will probably be channeled to a special class for slow/disadvantaged kids. This seems like a cultural quirk and doesn't appear to make people smarter in the long run, however.
- skrebbel 11y ago
  Interesting! And where would that be?
cmarschner 11y ago
Nature is quite fair in one respect: for every child on this planet a week has 168 hours. Spend time teaching your child reading and math, and some other children will have learnt something else - climbing trees, using a bicycle, making friends, showing empathy. Parents should think of the opportunity costs when they push their kids into one direction only because they perceive a certain extra value in that.
- kalms 11y ago
  But doing it before bedtime, before a meal... I don't see the harm in that. My daughters are genuinely interested in it and are looking forward to it. We practice the words and pronunciation; practice different letters. And then topped off with me reading a story. They know a big part of the alphabet now. Didn't hurt them one bit. And they're two. On the other hand, my son isn't interested at all. So I don't force it on him. I just read him a cool story about Iron Man & friends :-)
scotty79 11y ago
> I thoroughly acquainted him with the alphabet and got him used to the idea of sounding out words with refrigerator magnets. Next, I started showing him flashcards (words plus pictures) arranged into increasingly difficult phonetic groupings, in a systematic order. About the same time, we started watching Your Baby Can Read—I am glad that I was able to put aside my misgivings about the off-putting hype surrounding YBCR and Doman’s method. Both before and after the most intensive “teaching” period, when he was two, I read huge amounts to him, which he liked. After I started teaching him to read, I made a point of always running my finger under the text as I read to him. That sums up our method, I had plastic letters I played with, with my mom. No flashcards I can recall. No video. My mom read to me tons and tons (no finger running though). My favorite stuff more times than anyone can count. Some SF too, although I'm not sure how early. She bought me comic books but refused to read them for me. Long story short. When I was about six and went to pre-school I remember reading aloud one of my favorite short stories to group of other children.
skrebbel 11y ago
As a parent of a toddler and a baby, this article bothers me to bits. The author somehow seems to implicitly assumes that being able to read as early as possible is good, period. Younger == better. He has a huge "why" chapter, where he debunks and defends all kinds of criticism he's gotten, but I haven't been able to at all find the section where he simply describes why it's a good idea. Not why it's not not a good idea, that's not good enough. Why would I teach my children to read already? There might be good reasons, but this author is so consumed with the "it's possible! it's not harmful!" part of things that what should have been the central argument is nearly entirely missing. I mean, seriously, it's possible and it's not harmful? I can think of a lot of things that are possible and not harmful but still wouldn't do with my kids.
- crististm 11y ago
  I don't know if it is harmful or not. But I ask another question: How is reading words different from looking at a tree and saying "tree". Or looking at a bird and saying "bird"?
  - leppr 11y ago
    It's not, but it IS different from looking at a tree and analyzing its bark and leaves, or looking at a bird and wondering why it has feathers instead of fur.
    - crististm 11y ago
      I vaguely remember first encounter with LCD watches when I was probably 10. The same concepts (numbers) seemed strange when presented in LCD font (especially the regularity of 2 and 5). However, adjusting to this form was very quick and after probably less than 24 hours I went from "de-constructing" to pattern recognition through some phase of "pattern acceptance". What I mean is that identifying the parts of the whole through de-construction is not the only way we recognize things.
  - tudorw 11y ago
    Reading the word tree could be described as de-constructing the letters that make up the word 't r e e', re-combining them into a whole, 'tree', then recognising the 'sound' and associating with a concept 'tree' then comprehending it's context to give it meaning 'the tree of life', 'it was like climbing a tree', ' the tree was bending'. During early years teaching it's apparently fairly trivial to identify the children who are recognizing shapes over the deconstruction technique, there's a test where they are shown lists of words with nonsense words thrown in, for those recognising shapes, when they see 'strom' they cannot help but unknowingly correct it to 'storm', their brain just fixes it for them, it's close enough and the word 'strom' has probably not been encountered, children implementing the deconstruction technique will have less of a problem. Why teachers care is that it helps them identify children who may have issues identifying letter shapes but can pass other tests by recognising whole words, early diagnosis of dyslexia can have a very positive impact on a child's educational progress.
ismail 11y ago
An interesting read related to topic: Finnish Kids Don't Learn To Read In Kindergarten. They Turn Out Great Anyway. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/finland-schools-kindergarten-literacy_560ece14e4b0af3706e0a60c http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/finland-schools-kinderga...
- jacalata 11y ago
  Finland comes up a lot on this topic, but then Finnish people say that a high percentage of Finnish kids learn to read before they even start kindergarten (especially because most TV is subtitled from English), so these articles tend to feel misleading.
- maus42 11y ago
  Well, I would be wary of direct comparisons to English. Finnish is almost fully phonetically spelled. No spelling bees. An average child will be quite good reader and a mediocre writer after the first grade, many already before the first Christmas holiday.
Luc 11y ago
My son could read at age 3. We taught him the letters, and reading words came rather easily from playing a Nintendo game. He was self-motivated. It had one very important effect - teachers considered him to be among the smartest of the class, which turned into a self-fulfilling prophecy, a virtuous circle, at least for primary school.
- J-dawg 11y ago
  This effect seems to be frighteningly powerful. Apparently professional athletes are disproportionately more likely to be born in the 2nd half of the school year [0]. They simply grow bigger and show athletic promise a few months earlier than their peers, which leads to them being identified as promising athletes. It seems to be incredibly powerful to give a child a positive label in this way. It also makes you wonder how many talented kids get left behind for the opposite reason. I guess I have a tendency to root for the underdog, but I think it should be part of a teacher's job to consciously avoid falling victim to this effect. I'm not saying this is what happened to your son - if he learned to read at 3 I'm sure he's pretty smart anyway. And if I ever have a child, I'll do anything I can to give them an advantage. The education system, on the other hand, should be aiming for fairness, not labeling kids as "smart" or "sporty" while they're still in primary school. [0] http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/18891749 http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/18891749
  - frobozz 11y ago
    Yes, but remember that fairness should not be a Harrison Bergeron-style equality, but that each child should have equal opportunity to fulfil their potential in whatever avenues are appropriate for that child. Holding back a child until the others have caught up is as much the antithesis of fairness as giving an advanced child extra benefits at the expense of the less advanced ones.
    - J-dawg 11y ago
      Firstly, thanks for introducing me to Harrison Bergeron. I'm looking forward to reading it. I love HN for things like this. > Holding back a child until the others have caught up is as much the antithesis of fairness as giving an advanced child extra benefits at the expense of the less advanced ones I couldn't agree more, other then to say apportioning finite teaching resources is a zero-sum game. If you give more attention to one kid (because of their perceived intelligence or for any other reason) then you are holding back another, whether you like it or not.
Retr0spectrum 11y ago
PDF version, with better formatting: http://larrysanger.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/How-and-Why-I-Taught-My-Toddler-to-Read.pdf http://larrysanger.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/How-and-Wh...
vitro 11y ago
As a parent of a toddler, I am considering teaching my kid the music instead. There has been interesting HN discussion about that here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9067377 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9067377 In a way it also contains reading skills but also develops the kid's emotions (books as well, you could argue), sensitivity, coordination, patience and perseverance.. Book reading is kind of lone activity, while in music you learn to listen, cooperate with others.. Seems to me that it develops the human being in a more wholesome way.
spdionis 11y ago
I jumped straight to second grade at the age of six because I already read fluently (in two alphabets, learnt the first at age 4, the second at age 5), could write ok and math was easy to me. I remember being bored in kindergarten. I think my grandma taught me how to read but i don't remember well. My parents say I was always playing with their books. I remember I could easily read single words but not whole texts until I had some kind of revelation one day. Then I started to read texts as well and fast as any adult. Having already read tens of books (it was my favorite activity, before I got a playstation) before getting to school I had a clear advantage that remained until high school. I didn't turn out a bookworm, although I have always been TERRIBLE at sports (who cares...). I strongly believe that having a child in constant contact with books at an early age (you don't even need to be there) will help him develop better on the intellectual side.
