The Boston Globe has a very interesting article on the whole “smart baby/toddler” movement that’s definitely worth a read.
One area the article looks at is the push for early reading, from flashcards for babies to a completely restructured Kindergarten curriculum that aims to get five-year-olds literate as a way to begin preparing them for standardized tests (more on that in an earlier MomSquawk post). According to the article, a small percentage of little ones are natural early readers. These children precociously grasp phonics even at three or four years of age. But most “early readers” have actually managed to memorize sight words; they don’t understand that discrete sounds make up the word “CAT” or “DOG”. They merely know what those words look like, and they make mistake “LOG” for “DOG” because they look similar. These “early reading” advances, whether brought on through the child’s natural curiosity or parental or preschool teacher drilling, tend to wash out a few years later, and these kids are on average reading at the same level as the children with no early sight word memorization.
But there’s more to the story. A Temple University researcher looked at two groups of children: one group had attended an academically-oriented preschool, the other a socially-oriented one. By age five, those in the former group knew more letters and numbers than those in the latter, but these leads faded by first grade. Moreover, the children who attended the academically-oriented preschool were found to be less creative and less enthusiastic about learning than those who attended the socially-oriented preschool.
Some research of note (emphasis mine):
A classic study in the 1930s by noted researcher and Illinois educator Carleton Washburne compared the trajectories of children who had begun reading at several ages, up to 7. Washburne concluded that, in general, a child could best learn to read beginning around the age of 6. By middle school, he found no appreciable difference in reading levels between the kids who had started young versus the kids who had started later, except the earlier readers appeared to be less motivated and less excited about reading. More recent research also raises doubt about the push for early readers. A cross-cultural study of European children published in 2003 in the British Journal of Psychology found those taught to read at age 5 had more reading problems than those who were taught at age 7. The findings supported a 1997 report critical of Britain’s early-reading model.
What might explain this? In her fascinating new book Proust and the Squid: The Story and Science of the Reading Brain, Maryanne Wolf offers some answers. True reading requires the integration of complicated functions from different regions of the brain - visual, auditory, linguistic, conceptual - a process that takes time. The speed with which these regions can be integrated depends on something called myelination, in which the tails (or axons) of neurons in the brain are wrapped in a fatty sheathing that makes them perform better. For these regions of the brain to interact efficiently, they need one neuron to talk to another neuron in rapid succession. And to do that well, those neuron tails need lots of myelin. Myelination rates can vary, but Wolf says generally these pivotal regions aren’t fully myelinated until sometime between the ages of 5 and 7, with boys probably being on the later side.
By pushing early reading, we may be asking preschoolers and Kindergartners to perform tasks for which their brains are not yet ready. And that can lead to labeling kids “slow readers” when they’re actually right on schedule - and we all know how such labeling can follow a kid throughout her school career.
I guess my take-away is, if my children are interested in learning to read early, fine, but I’m not going to push it on them.
There’s lots more. If you have an interest in early literacy studies, I suggest you check out the whole article.
Posted by MommaSteph.