5 ms·

>We weren't taught the alphabet until the age of about 6-7 My daughter is 1.5 years old and knows almost all of the alphabet. Is this a good thing or bad thin

by ronnier 16y ago

>We weren't taught the alphabet until the age of about 6-7 My daughter is 1.5 years old and knows almost all of the alphabet. Is this a good thing or bad thing?

crpatino 16y ago
Neither good or bad. It is a clue that she probably is good at "symbolic thinking". More of this stuff to come in the near future. Just make sure she has plenty of chances to develop this (probably innate) ability. On the other hand, as she grows up, you probably should keep an eye on her and help to mitigate any shortcomings that'd eventually show up. But this is the same with all children anyway.
- zipdog 16y ago
  It could be a clue about symbolic thinking, or it might be the result of the approach used. I've seen an approach where letter-shaped toys are handed out as toys, which provides a concrete object to associate to the letter. Children using this seem to be able to pick up the alphabet around 1 year old fairly easily.
  - Afton 16y ago
    The important thing is that, as a parent, it's easy to fall into the trap of comparing milestones. There isn't the evidence that e.g. knowing the alphabet early means being a better reader later in life. Just like early walking milestones don't lead to 'better walking'.
    - ern 16y ago
      Your comment resonated with me. My wife's very verbal niece could name 12 animals in a book of animals at 18 months. Her mother drilled her, and then they would take the book around to show how clever their daughter was. I'd feel quite bad since my son was the same age and wasn't talking much, let alone identifying animals. The constant showing off and comparisons by my in-laws led to us taking him to a speech pathologist and to his pediatrician for an eval, to make sure he had no delays (he doesn't have any). The other day, my wife realized that her niece (now over 2) couldn't identify the exact same animals, when they were in a different book, or using plastic models. She had learned the book, but didn't understand the concepts. I've learned my lesson about comparing milestones. I suppose a professional may be able to do meaningful comparisons, but the average parent or grandparent cannot.
      - Afton 16y ago
        Right. And yet it's hard not to feel that swell of pride when your child 'overachieves' on some milestone. But often when a child hits a milestone early, it's actually because they are doing something differently than age-equivalent children or adults do it. And that something may well be an intellectual dead end. The niece in your story may be tagging the name 'tiger' to something like length of tail, or surrounding context. And I could write books on the need for serious investigations into what kids mean when they use certain words.
  - crpatino 16y ago
    Yes, it could be... my comment was really more about the idea that any persistent advantage that may come out is going to be driven by the child's interests. As parents, I believe, we should encourage more than enforce. I also think that drill down has its use, but it is reserved for cases where the kid is visibly falling behind some minimum standard. And the bar must be set really low for that. By definition, roughly 50% should be "below average" in any given skill. If the skill is important and the deviation from the norm is severe, you have to push the kid regardless. As a personal example. At home, it is not acceptable to be unable to get yourself out of water. This is a life or death issue; so, my kids have been enrolled in swimming classes, from early age, whether they like it or not. They don't have to go in competitions, they don't even have to be fast or have a good technique... but it is not acceptable that they are not at least as good as myself. At this point, my 8yo is probably a better swimmer than either me or my wife (who was in an amateur team in her teens)... but I will never ask for more than an honest effort.
  - Shorel 16y ago
    Making the Roman alphabet so ingrained may make very hard to learn other alphabets, like Greek, Cyrillic, Hiragana or the Chinese one.
igrekel 16y ago
My son knew the alphabet too at that age. He is now 5 and has forgotten and relearned it quite a few times since then. Knowing this, I wouldn't worry about it really.
run4yourlives 16y ago
It doesn't matter what she knows, it matters that you encourage her to learn more and follow where her mind takes her. For my boys, (3.9 and 1.5 years) I looked into Waldorf and was actually completely turned off by the fact that reading was completely ignored until much, much later. (7 years) For my eldest, who is already reading 2 and 3 letter words and phonetically sounding larger ones, this would be such a set back that he would be discouraged. I think it isn't important where he is right now, but more so that he is encouraged to continue learning and continues to have an enjoyment of learning. I think that's really where our schools fail and why a self-motivated Montessori child can be a high achiever.