J-dawg 11y ago
I must confess that I haven't read the whole site, but there doesn't seem to be any mention of the possible effect on the child's eyesight. There is probably some causative link between the amount of close work you do and your chance of developing myopia. As someone with myopia myself, I know there's already a genetic risk. I'm not sure whether I'd want to exacerbate that risk by pushing the child to do lots of close work from a very young age. Getting a kid into adulthood with perfect or near-perfect eyesight could well be a greater gift than helping them be an academic superstar. But who knows? When you have kids, do you lie awake at night thinking about this stuff? I guess if this thread is teaching me anything, it's that my indecisiveness would make me a pretty terrible parent.
- tren 11y ago
  Myopia has recently been linked with the amount of time you spend outside, irrespective of how much close work you do: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236638275_Time_outdoors_and_the_prevention_of_MYOPIA https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236638275_Time_outd....
  - J-dawg 11y ago
    I've read this too, I guess I'm still a little sceptical based on my own sample of one. When I was a child I spent loads of time outside, but also loads of time on the computer. I guess the computer won. I also don't understand how they separated out "doing close work" from "being indoors". You'd need a control group of kids who spent a lot of time indoors WITHOUT doing much close work. So what would they be doing instead? Even if you're not reading, surely all indoor activities involve somewhat close work. Watching TV or playing console games might not have met the researcher's definition of close work, but they still involve focusing ones eyes at a point closer than infinity.
- endymi0n 11y ago
  I could read with 3 and I have had (mild) hyperopia as long as I can think. YMMV. Realistically, these conditions are derived from eye shape, so I don't think reading early has anything to do with this. If you have some evidence, I'd be interested though.
jostylr 11y ago
As counterpoint, A Thousand Rivers goes the opposite way: http://schoolingtheworld.org/a-thousand-rivers/ http://schoolingtheworld.org/a-thousand-rivers/ I also find it interesting that Larry Sanger's latest post is about the loss of democracy and freedom in the USA. My view, based on Sudbury model of schooling, is that true, vibrant democracy comes from a life lived in a self-governing community. A link on such things: http://www.educationfutures.org/Respect.htm http://www.educationfutures.org/Respect.htm An excerpt of that on the basic philosophical treatment of children: > The root ideas of a democratic education are as simple as they are radical: children should be accorded the same human rights and freedoms as adults; they should be granted responsibility for the conduct of their affairs; and they should be full participants in the life of their community. Democratic schools provide an environment where children can live their formative years in exactly the same manner as they will live out their mature years--as free citizens of a society devoted to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The world these children will inhabit as adults will be a familiar one, a world that has been part and parcel of their childhood.
- dsfsdfd 11y ago
  "The world these children will inhabit as adults will be a familiar one, a world that has been part and parcel of their childhood." The adult world does not live up to this ideal - at all.
  - jostylr 11y ago
    That's sad and is the whole point of treating children with respect as human beings instead of machines that need programming to fulfill the function designated to them by their creators.
Herodotus38 11y ago
Thank you for posting this. I have been looking for a detailed personal account of teaching a toddler to read for a while. My son is two and a half and like this author, I have been trying to find out how to teach him to read. A couple weeks ago I posted my own reflections on what I have been doing here: http://hmcscreening.blogspot.com/2015/12/on-teaching-reading.html http://hmcscreening.blogspot.com/2015/12/on-teaching-reading... I found it amazing how difficult it is to find scientific studies on how to teach reading, in my post above I kind of go into how the US government funded a large review of all the data in the late 1990s. I think the most important thing is to just read to your child every day. My son also knew the alphabet before the age of two, but I think this is no different than teaching a child "dog" or "square" or "ball", they are all abstracts to a degree. Also, learning the sounds of each letter was pretty easy too. The hard part that we are against right now is putting it all together: I can't consistently get him to sound out a simple word, even though individually he knows what each letter does. There have been some comments wondering about issues of myopia if one has their child read. There is not a lot of conclusive evidence of what causes myopia, but recently there was a good paper published in JAMA where they randomized schools (this was in China), to enforce a certain amount of outdoor time every day. Those kids who were in the outdoor groups had statistically less myopia.
- interpol_p 11y ago
  I have a toddler of similar age and, despite reading to him every day, I'm not sure I care how early he learns to parse the symbols himself. He gets the alphabet, and can sound out very few words, but I don't actively teach it unless he shows interest. I get especially frustrated with English because of all its exceptions and inconsistencies. (E.g., his name starts with 'C' but is pronounced the same as if it were 'K'. He knows that his breakfast 'Cereal' begins with the same letter as his name, but why does it sound like 'S'?) It feels like a poor system to encourage a child to learn when they could learn other things. My delight in my child's learning comes from his ability to use and process interesting communication. I loved seeing him develop an understanding of what it is to "trick" somebody, learning how to synthesise an original story, to attempt sarcasm, how to mash two words together to form a made-up word, or to convey implicit information through pitch and speed of speech. These are the little milestones that I actively try to teach, because each one raises the quality of our communication together.
Illniyar 11y ago
Followups: http://larrysanger.org/2014/03/report-on-the-boys-march-2014/ http://larrysanger.org/2014/03/report-on-the-boys-march-2014... http://larrysanger.org/2014/03/report-on-the-boys-march-2014/ http://larrysanger.org/2014/03/report-on-the-boys-march-2014... http://larrysanger.org/2013/04/brief-update-about-the-boys/ http://larrysanger.org/2013/04/brief-update-about-the-boys/ http://larrysanger.org/2012/10/update-about-the-boys-2/ http://larrysanger.org/2012/10/update-about-the-boys-2/ After reading all of the really long article, I simply did not have time reading these updates, so I don't know whats in them, but it does seem relevant here.
ThomPete 11y ago
Rule #1 of bringing up a child. There are no rules. There is various insights, principles (praise effort, not results) and methods that will help you guide your child through life but no silverbullet, not even a rusty cannonball. You can do all the right things and your kid gets in the wrong company, you can do all the wrong things and your kid meets someone who influence them more than you do. My oldest kid is in 1st grade and read, write and calculates pretty well (comparably to half way through 2nd class). He is in a charter school not because we wanted that but because it ended up being the choice that made sense. He thrives in the strict disciplined environment but who know perhaps it's hindering his ability to think for himself. (we are considering moving him to a more alternative school for the last half of his school life for that reason) My youngest kid is two and in pre-school he can count, the alphabet, can say which letters and numbers are which. Maybe this is a good thing for one and a bad thing for the other. Perhaps by not being able to read yet the younger kid would have developed a different perspective, perhaps their "own language" which would influence them later in life. Perhaps it would be better for them to develop their body language than their oral language. There are simply too many factors to even begin claiming one thing is sure to work. Two kids brought up the exact same way can end up being very different people. All too often we think that children are concepts which we build up to a succesful future, when in fact all they are, are projects we can manage to stay out of the worst trouble.
- agumonkey 11y ago
  True, balance and patience. Life has no road, it's a ball of mess, everybody crawl through it the way he/she can. Being too early or too late is detrimental, other than that you can't know.
- ThrustVectoring 11y ago
  People want to be reassured that they're doing the "right thing", that what they're doing is "correct" according to some external source of truth. It's no surprise that there's this much counterproductive parenting advice (even "praise effort, not results" is merely slightly less bad). Anything other than "pay attention to the actual needs of the child" is probably the wrong direction to go. Like, if you try to praise effort instead of results, you're evaluating and judging things rather than searching for their needs. Seriously, though, stop reading and trying to follow parenting advice and pay attention to your goddamn child. Otherwise, you'll wind up doing the "right thing", praise effort, and fail to meet your child's actual needs until you've got a suicidal college student saying "well, it looks like I just didn't try hard enough."
