Just wondering what others think of this article. It's critical of introducing chapter books to young children.
http://www.babble.com/kid/kids-school-learning/children-early-reading-age-childrens-books/

"Books that are delightful for ten-year-olds are not necessarily delightful for six-year-olds, and too often both parents and teachers encourage children to read books that are too old for them, or discourage them from reading books we have deemed "too young," thus guaranteeing that reading will always feel like a chore."

In my view, exposing kids to books that are a little beyond their level helps get them to the next level. It is easiest to do this when children are young and want to be read to. If you always read books that are easy for them, they may enjoy reading now. But what about later on? Will a child still be interested in reading, if they haven't advanced enough in reading to actually understand books written for their age group? About 70% of American children read below grade level. I can't help wondering if ideas like this are a factor.

There is also a concern about the meaning going over the heads of younger kids. I think this is why parents should continue reading books to their kids for a long time. They can help with meaning. But a child can still enjoy a book even if they don't fully grasp everything in it. Just like they can enjoy a movie, even if they don't fully understand everything. The articles expresses concern about kids being exposed to things like love and death if they are reading advanced books. But kids are exposed to these things in Disney movies all the time. It seems like there is a tendency to apply different standards to things seen as "intellectual" like books than to fun things like movies.

Was this recorded? Will it be posted anywhere?

This is a direct link to the PDF: http://www.coreknowledge.org/mimik/mimik_uploads/documents/480/CKFSequence_Rev.pdf

"He said that he is successful in the work place so why are they evaluating students on what they have no need for in the real world."

The problem is what students need to know for the real world differs based on occupation. What an engineer thinks is unnecessary in the real world, may be completely necessary in another field. A K-12 education should expose kids to many different subjects and skills, so they can know what their strengths and interests are. A child who has never been exposed to something might miss out on what is of most interest to them and end up stuck in a career that isn't really for them.

When I was in college, I took Geology as the requirement for science. A student in my class told me he was so fascinated by Geology he had decided to major in it. I asked him if he had ever studied Geology before. He said he hadn't. It was all completely new to him. I had actually learned a huge amount of geology (as part of Geography class) in primary school. I actually already knew a lot of what I was learning in my Geology class because I remembered so much from school years before. Yet, for this student, he had never been exposed to Geology at all in his K-12 education. He wouldn't have even known about it if it hadn't been for the fact that the university required everyone to take a science class and Geology was most convenient to his schedule.

So, we need to be really careful about determining what kids need and don't need to know in school or they may miss out on what they really want to do with their lives. We shouldn't be limiting what they learn to what someone in some particular field thinks is needed for the real world.

Sonya,

I think most people on BK would say that knowledge and the acquisition of knowledge are positive and good things. Oddly enough, many educators treat knowledge and the process of acquiring it as necessary evils. It is thought to be a bad thing if a 3 year old can pick up a book and read it to themselves. If adults think learning is bad or hard, we can't reasonably expect children to feel positive about it. I think the academic superiority of Finnish and many Asian students is not just due to their teaching methods. Learning is valued and respected in those cultures. Kids absorb the values of the adults around them. If adults hate learning, kids will to.

I've always found the play vs academics argument odd. I didn't grow up in the US. I started school at 4 and did both academics and play for the first two years of school. I learned to write all my letters and numbers at the age of 4. I was a fluent reader by age 6. I had a good foundation in math. Yet I also spent a lot of time doing free play and art activities. I don't think there are any preschools, even those considered to be academic, that don't have a significant amount of play.

I'm a bit troubled by the study relating to the novel toy in the NAEYC article. Is this all that the play-based argument is based on? There is an obvious limit to what children can learn from hands-on exploration. We shouldn't be limiting the kinds of skills children learn in the early years to problem solving and creativity alone. I'm also troubled that these studies looked at a very short-term effect. Is there any evidence that kids who engage in play-only learning are more creative or better problem solvers in high school, college or the work force than kids who engaged in both direct instruction and play? It isn't wise to completely alter how children are educated based on such short-term results.

Author Katharine Beals had an interesting blog post on this recently. She said that the backlash to teacher-led learning is partly due to concerns that children have less time for free play because they are spending more time in structured activities and in front of screens.