by ronnier 16y ago

>We weren't taught the alphabet until the age of about 6-7 My daughter is 1.5 years old and knows almost all of the alphabet. Is this a good thing or bad thing?

crpatino 16y ago

Neither good or bad. It is a clue that she probably is good at "symbolic thinking". More of this stuff to come in the near future. Just make sure she has plenty of chances to develop this (probably innate) ability. On the other hand, as she grows up, you probably should keep an eye on her and help to mitigate any shortcomings that'd eventually show up. But this is the same with all children anyway.

zipdog 16y ago
It could be a clue about symbolic thinking, or it might be the result of the approach used. I've seen an approach where letter-shaped toys are handed out as toys, which provides a concrete object to associate to the letter. Children using this seem to be able to pick up the alphabet around 1 year old fairly easily.
- Afton 16y ago
  The important thing is that, as a parent, it's easy to fall into the trap of comparing milestones. There isn't the evidence that e.g. knowing the alphabet early means being a better reader later in life. Just like early walking milestones don't lead to 'better walking'.
  - ern 16y ago
    Your comment resonated with me. My wife's very verbal niece could name 12 animals in a book of animals at 18 months. Her mother drilled her, and then they would take the book around to show how clever their daughter was. I'd feel quite bad since my son was the same age and wasn't talking much, let alone identifying animals. The constant showing off and comparisons by my in-laws led to us taking him to a speech pathologist and to his pediatrician for an eval, to make sure he had no delays (he doesn't have any). The other day, my wife realized that her niece (now over 2) couldn't identify the exact same animals, when they were in a different book, or using plastic models. She had learned the book, but didn't understand the concepts. I've learned my lesson about comparing milestones. I suppose a professional may be able to do meaningful comparisons, but the average parent or grandparent cannot.
    - Afton 16y ago
      Right. And yet it's hard not to feel that swell of pride when your child 'overachieves' on some milestone. But often when a child hits a milestone early, it's actually because they are doing something differently than age-equivalent children or adults do it. And that something may well be an intellectual dead end. The niece in your story may be tagging the name 'tiger' to something like length of tail, or surrounding context. And I could write books on the need for serious investigations into what kids mean when they use certain words.
- crpatino 16y ago
  Yes, it could be... my comment was really more about the idea that any persistent advantage that may come out is going to be driven by the child's interests. As parents, I believe, we should encourage more than enforce. I also think that drill down has its use, but it is reserved for cases where the kid is visibly falling behind some minimum standard. And the bar must be set really low for that. By definition, roughly 50% should be "below average" in any given skill. If the skill is important and the deviation from the norm is severe, you have to push the kid regardless. As a personal example. At home, it is not acceptable to be unable to get yourself out of water. This is a life or death issue; so, my kids have been enrolled in swimming classes, from early age, whether they like it or not. They don't have to go in competitions, they don't even have to be fast or have a good technique... but it is not acceptable that they are not at least as good as myself. At this point, my 8yo is probably a better swimmer than either me or my wife (who was in an amateur team in her teens)... but I will never ask for more than an honest effort.
- Shorel 16y ago
  Making the Roman alphabet so ingrained may make very hard to learn other alphabets, like Greek, Cyrillic, Hiragana or the Chinese one.

igrekel 16y ago

My son knew the alphabet too at that age. He is now 5 and has forgotten and relearned it quite a few times since then. Knowing this, I wouldn't worry about it really.

run4yourlives 16y ago

It doesn't matter what she knows, it matters that you encourage her to learn more and follow where her mind takes her. For my boys, (3.9 and 1.5 years) I looked into Waldorf and was actually completely turned off by the fact that reading was completely ignored until much, much later. (7 years) For my eldest, who is already reading 2 and 3 letter words and phonetically sounding larger ones, this would be such a set back that he would be discouraged. I think it isn't important where he is right now, but more so that he is encouraged to continue learning and continues to have an enjoyment of learning. I think that's really where our schools fail and why a self-motivated Montessori child can be a high achiever.