kohanz 11y ago
I'm fascinated by this essay because a lot of the activities described by the author are what we have been doing with our 21-month old son. Not through any concerted plan, but mostly because my wife and I love to read and that love for books has been passed on to our son. I wouldn't say he "reads" yet and he's not able to recite the full alphabet yet (we read a lot of books, but so far I'm not into drilling him with flash cards and he's not on any screens yet), but by comparison to his (daycare) peers, his vocabulary and verbalization skills are significantly ahead and I believe these activities are connected. One of the most interesting developments from my point of view is that while my son most enjoys sitting beside us to read a book together, lately he also enjoys "reading" alone. To help us buy an extra half hour of sleep-in (he's not a great sleeper AND an early riser) in the morning we will come to his crib when he's calling for us and put a pile of board books in there. He will then sit there for about half an hour (those of you with toddlers will know that this kind of attention span is no small feat) and flip through them quietly. By the time he's done, all of the books have been "read", multiple times. Of course he's not "reading" the words, but I do believe he's reading the books and in his mind reciting the words that he remembers from when we read them to him. To me, the above is just one example of how he keeps proving to me that there is a lot more going on in the minds of our little ones than we often give them credit for. I believe we (or at least myself) have a tendency to underestimate the intelligence and capacity for learning that these little people have, because we judge them based on their outputs, which lag behind their actual learning by quite a bit.
- magic_beans 11y ago
  Some of my earliest memories as a child revolve around "reading". I was deeply drawn to one book in particular, a beautifully illustrated version of the Twelve Dancing Princesses. I remember being overwhelmed by the many words, and would instead look at the pictures, over and over, not necessarily trying to read the words, but hearing them echoed in my head from when my mother read them to me. And then one day, as if by nowhere, I could read the words. I so clearly remember that sense of discovery. It was such a delicious feeling. I STILL remember the story and the pictures from that book to this day.
  - 11y ago
chris_wot 11y ago
For those who don't know, Larry Sanger was instrumental in setting up Wikipedia with Jimmy Wales. There's quite a lot of controversy over who founded Wikipedia, but nobody can deny Larry was one of the earliest members of the project.
toolslive 11y ago
My sons were 4 when they wanted to learn how to read from their older sister (7 at the time). I diverted their attention and learned them how to play chess instead (anything that's not taught in primary school would do). The reason was this: if they can read before primary school, they will certainly be bored out of their minds, and would be detrimental to their school experience. Today, I still think it was the right thing to do.
- ThomPete 11y ago
  My son have been learning chess from Kindergarten in his school. So I think thats different (his school is a charter school though)
- murbard2 11y ago
  I'm not a typical case but... I learned to read before primary school, I was bored out of my mind. The school offered to make me skip a class, my parents declined because they thought being too young would be detrimental to my school experience. Knowing me, that was a mistake. To this day, I regret not being put through an accelerated curriculum, or at least being taken out of school and given a chance to spend that time learning on my own. Overall, despite being bored in primary school, I am still glad I learned before, as it afforded me the opportunity to learn more things by reading on my own, and it protected me from the general poor quality of reading education in school.
moosey 11y ago
I've read that introducing your children to more vocabulary is really valuable (a good starting point: http://literacy.rice.edu/thirty-million-word-gap http://literacy.rice.edu/thirty-million-word-gap). Given this, instead of aggressively teaching my next child how to read, I plan on spending more time reading works that I can understand to them. The author kept on mentioning 'decoding' rather than 'understanding', and it is possible that understanding at an early age is more important than decoding. My first child was reading pretty early, but only developed good comprehension recently (age 11-12). Despite the fact that they could read rapidly and clearly out loud without pauses, they were missing the meaning of what they were reading. I don't know how to avoid this, but I'm hoping that simply introducing more words early on will help to alleviate this problem. Raising children well is hard. There are lots of wrong ways, but also many right ways. I constantly worry that I'm setting up my child for years of therapy or failure.
JackFr 11y ago
It's difficult to get the science right, because controls are difficult to come by. In TFA, he refers to two important longitudinal studies which indicate that there is a persistent positive effect between early readers and non-early readers. I have not read those studies, but I can't help but wonder how well they controlled for confounding factors. That is, that early reading is an effect or rather evidence, of their long run aptitude in school. That if the early readers were compared not just with the general population, but with students who were not early readers but had the same income levels, parental education level, family structure, etc. He also claims without evidence that any child can be taught to read at an early age. But it sounds like in his sample N=2. If there is evidence where a random sample (rather than a self selecting sample, which would introduce bias) of children are taught reading early and have a persistent benefit I would like to see it. That being said, good for him,and good for him to recommend this to others. It seems clear that his children seem happy, well-adjusted and achieving their academic potential. Given his personal experience, why wouldn't he share it? But I don't think the evidence is there to claim this is universal.
grayclhn 11y ago
It seems like the author only has one child, at least from the very beginning of the essay. I'd be interested in reading a revised version after raising a second or third child. I thought I had a lot of control over my daughter's development when it was just her.... not so much after her two very different siblings. :)
ericssmith 11y ago
Just to weigh in here, since I also taught both of my kids to read at an early age. I also taught them arithmetic early. The biggest win is confidence about learning. This was particularly meaningful when they got into more "competitive" environments, by which I mean first grade where kids are expected to perform in front of their peers. When I tell my kids that just because they have trouble with something in school, that doesn't mean they aren't good at learning or at the subjects, they believe me because they have succeeded at both reading and math outside of that setting. I believe kids are capable of a lot more than they are supported on. The trick, in my view, is to constantly know where that boundary is. Both reading and math have notions of basic mechanical skills and meaning. My kids weren't great at the meaning part until they were over 6. But they both excelled at the mechanics part early. As an example, early on they learned to add by counting up. But later I was able to replace this with "tricks" (aka "math thinking"). A example is adding 9 to a number. Adding by counting is tedious and prone to mistakes. But if you've learned to add 10, then it is always one less. Similarly, since addition commutes, instead of 2 + 8, change it around to 8+2, which is easier and quicker. Both of my kids have embraced this approach to math of learning the shortcuts, which is actually where they get to experience the patterns and relationships that make math fun and interesting. When I showed them how the digits in multiples of 9 always add to 9, they were astounded. And then I showed them how the digits in multiples of 8 add up to a descending, and repeating "countdown" pattern. Wow. My daughter (who just turned 8) knows a bunch of these insights into the behavior of numbers and operations on them, and confidently says "I'm good at math" despite obviously struggling in other areas (gym, music, art) relative to her peers. My son reads Junie B. Jones quietly to himself and bursts out laughing. He has discovered the meaning part. And when my daughter got a book about feelings, she finally discovered the power and relevance of reading. Incidentally, my kids spend about 40 minutes on reading and math in the evening. They get roughly 2 1/2 hours to do other things between school and dinner. There isn't an opportunity cost.
jtheory 11y ago
I haven't properly read most of his material yet, but one thing that may be relevant for some children -- kids manage emotion, questions of agency and fairness, differently when they're younger. My wife and I taught our eldest daughter to read starting around 3 or so (not as young as in this article, but still on the early side). She's now 6, and quite good at sounding out any words she doesn't know, but sometimes gets really furious at the spelling of many English words. She wants rules that she can apply consistently, and (of course) English just... doesn't have those. Present vs. past tense of "read", anyone? Lead (plumbum) vs. lead (guide) vs. led? Even words like "Once" and "only" can get her to scowl (she knows how "on" is pronounced... you've only added an "s" or "ly" sound to the end!) It's a source of tension, because she'd rather believe we're wrong than accept that the language is so sadly inconsistent. :/