"But does the remedy lie in altering what happens in our elementary school classrooms--specifically, in having children spend less time in structured, teacher-directed math and reading activities? Much of the problem, after all, is in what's happening--or not happening--after school, and (reluctant though people are, especially those in the business, to realize this) there's a limit to what schools can do about broader societal problems. Indeed, in their drive to be all things to "the whole child," schools have already seriously compromised our children's academic and vocational futures."
http://oilf.blogspot.com/2011/12/justifications-for-more-open-ended-play.html

I like the Core books simply because they cover a lot of the basics. I do go far beyond them but sometimes they do cover things that I might otherwise miss. And I can expand on what the books teach. If you don't want to get the books, you can download the Core Knowledge curriculum for free. Between the curriculum and the books, I feel like I'm covering everything I need to at each grade. And since I can buy the books used, I don't spend too much.

DadDude, You're welcome. I highly recommend the Core Knowledge series "What Your nth Grader Needs to Know" to all homeschoolers. You can buy a lot of the books used from amazon.com. It gives me some confidence that I am covering all the basics, even though I do a lot more.

I use the Core Knowledge Foundation curriculum to make sure I don't miss anything: http://books.coreknowledge.org/home.php?cat=314. But I mainly put together my own curriculum. Encyclopedias are really great for this for younger kids. I have lots of encyclopedias (mainly Usborne and Kingfisher) covering all kinds of topics. I use library books and online resources to supplement the encyclopedias. So, if I'm covering the nervous system in the Kingfisher Human Body encyclopedia, I'll try to find library books or online resources that go into more depth. It's easy to find lists of classic books online. When my kids are older, it may be necessary to look into an actual curriculum. But I feel that putting together my own right now is working really well and we are largely going beyond the Core Knowledge Foundation recommendations.

I'm using the Singapore Math curriculum with my child. We have only done K and 1st grade so far. But they teach kids how to use strategies to solve problems. They're really good for mental math because they make it easy to break down problems to solve them. It makes it easier to do problems in your head.

I only used the phonetic sound of the letters when my babies were learning to read. I did do starfall.com's ABC section, which teaches both letter name and sound. But stick to phonetic sounds early on. Over time, they will easily learn the letter names. Reading Bear will make more sense to them if they only know the phonetic sounds of the letters.

Math is something you can teach doing day-to-day activities in the first few years. Then you can move onto more formal teaching. I did a lot of reading in the early years but I didn't really start any EK things until my kids turned 3. Then I started using a combination of books and YouTube videos to teach concepts. I stay on one concept for a while. My big things right now with my 3.5 year old are teaching the human body and how plants grow. Three and a half is also a good time to start chapter books (something most educators wouldn't agree with either).

I do agree that 11 is too young for college. From what I've read, a lot of homeschoolers start community college at 16 and have their degrees by 20. I also doubt that he comprehended a lot of Hamlet at age 4. Even my 3.5 year old could probably "read" quite a bit of Hamlet (if she wasn't so stubborn) but The Magic Tree House, some abrigdged classics and some Roald Dahl books are the kinds of things she can actually understand well enough to sit still and listen to. But I find the article interesting because this boy doesn't seem to have been damaged in any way by his early learning experiences. Something we are repeatedly told will happen if we teach our toddlers and preschoolers anything beyond letters, colors and basic shapes.

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/At-age-14-math-whiz-fits-in-well-at-Houston-1772798.php

I homeschool through a charter school. My daughter goes to school one full day per week, which is great for socialization. I get to choose the curriculum for home, so I can choose whatever level is appropriate for each subject. She's doing 5th grade reading and 3rd grade science. She's only doing 1st grade math but I want to speed up on that and get her a year ahead. If she can get above grade level in math, she can easily skip a grade. That's the nice thing about homeschooling. It's completely flexible. Look around and see if there are homeschooling options in your area that also offer classes. That way, he can have the benefits of both homeschooling and school.

I starting teaching my first child to read at about 10 months. We did YBCR, starfall.com and my own Powerpoint slides. I did it consistently everyday. She learned to read in about 11 months. My second child had no interest in YBCR. So, I did Little Reader, starfall.com, Powerpoint slides, and Larry Sanger's flashcards. She was reading by 2.5 years, so it took a little over a year and a half of consistent teaching. So, it does take time for them to learn. I think many people make the mistake of giving up if they don't see results after a few months. I would suggest doing LR everyday with him. And maybe do a few other things as well. You have readingbear.org as an option. I wish I could have had it for my kids. If you do something with him everyday, he will likely be reading in 6 months to a year.