3 ms·

> It's not a curse, but it's not well-correlated with better outcomes. You seem to have been implying in all your posts that it's not just "not well-correlated

by SamBam 6y ago

> It's not a curse, but it's not well-correlated with better outcomes. You seem to have been implying in all your posts that it's not just "not well-correlated," but that it's explicitly correlated with worse outcomes. Use of such scientific terminology implies that there is evidence of this. Is there?

mlyle 6y ago
No, I'm not saying it's correlated with worse outcomes. I'm saying there's barely any signal of being an early reader years later in academic performance (and some of what little remains may be explained by those with disabilities being less represented in early readers), and there's plenty of small practical downsides. Therefore, it's something that's OK if it happens, but quite alright if you go down another path. And there's especially little evidence of receiving explicit reading instruction in school earlier results in better academic outcomes. But lots and lots of parents now try and seek out more "academic" kindergartens and pressure their kindergarten to spend more time on literacy skills. You can even find studies that show minor disadvantages in later performance from earlier reading instruction (e.g. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0885200612000397 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S08852... ) but I don't really believe these.
- SamBam 6y ago
  > No, I'm not saying it's correlated with worse outcomes. You said it leads to "You end up with a kid who is really bored in school and not using the time to build good study and homework habits." That's what I've been pushing back against. Perhaps in your personal anecdote it did, but I don't think it's fair to say that parents should discourage their kids from reading early because they'll get bored in school and do worse. I don't think there's any evidence that your personal "downsides" are necessarily the norm in any way, or that they are worse than the "downsides" of a kid who takes their time learning to read (which can also exist). I agree that there's no evidence that there's an advantage, but you've certainly been saying that there are disadvantages, and I don't agree that those are much beyond anecdotes.
  - mlyle 6y ago
    > You said it leads to "You end up with a kid who is really bored in school and not using the time to build good study and homework habits." They do show up in the study I posted, and there's about 60 years of literature on a high prevalence of later underachievement, increased truancy, etc on students that enter school above academic level. You can even find individual very alarming data points, like https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2713445/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2713445/ (Please don't jump on me for it being 1920's era education; I understand the limitations, but if you want results from a lifelong study, the early data points need to be a long time ago). > but I don't think it's fair to say that parents should discourage their kids from reading early because they'll get bored in school and do worse. I've never said that. Indeed, again, I've said mine read early. If I had it to do over again, I might lend a little less support to reading in particular and choose other things to spend time on. > you've certainly been saying that there are disadvantages, and I don't agree that those are much beyond anecdotes. I haven't been trying to say that. Based on both the literature and my experiences, I personally believe that it's quantitively neutral with respect to later academics, and that there are some qualitative downsides and upsides. In the parent community at my school, there are some that very aggressively push reading at their 4 year old, and--- given the literature and my experience, I believe there is no reason to do this and it may create harms. This is just an anecdote, but... I have 3 kids that are incredibly academically strong according to the assessments of their teachers... who are also way quicker than most of the students I teach to burst into tears at the first sign of difficulty, and are able to get away with much lower levels of attention given to their work than peers. There will be a reckoning, at some point, when they end up facing appropriately challenging material in school and don't know how to deal with it.
    - querez 6y ago
      > choose other things to spend time on. What are things you'd have wished to spend time on instead?
      - mlyle 6y ago
        Once they showed interest in reading, we did a fair bit of literacy practice. In retrospect, I suspect they still would have acquired reading skills early (just less so) if we hadn't, and if not, the Kindergarten and first grade literacy instruction we have available to us is pretty good. So, maybe substitute reading to them for some of that time, and looking at science books, and playing with microscopes, etc. Note we did all of those things too, but I'd change the proportions a bit.

by SamBam 6y ago

mlyle 6y ago

No, I'm not saying it's correlated with worse outcomes. I'm saying there's barely any signal of being an early reader years later in academic performance (and some of what little remains may be explained by those with disabilities being less represented in early readers), and there's plenty of small practical downsides. Therefore, it's something that's OK if it happens, but quite alright if you go down another path. And there's especially little evidence of receiving explicit reading instruction in school earlier results in better academic outcomes. But lots and lots of parents now try and seek out more "academic" kindergartens and pressure their kindergarten to spend more time on literacy skills. You can even find studies that show minor disadvantages in later performance from earlier reading instruction (e.g. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0885200612000397 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S08852... ) but I don't really believe these.

SamBam 6y ago
> No, I'm not saying it's correlated with worse outcomes. You said it leads to "You end up with a kid who is really bored in school and not using the time to build good study and homework habits." That's what I've been pushing back against. Perhaps in your personal anecdote it did, but I don't think it's fair to say that parents should discourage their kids from reading early because they'll get bored in school and do worse. I don't think there's any evidence that your personal "downsides" are necessarily the norm in any way, or that they are worse than the "downsides" of a kid who takes their time learning to read (which can also exist). I agree that there's no evidence that there's an advantage, but you've certainly been saying that there are disadvantages, and I don't agree that those are much beyond anecdotes.
- mlyle 6y ago
  > You said it leads to "You end up with a kid who is really bored in school and not using the time to build good study and homework habits." They do show up in the study I posted, and there's about 60 years of literature on a high prevalence of later underachievement, increased truancy, etc on students that enter school above academic level. You can even find individual very alarming data points, like https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2713445/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2713445/ (Please don't jump on me for it being 1920's era education; I understand the limitations, but if you want results from a lifelong study, the early data points need to be a long time ago). > but I don't think it's fair to say that parents should discourage their kids from reading early because they'll get bored in school and do worse. I've never said that. Indeed, again, I've said mine read early. If I had it to do over again, I might lend a little less support to reading in particular and choose other things to spend time on. > you've certainly been saying that there are disadvantages, and I don't agree that those are much beyond anecdotes. I haven't been trying to say that. Based on both the literature and my experiences, I personally believe that it's quantitively neutral with respect to later academics, and that there are some qualitative downsides and upsides. In the parent community at my school, there are some that very aggressively push reading at their 4 year old, and--- given the literature and my experience, I believe there is no reason to do this and it may create harms. This is just an anecdote, but... I have 3 kids that are incredibly academically strong according to the assessments of their teachers... who are also way quicker than most of the students I teach to burst into tears at the first sign of difficulty, and are able to get away with much lower levels of attention given to their work than peers. There will be a reckoning, at some point, when they end up facing appropriately challenging material in school and don't know how to deal with it.
  - querez 6y ago
    > choose other things to spend time on. What are things you'd have wished to spend time on instead?
    - mlyle 6y ago
      Once they showed interest in reading, we did a fair bit of literacy practice. In retrospect, I suspect they still would have acquired reading skills early (just less so) if we hadn't, and if not, the Kindergarten and first grade literacy instruction we have available to us is pretty good. So, maybe substitute reading to them for some of that time, and looking at science books, and playing with microscopes, etc. Note we did all of those things too, but I'd change the proportions a bit.