172 points by nkurz 11y ago

n0us 11y ago

I had friends who learned how to read when they were toddlers and it had literally no effect on them later in life other than that they were bored in school until everyone else had the chance to learn who did not have their parents expose them to this. On the other hand I learned to read in kindergarten like most people but had trouble reading until late in 1st grade when it "clicked" rather quickly and from that point forwards I was reading a higher level than most of my classmates until things evened out over the period of several years. My point is that development happens at different paces for different people. I would like to know if there are any pediatric studies on how this teaching affects a child and if trying to make them learn too early could have negative effects. Most parents just think "the earlier the better" because they can then talk to other parents and say "did you know my kid is already reading." I don't think this is necessarily a productive approach and when children are not able to live up to their parent's expectations it can cause confidence issues. Edit: I also have read more of this now and the author makes the point that children did not need to "re-learn" to read but from what I remember my friends did in fact have to re-learn because they had learned to memorize words, or read incorrectly some way or another so it was in fact more difficult for them as they had already learned bad habits.

xvolter 11y ago
I'd be interested to learn about parents who continued focused eductions throughout childhood. While I can see that entering a public school and knowing to read won't give a lot of benefit since the child would be held back by the other students catching up, if the parent homeschooled or similar, the child may be able to continue accelerating. I'd also be interested to know if children who learn early develop better habits for learning, and therefore can learn new subjects more easily. Even an increased interest level in reading has benefit though, and I suspect a child who can read can find entertainment in books and that seems like it may help them as well.
ngoel36 11y ago
My parents taught me how to read and do some relatively complex math prior to kindergarten - today I feel that I owe nearly all of my academic & career success to that. Of course, your first point is valid - this was only useful because I was lucky enough to have amazing teachers who took the time to issue me a tailored curriculum at a significantly higher level than my peers. I had teachers and programs which allowed me to stay at a cutting edge until early high school when these initiatives existed naturally (and I had the resources to explore intellectually outside of school). More than that, it gave me a ton of confidence as I found things easier than my peers. That's not to say that all of this didn't come at a cost - my social growth was definitely stunted. Instead of playing sports I did homework, and instead of sleepovers with friends I worked on school projects. In the end, I wish I'd had a bit more balance, but I'm really glad I was lucky enough to have the opportunities I did early. I truly believe our ability to learn slows down every single day, and the early years are most formative.
- yareally 11y ago
  My experiences were similar in some ways. My parents taught me to read and basic math before and during my early school years. I had some teachers that tailored the curriculum for students like me (special projects, more advanced literature) and then others that kind of just left us to our own devices. In my case, I ended up doing all my schoolwork before lunch. The second half of the day I'd tinker around on the old Apple PCs my school had, read through the limited selection of interesting books in the school library or help some of my classmates with their schoolwork. Some teachers encouraged a few of us to tutor/mentor some of our peers, but I don't think it was encouraged enough. I can't directly relate that to where I am now, but I know overall it contributed to my ability to work/learn independently with minimal guidance. Might have also spurred my interest in problem solving and programming since I would be bored and become curious about how things worked around me. If there was a negative, it made me think much of school was really boring the first 8-9 years. When I had a teacher that was too busy to adjust their curriculum for more advanced students, I assumed this was how school would always be. I didn't want to have a negative opinion of the education system, but it was hard at the time to have a positive one. When I reached high school, I had to get out of the habit of thinking schoolwork (and homework) was some "busy work" chore I had to do in order to move onto the next grade. This was a bit harder in some courses than others--since I had to train myself to pay attention and actually take notes versus memorizing. Thankfully, I had some great high school teachers that helped me along the way. My high school education was overall a positive experience. Do I think I would have been better off being home schooled or in a private school with more attention? Hard to say. Perhaps better in some ways, but not in others. Always a trade off.
c3534l 11y ago
A scroll through google scholar seems to show it has no positive benefits. For instance, the abstract at http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleID=1360889 http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleID=13608... gave kids reading lessons "delivered at 4, 12, 18, and 42 months" and concluded that it "provided neither the anticipated benefits to literacy and language nor enhanced uptake of literacy activities at 4 years of age, even when targeted to relatively disadvantaged areas." Everything seems to show little to no effect, but as far as I can tell it's not inherently a bad thing to do. Kids just happen to learn to read at about the time they're intellectually ready for it.
- zappo2938 11y ago
  This makes me want to ask the question if teaching children complex activities very early is pointless because they have not developed the neurological wiring in their brains at the early stages of development to make learning math and reading at a complex level worth while. At what point to children start to understand abstract concepts? I always thought the greatest thing a parent can do with a child is to read to them, Dr. Seuss. That does not mean teaching children to read before they are ready positively effects them.
  - c3534l 11y ago
    I think sometimes parents my age (late 20s early 30s) try to force their kids to engage in a lot of activities the kids aren't ready for and aren't interested in because they want to show everyone how much better their kid is from everyone else's. Helicopter parents are one extreme. Kids should have some room to breath, explore, and play. You shouldn't force them into something they're not ready for and of course every kid is going to develop differently. There's a good middle ground, I'm sure. Just my 2 cents anyway.
  - lintiness 11y ago
    ha. dr. seuss is a tricky one because the "things" in his book are so totally made up. i often find myself reading him to my toddlers and wondering if any of it makes sense.
zappo2938 11y ago
There are two links to educational websites in the article. One of them is to Starfall (http://www.starfall.com/ http://www.starfall.com/) and I'm impressed with simple presentation of lessons. The author presented a lot of studies that show learning to read early has beneficial effects. It would be nice if he at least presented some anecdotal evidence how his son fared academically and intellectually. I have heard of a study that says people who read books are happier and another study shows they have longer attention spans. I couldn't find any studies supporting those assertions when I searched just now. Sounds plausible. Also, an early start can counteract a relative age effect [1] likely in this case where older children have an advantage entering kindergarten and first grade. It's possible to have a child a full 11 months older than her classmate in kindergarten. If they are 4 or 5 then that is a big difference in growth giving the advantage to the older child. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_age_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_age_effect
maaku 11y ago
> I had friends who learned how to read when they were toddlers and it had literally no effect on them later in life other than that they were bored in school until everyone else had the chance to learn who did not have their parents expose them to this. This tells me that their parents failed at step 2, perhaps thinking the school would take care of the rest.
scotty79 11y ago
> how this teaching affects a child and if trying to make them learn too early could have negative effects I know this question is always asked. But if you love your child and give it all attention it needs does any teaching have any negative effects on the child? Apart from knowing too much without the need, which affects many people even as adults.
- m0skit0 11y ago
  >> knowing too much without the need How is knowing "too much" ever? One never knows enough.
  - Jtsummers 11y ago
    In general, you're correct. The problem is differentiating useful knowledge from trivia. Knowing pop culture references is useful from a social participation standpoint. Knowing the top 10 songs for each week of the past decade, not so useful except as a party trick. Or, less trivia more general knowledge, for most of us it doesn't pay to know the ins and outs of every world conflict. They're beyond our control (mostly), so knowledge past a certain point only really helps create a sense of despair and helplessness. There's no reason to remain glued to those news feeds after a time because they'll only keep you from living your life. However, when it comes to skills like reading, math, logic, athletics, creative, or production type things, you can only know too much if there's a set of skills you can't use or your breadth is so great you're mediocre or worse at most of them.
- leppr 11y ago
  That's just an intuitive hypothesis, but wouldn't the early focused teaching of a skill (especially a communication one) naturally introduce a kind of "thought determinism"? [1] It's something I think about often and the first critique that came to my mind when seeing this book, but the author's defense only seems to be about emotional well-being and performance. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity#Linguistic_determinism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity#Linguist...
- kohanz 11y ago
nthcolumn 11y ago
People like to try crackpot theories and experiments on their children apparently. I'm sure they mean well. My kid is gorgeous too BTW! She learned to walk really early. Kind peoples said 'ooh look! so bright! so more advanced than Jonny or Bea!' I said that I didn't think that she is going to be any better at walking than Jonny and Bea ultimately.
- nightspirit 11y ago
  > Kind peoples said 'ooh look! so bright! so more advanced than Jonny or Bea!' I said that I didn't think that she is going to be any better at walking than Jonny and Bea ultimately. Now you reminded me how I hated when parents used me for such dick waving contests. My typical reaction was to stop whatever I was being praised for and quickly do something to piss off both them and whomever happened to be the target of their bragging. If you are a parent - just don't do that.
murbard2 11y ago
> I had friends who learned how to read when they were toddlers and it had literally no effect on them later in life other than that they were bored in school until everyone else had the chance to learn who did not have their parents expose them to this. It sounds like the issue was putting them through school, not teaching them to read early.
zeidrich 11y ago
One thing that I want to teach my child(ren) is how to function in school, and what the purpose of school is. I was always ahead of the class, and similarly I was bored and it actually hurt me in grades (but not what I learned). I learned later in life that the purpose of school isn't to learn. The purpose of school is to try to guarantee a standard of knowledge. The other lesson to learn in school is that it's your teacher who determines your qualification, and that they're a person who gets frustrated, tired, can be lazy, can be angry or petty, but can also be happy, proud, encouraged, inspired, etc. As an adult, I know how to behave in a classroom. I understand why showing off is not appreciated. I know why I have to go over things that I already know. Because I know these things, they don't bother me. There's always boredom, but you pay attention not because you need to, but because it helps the teacher, and making the teacher's life easier is better for the class and your evaluation. The goal of the game isn't to understand the material, the goal of the game is to be evaluated highly. Understanding the material is only half the game.

daljeetv 11y ago

Anne Fernald (Stanford) has done some really impressive research on talking to children and how that affects how well they do in school. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpHwJyjm7rM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpHwJyjm7rM)

steven2012 11y ago

I would love a follow up from the author on whether or not it made any actual difference. My bet is that it probably didn't, but I can't think that the article wouldn't be biased since he obviously thinks that his son is gifted.

gliese1337 11y ago
Eh? Where do you get that idea? He repeats over and over again that this should not be taken as a sign that his kid is overly gifted, that it didn't work just because his kid is gifted, and that he is pretty sure most kids could accomplish the same thing if their parents tried.
eyan 11y ago
You obviously didn't read the thing.
J-dawg 11y ago
Read the comment in this thread from Luc. It's likely that it will make a difference simply because the author's son will be labelled as "smart" from his first day in school. This might have as much bearing on the outcome as his innate "giftedness"
Illniyar 11y ago
From the site: " UPDATE 2 (Oct. 3, 2011): my son is now five years old. He is now reading daily on his own, and has read himself a couple dozen chapter books, including The Story of the World, Vol. 1: The Ancient World (314 pgs.). UPDATE 3 (Dec. 16, 2012): at six, my son switches between “serious” literature which he reads with a dictionary app, including Treasure Island, Tom Sawyer, and The Secret Garden, and easier literature including Beverly Cleary books, the Hardy Boys, and Encyclopedia Brown. If his answers to regular comprehension questions are any indication, he’s understanding what he reads pretty well. UPDATE 4 (Mar. 26, 2013): I’m delighted to report that my second son, following methods similar to those I used with my first, is now 2.5 years old and reading at a first grade level. UPDATE 5 (Aug. 25, 2014): my second is following in his brother’s footsteps, reading a version of the Odyssey (he’s crazy about Greek mythology—go figure) at age 3.5: "

guidedlight 11y ago

What about the perception that greatly advancing your toddler's learning before they start school, may mean your child will be placed into an education system that simply isn't designed to cater for them?

gliese1337 11y ago
I feel like that was addressed, in bits and pieces. If you're worried about your kid ending up "abnormal" or "out of place"... well, yeah, they will. But the author (and myself) have no problem with "abnormal". "Normal" is not necessarily good. He does say that he's worried about boredom (and again, I agree), but that is much more easily fixed by looking for teachers or special programs that can cater to the child's needs, maybe skipping grades... or, if that fails, continuing to enrich your child's education yourself.
scotty79 11y ago
I don't think education system is properly designed for children that don't learn before they start school either.

ScottBurson 11y ago

I learned to read very early through nothing more than being read to. No flashcards, no phonics, no refrigerator magnets. Of course the books my parents started with had small words and lots of pictures, as appropriate for a beginning reader, but they were not even explicitly trying to get me to read -- they were just trying to stimulate my mind generally. This is just one more anecdote, of course, but I think it's an interesting contrast to Sanger's story. Because of my experience I am a little skeptical of the whole phonics and sounding-out-words thing. While the connection between sound and spelling is certainly not arbitrary, English is not exactly phonetically spelled either. I suspect an excessive emphasis on phonics makes it harder for kids to learn to spell. But that's a quibble. I think it's great that Sanger has done this and would encourage any parents so inclined to do similarly. Edited to add: reading on, I come to this line: Some critics say that, even if very small children of average or low intelligence can memorize words, they’re just memorizing the overall shape of the word—they aren’t sounding out the words or learning phonics, and so they aren’t really reading. By the logic of these critics, Chinese speakers never "really" learn to read! Obviously, I quite disagree. I think recognition of the shape of the word is very much reading, and makes one a better speller too.

known 11y ago

Tell toddler to teach you;

z3t4 11y ago

If you want to make your kids smarter, read books/stories with them! It will make them better at understanding the context, making them better readers when they get older.

otabdeveloper1 11y ago

Where I live, a child who enters first grade without knowing how to read is an abnormality. In fact, the school system assumes that any child who enters first grade already has the basics of literacy and numeracy -- a child who doesn't know how to read will probably be channeled to a special class for slow/disadvantaged kids. This seems like a cultural quirk and doesn't appear to make people smarter in the long run, however.

skrebbel 11y ago
Interesting! And where would that be?

cmarschner 11y ago

Nature is quite fair in one respect: for every child on this planet a week has 168 hours. Spend time teaching your child reading and math, and some other children will have learnt something else - climbing trees, using a bicycle, making friends, showing empathy. Parents should think of the opportunity costs when they push their kids into one direction only because they perceive a certain extra value in that.

kalms 11y ago
But doing it before bedtime, before a meal... I don't see the harm in that. My daughters are genuinely interested in it and are looking forward to it. We practice the words and pronunciation; practice different letters. And then topped off with me reading a story. They know a big part of the alphabet now. Didn't hurt them one bit. And they're two. On the other hand, my son isn't interested at all. So I don't force it on him. I just read him a cool story about Iron Man & friends :-)

scotty79 11y ago

> I thoroughly acquainted him with the alphabet and got him used to the idea of sounding out words with refrigerator magnets. Next, I started showing him flashcards (words plus pictures) arranged into increasingly difficult phonetic groupings, in a systematic order. About the same time, we started watching Your Baby Can Read—I am glad that I was able to put aside my misgivings about the off-putting hype surrounding YBCR and Doman’s method. Both before and after the most intensive “teaching” period, when he was two, I read huge amounts to him, which he liked. After I started teaching him to read, I made a point of always running my finger under the text as I read to him. That sums up our method, I had plastic letters I played with, with my mom. No flashcards I can recall. No video. My mom read to me tons and tons (no finger running though). My favorite stuff more times than anyone can count. Some SF too, although I'm not sure how early. She bought me comic books but refused to read them for me. Long story short. When I was about six and went to pre-school I remember reading aloud one of my favorite short stories to group of other children.

skrebbel 11y ago

As a parent of a toddler and a baby, this article bothers me to bits. The author somehow seems to implicitly assumes that being able to read as early as possible is good, period. Younger == better. He has a huge "why" chapter, where he debunks and defends all kinds of criticism he's gotten, but I haven't been able to at all find the section where he simply describes why it's a good idea. Not why it's not not a good idea, that's not good enough. Why would I teach my children to read already? There might be good reasons, but this author is so consumed with the "it's possible! it's not harmful!" part of things that what should have been the central argument is nearly entirely missing. I mean, seriously, it's possible and it's not harmful? I can think of a lot of things that are possible and not harmful but still wouldn't do with my kids.

crististm 11y ago
I don't know if it is harmful or not. But I ask another question: How is reading words different from looking at a tree and saying "tree". Or looking at a bird and saying "bird"?
- leppr 11y ago
  It's not, but it IS different from looking at a tree and analyzing its bark and leaves, or looking at a bird and wondering why it has feathers instead of fur.
  - crististm 11y ago
    I vaguely remember first encounter with LCD watches when I was probably 10. The same concepts (numbers) seemed strange when presented in LCD font (especially the regularity of 2 and 5). However, adjusting to this form was very quick and after probably less than 24 hours I went from "de-constructing" to pattern recognition through some phase of "pattern acceptance". What I mean is that identifying the parts of the whole through de-construction is not the only way we recognize things.
- tudorw 11y ago
  Reading the word tree could be described as de-constructing the letters that make up the word 't r e e', re-combining them into a whole, 'tree', then recognising the 'sound' and associating with a concept 'tree' then comprehending it's context to give it meaning 'the tree of life', 'it was like climbing a tree', ' the tree was bending'. During early years teaching it's apparently fairly trivial to identify the children who are recognizing shapes over the deconstruction technique, there's a test where they are shown lists of words with nonsense words thrown in, for those recognising shapes, when they see 'strom' they cannot help but unknowingly correct it to 'storm', their brain just fixes it for them, it's close enough and the word 'strom' has probably not been encountered, children implementing the deconstruction technique will have less of a problem. Why teachers care is that it helps them identify children who may have issues identifying letter shapes but can pass other tests by recognising whole words, early diagnosis of dyslexia can have a very positive impact on a child's educational progress.

ismail 11y ago

An interesting read related to topic: Finnish Kids Don't Learn To Read In Kindergarten. They Turn Out Great Anyway. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/finland-schools-kindergarten-literacy_560ece14e4b0af3706e0a60c http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/finland-schools-kinderga...

jacalata 11y ago
Finland comes up a lot on this topic, but then Finnish people say that a high percentage of Finnish kids learn to read before they even start kindergarten (especially because most TV is subtitled from English), so these articles tend to feel misleading.
maus42 11y ago
Well, I would be wary of direct comparisons to English. Finnish is almost fully phonetically spelled. No spelling bees. An average child will be quite good reader and a mediocre writer after the first grade, many already before the first Christmas holiday.

Luc 11y ago

My son could read at age 3. We taught him the letters, and reading words came rather easily from playing a Nintendo game. He was self-motivated. It had one very important effect - teachers considered him to be among the smartest of the class, which turned into a self-fulfilling prophecy, a virtuous circle, at least for primary school.

J-dawg 11y ago
This effect seems to be frighteningly powerful. Apparently professional athletes are disproportionately more likely to be born in the 2nd half of the school year [0]. They simply grow bigger and show athletic promise a few months earlier than their peers, which leads to them being identified as promising athletes. It seems to be incredibly powerful to give a child a positive label in this way. It also makes you wonder how many talented kids get left behind for the opposite reason. I guess I have a tendency to root for the underdog, but I think it should be part of a teacher's job to consciously avoid falling victim to this effect. I'm not saying this is what happened to your son - if he learned to read at 3 I'm sure he's pretty smart anyway. And if I ever have a child, I'll do anything I can to give them an advantage. The education system, on the other hand, should be aiming for fairness, not labeling kids as "smart" or "sporty" while they're still in primary school. [0] http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/18891749 http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/18891749
- frobozz 11y ago
  Yes, but remember that fairness should not be a Harrison Bergeron-style equality, but that each child should have equal opportunity to fulfil their potential in whatever avenues are appropriate for that child. Holding back a child until the others have caught up is as much the antithesis of fairness as giving an advanced child extra benefits at the expense of the less advanced ones.
  - J-dawg 11y ago
    Firstly, thanks for introducing me to Harrison Bergeron. I'm looking forward to reading it. I love HN for things like this. > Holding back a child until the others have caught up is as much the antithesis of fairness as giving an advanced child extra benefits at the expense of the less advanced ones I couldn't agree more, other then to say apportioning finite teaching resources is a zero-sum game. If you give more attention to one kid (because of their perceived intelligence or for any other reason) then you are holding back another, whether you like it or not.

Retr0spectrum 11y ago

PDF version, with better formatting: http://larrysanger.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/How-and-Why-I-Taught-My-Toddler-to-Read.pdf http://larrysanger.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/How-and-Wh...

vitro 11y ago

As a parent of a toddler, I am considering teaching my kid the music instead. There has been interesting HN discussion about that here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9067377 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9067377 In a way it also contains reading skills but also develops the kid's emotions (books as well, you could argue), sensitivity, coordination, patience and perseverance.. Book reading is kind of lone activity, while in music you learn to listen, cooperate with others.. Seems to me that it develops the human being in a more wholesome way.

spdionis 11y ago

I jumped straight to second grade at the age of six because I already read fluently (in two alphabets, learnt the first at age 4, the second at age 5), could write ok and math was easy to me. I remember being bored in kindergarten. I think my grandma taught me how to read but i don't remember well. My parents say I was always playing with their books. I remember I could easily read single words but not whole texts until I had some kind of revelation one day. Then I started to read texts as well and fast as any adult. Having already read tens of books (it was my favorite activity, before I got a playstation) before getting to school I had a clear advantage that remained until high school. I didn't turn out a bookworm, although I have always been TERRIBLE at sports (who cares...). I strongly believe that having a child in constant contact with books at an early age (you don't even need to be there) will help him develop better on the intellectual side.

J-dawg 11y ago

I must confess that I haven't read the whole site, but there doesn't seem to be any mention of the possible effect on the child's eyesight. There is probably some causative link between the amount of close work you do and your chance of developing myopia. As someone with myopia myself, I know there's already a genetic risk. I'm not sure whether I'd want to exacerbate that risk by pushing the child to do lots of close work from a very young age. Getting a kid into adulthood with perfect or near-perfect eyesight could well be a greater gift than helping them be an academic superstar. But who knows? When you have kids, do you lie awake at night thinking about this stuff? I guess if this thread is teaching me anything, it's that my indecisiveness would make me a pretty terrible parent.

tren 11y ago
Myopia has recently been linked with the amount of time you spend outside, irrespective of how much close work you do: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236638275_Time_outdoors_and_the_prevention_of_MYOPIA https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236638275_Time_outd....
- J-dawg 11y ago
  I've read this too, I guess I'm still a little sceptical based on my own sample of one. When I was a child I spent loads of time outside, but also loads of time on the computer. I guess the computer won. I also don't understand how they separated out "doing close work" from "being indoors". You'd need a control group of kids who spent a lot of time indoors WITHOUT doing much close work. So what would they be doing instead? Even if you're not reading, surely all indoor activities involve somewhat close work. Watching TV or playing console games might not have met the researcher's definition of close work, but they still involve focusing ones eyes at a point closer than infinity.
endymi0n 11y ago
I could read with 3 and I have had (mild) hyperopia as long as I can think. YMMV. Realistically, these conditions are derived from eye shape, so I don't think reading early has anything to do with this. If you have some evidence, I'd be interested though.

jostylr 11y ago

As counterpoint, A Thousand Rivers goes the opposite way: http://schoolingtheworld.org/a-thousand-rivers/ http://schoolingtheworld.org/a-thousand-rivers/ I also find it interesting that Larry Sanger's latest post is about the loss of democracy and freedom in the USA. My view, based on Sudbury model of schooling, is that true, vibrant democracy comes from a life lived in a self-governing community. A link on such things: http://www.educationfutures.org/Respect.htm http://www.educationfutures.org/Respect.htm An excerpt of that on the basic philosophical treatment of children: > The root ideas of a democratic education are as simple as they are radical: children should be accorded the same human rights and freedoms as adults; they should be granted responsibility for the conduct of their affairs; and they should be full participants in the life of their community. Democratic schools provide an environment where children can live their formative years in exactly the same manner as they will live out their mature years--as free citizens of a society devoted to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The world these children will inhabit as adults will be a familiar one, a world that has been part and parcel of their childhood.

dsfsdfd 11y ago
"The world these children will inhabit as adults will be a familiar one, a world that has been part and parcel of their childhood." The adult world does not live up to this ideal - at all.
- jostylr 11y ago
  That's sad and is the whole point of treating children with respect as human beings instead of machines that need programming to fulfill the function designated to them by their creators.

Herodotus38 11y ago

Thank you for posting this. I have been looking for a detailed personal account of teaching a toddler to read for a while. My son is two and a half and like this author, I have been trying to find out how to teach him to read. A couple weeks ago I posted my own reflections on what I have been doing here: http://hmcscreening.blogspot.com/2015/12/on-teaching-reading.html http://hmcscreening.blogspot.com/2015/12/on-teaching-reading... I found it amazing how difficult it is to find scientific studies on how to teach reading, in my post above I kind of go into how the US government funded a large review of all the data in the late 1990s. I think the most important thing is to just read to your child every day. My son also knew the alphabet before the age of two, but I think this is no different than teaching a child "dog" or "square" or "ball", they are all abstracts to a degree. Also, learning the sounds of each letter was pretty easy too. The hard part that we are against right now is putting it all together: I can't consistently get him to sound out a simple word, even though individually he knows what each letter does. There have been some comments wondering about issues of myopia if one has their child read. There is not a lot of conclusive evidence of what causes myopia, but recently there was a good paper published in JAMA where they randomized schools (this was in China), to enforce a certain amount of outdoor time every day. Those kids who were in the outdoor groups had statistically less myopia.

interpol_p 11y ago
I have a toddler of similar age and, despite reading to him every day, I'm not sure I care how early he learns to parse the symbols himself. He gets the alphabet, and can sound out very few words, but I don't actively teach it unless he shows interest. I get especially frustrated with English because of all its exceptions and inconsistencies. (E.g., his name starts with 'C' but is pronounced the same as if it were 'K'. He knows that his breakfast 'Cereal' begins with the same letter as his name, but why does it sound like 'S'?) It feels like a poor system to encourage a child to learn when they could learn other things. My delight in my child's learning comes from his ability to use and process interesting communication. I loved seeing him develop an understanding of what it is to "trick" somebody, learning how to synthesise an original story, to attempt sarcasm, how to mash two words together to form a made-up word, or to convey implicit information through pitch and speed of speech. These are the little milestones that I actively try to teach, because each one raises the quality of our communication together.

Illniyar 11y ago

Followups: http://larrysanger.org/2014/03/report-on-the-boys-march-2014/ http://larrysanger.org/2014/03/report-on-the-boys-march-2014... http://larrysanger.org/2014/03/report-on-the-boys-march-2014/ http://larrysanger.org/2014/03/report-on-the-boys-march-2014... http://larrysanger.org/2013/04/brief-update-about-the-boys/ http://larrysanger.org/2013/04/brief-update-about-the-boys/ http://larrysanger.org/2012/10/update-about-the-boys-2/ http://larrysanger.org/2012/10/update-about-the-boys-2/ After reading all of the really long article, I simply did not have time reading these updates, so I don't know whats in them, but it does seem relevant here.

ThomPete 11y ago

Rule #1 of bringing up a child. There are no rules. There is various insights, principles (praise effort, not results) and methods that will help you guide your child through life but no silverbullet, not even a rusty cannonball. You can do all the right things and your kid gets in the wrong company, you can do all the wrong things and your kid meets someone who influence them more than you do. My oldest kid is in 1st grade and read, write and calculates pretty well (comparably to half way through 2nd class). He is in a charter school not because we wanted that but because it ended up being the choice that made sense. He thrives in the strict disciplined environment but who know perhaps it's hindering his ability to think for himself. (we are considering moving him to a more alternative school for the last half of his school life for that reason) My youngest kid is two and in pre-school he can count, the alphabet, can say which letters and numbers are which. Maybe this is a good thing for one and a bad thing for the other. Perhaps by not being able to read yet the younger kid would have developed a different perspective, perhaps their "own language" which would influence them later in life. Perhaps it would be better for them to develop their body language than their oral language. There are simply too many factors to even begin claiming one thing is sure to work. Two kids brought up the exact same way can end up being very different people. All too often we think that children are concepts which we build up to a succesful future, when in fact all they are, are projects we can manage to stay out of the worst trouble.

agumonkey 11y ago
True, balance and patience. Life has no road, it's a ball of mess, everybody crawl through it the way he/she can. Being too early or too late is detrimental, other than that you can't know.
ThrustVectoring 11y ago
People want to be reassured that they're doing the "right thing", that what they're doing is "correct" according to some external source of truth. It's no surprise that there's this much counterproductive parenting advice (even "praise effort, not results" is merely slightly less bad). Anything other than "pay attention to the actual needs of the child" is probably the wrong direction to go. Like, if you try to praise effort instead of results, you're evaluating and judging things rather than searching for their needs. Seriously, though, stop reading and trying to follow parenting advice and pay attention to your goddamn child. Otherwise, you'll wind up doing the "right thing", praise effort, and fail to meet your child's actual needs until you've got a suicidal college student saying "well, it looks like I just didn't try hard enough."

kohanz 11y ago

I'm fascinated by this essay because a lot of the activities described by the author are what we have been doing with our 21-month old son. Not through any concerted plan, but mostly because my wife and I love to read and that love for books has been passed on to our son. I wouldn't say he "reads" yet and he's not able to recite the full alphabet yet (we read a lot of books, but so far I'm not into drilling him with flash cards and he's not on any screens yet), but by comparison to his (daycare) peers, his vocabulary and verbalization skills are significantly ahead and I believe these activities are connected. One of the most interesting developments from my point of view is that while my son most enjoys sitting beside us to read a book together, lately he also enjoys "reading" alone. To help us buy an extra half hour of sleep-in (he's not a great sleeper AND an early riser) in the morning we will come to his crib when he's calling for us and put a pile of board books in there. He will then sit there for about half an hour (those of you with toddlers will know that this kind of attention span is no small feat) and flip through them quietly. By the time he's done, all of the books have been "read", multiple times. Of course he's not "reading" the words, but I do believe he's reading the books and in his mind reciting the words that he remembers from when we read them to him. To me, the above is just one example of how he keeps proving to me that there is a lot more going on in the minds of our little ones than we often give them credit for. I believe we (or at least myself) have a tendency to underestimate the intelligence and capacity for learning that these little people have, because we judge them based on their outputs, which lag behind their actual learning by quite a bit.

magic_beans 11y ago
Some of my earliest memories as a child revolve around "reading". I was deeply drawn to one book in particular, a beautifully illustrated version of the Twelve Dancing Princesses. I remember being overwhelmed by the many words, and would instead look at the pictures, over and over, not necessarily trying to read the words, but hearing them echoed in my head from when my mother read them to me. And then one day, as if by nowhere, I could read the words. I so clearly remember that sense of discovery. It was such a delicious feeling. I STILL remember the story and the pictures from that book to this day.
- 11y ago

chris_wot 11y ago

For those who don't know, Larry Sanger was instrumental in setting up Wikipedia with Jimmy Wales. There's quite a lot of controversy over who founded Wikipedia, but nobody can deny Larry was one of the earliest members of the project.

toolslive 11y ago

My sons were 4 when they wanted to learn how to read from their older sister (7 at the time). I diverted their attention and learned them how to play chess instead (anything that's not taught in primary school would do). The reason was this: if they can read before primary school, they will certainly be bored out of their minds, and would be detrimental to their school experience. Today, I still think it was the right thing to do.

ThomPete 11y ago
My son have been learning chess from Kindergarten in his school. So I think thats different (his school is a charter school though)
murbard2 11y ago
I'm not a typical case but... I learned to read before primary school, I was bored out of my mind. The school offered to make me skip a class, my parents declined because they thought being too young would be detrimental to my school experience. Knowing me, that was a mistake. To this day, I regret not being put through an accelerated curriculum, or at least being taken out of school and given a chance to spend that time learning on my own. Overall, despite being bored in primary school, I am still glad I learned before, as it afforded me the opportunity to learn more things by reading on my own, and it protected me from the general poor quality of reading education in school.

moosey 11y ago

I've read that introducing your children to more vocabulary is really valuable (a good starting point: http://literacy.rice.edu/thirty-million-word-gap http://literacy.rice.edu/thirty-million-word-gap). Given this, instead of aggressively teaching my next child how to read, I plan on spending more time reading works that I can understand to them. The author kept on mentioning 'decoding' rather than 'understanding', and it is possible that understanding at an early age is more important than decoding. My first child was reading pretty early, but only developed good comprehension recently (age 11-12). Despite the fact that they could read rapidly and clearly out loud without pauses, they were missing the meaning of what they were reading. I don't know how to avoid this, but I'm hoping that simply introducing more words early on will help to alleviate this problem. Raising children well is hard. There are lots of wrong ways, but also many right ways. I constantly worry that I'm setting up my child for years of therapy or failure.

JackFr 11y ago

It's difficult to get the science right, because controls are difficult to come by. In TFA, he refers to two important longitudinal studies which indicate that there is a persistent positive effect between early readers and non-early readers. I have not read those studies, but I can't help but wonder how well they controlled for confounding factors. That is, that early reading is an effect or rather evidence, of their long run aptitude in school. That if the early readers were compared not just with the general population, but with students who were not early readers but had the same income levels, parental education level, family structure, etc. He also claims without evidence that any child can be taught to read at an early age. But it sounds like in his sample N=2. If there is evidence where a random sample (rather than a self selecting sample, which would introduce bias) of children are taught reading early and have a persistent benefit I would like to see it. That being said, good for him,and good for him to recommend this to others. It seems clear that his children seem happy, well-adjusted and achieving their academic potential. Given his personal experience, why wouldn't he share it? But I don't think the evidence is there to claim this is universal.

grayclhn 11y ago

It seems like the author only has one child, at least from the very beginning of the essay. I'd be interested in reading a revised version after raising a second or third child. I thought I had a lot of control over my daughter's development when it was just her.... not so much after her two very different siblings. :)

ericssmith 11y ago

Just to weigh in here, since I also taught both of my kids to read at an early age. I also taught them arithmetic early. The biggest win is confidence about learning. This was particularly meaningful when they got into more "competitive" environments, by which I mean first grade where kids are expected to perform in front of their peers. When I tell my kids that just because they have trouble with something in school, that doesn't mean they aren't good at learning or at the subjects, they believe me because they have succeeded at both reading and math outside of that setting. I believe kids are capable of a lot more than they are supported on. The trick, in my view, is to constantly know where that boundary is. Both reading and math have notions of basic mechanical skills and meaning. My kids weren't great at the meaning part until they were over 6. But they both excelled at the mechanics part early. As an example, early on they learned to add by counting up. But later I was able to replace this with "tricks" (aka "math thinking"). A example is adding 9 to a number. Adding by counting is tedious and prone to mistakes. But if you've learned to add 10, then it is always one less. Similarly, since addition commutes, instead of 2 + 8, change it around to 8+2, which is easier and quicker. Both of my kids have embraced this approach to math of learning the shortcuts, which is actually where they get to experience the patterns and relationships that make math fun and interesting. When I showed them how the digits in multiples of 9 always add to 9, they were astounded. And then I showed them how the digits in multiples of 8 add up to a descending, and repeating "countdown" pattern. Wow. My daughter (who just turned 8) knows a bunch of these insights into the behavior of numbers and operations on them, and confidently says "I'm good at math" despite obviously struggling in other areas (gym, music, art) relative to her peers. My son reads Junie B. Jones quietly to himself and bursts out laughing. He has discovered the meaning part. And when my daughter got a book about feelings, she finally discovered the power and relevance of reading. Incidentally, my kids spend about 40 minutes on reading and math in the evening. They get roughly 2 1/2 hours to do other things between school and dinner. There isn't an opportunity cost.

jtheory 11y ago

I haven't properly read most of his material yet, but one thing that may be relevant for some children -- kids manage emotion, questions of agency and fairness, differently when they're younger. My wife and I taught our eldest daughter to read starting around 3 or so (not as young as in this article, but still on the early side). She's now 6, and quite good at sounding out any words she doesn't know, but sometimes gets really furious at the spelling of many English words. She wants rules that she can apply consistently, and (of course) English just... doesn't have those. Present vs. past tense of "read", anyone? Lead (plumbum) vs. lead (guide) vs. led? Even words like "Once" and "only" can get her to scowl (she knows how "on" is pronounced... you've only added an "s" or "ly" sound to the end!) It's a source of tension, because she'd rather believe we're wrong than accept that the language is so sadly inconsistent. :/