What Value is There in Teaching Your Child Reading (Math/Music/etc) Before 5?

[queriquita]

I know my answers, but sometimes I have to hear them from others too.  So humor me ;-)

After reading Larry's post: http://forum.brillkids.com/teaching-your-child-to-read/infant-intelligentsia-can-babies-learn-to-read-and-should-they/msg89547/#msg89547, I went to the link he referenced: http://www.psmag.com/education/infant-intelligentsia-46349/, which lead me to http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/39953918/ns/today-money/t/your-baby-can-read-claims-overblown-experts-say/#.UGfNS03edqI. 

While I was there, I came across a nay-sayer parent's famous question: "I have 3 children. They all learned to read in kindergarten and first grade. What value is there in ANY child learning to read before 4 or 5? This society (kids particularly) are stressed out enough. How about spending quality play time with them and save your money on the memorization cues. Once again, if it sounds too good to be true.......
Expand
NEWYORKMIKE, with 3"

So, I wanna know - HOW DO YOU REPLY TO THIS? 

My answers would include things like ensuring (or at least simplifying the route to) their happiness/success; enhancing their cognitive abilities; allowing them to be more conscious in their experience of life and their surroundings; catering to THEIR developmental needs, as opposed to what's most convenient for me/society (assuming I want to leave it up to some random teacher 5 years after my kid's born - might i add: my kid is MY responsibility); and defending the position that 'quality play time' with my kids IS also possible with cue cards, educational videos, and stimulating conversations, which may be book and life inspired. 

So, again, what would you say?  (I've asked on this thread before - titled something like, "what's your why?", but here I go again - new thread, new replies?)

[Korrale4kq]

I think something that is important to me is that I don't want James to have memories of learning to read. I was reading by 3. I can't remember my mum teaching me. But I now know she did when she was tutoring my brother who was in 2nd grade remedial  reading classes. I just picked it up with the remedial kids because she took me along.

Now I am an avid reader. I love reading and I have no bad memories of learning. My mum was able to foster that love in me at a very young age when I wanted to learn.
I have met a lot of reluctant readers and I have noticed a trend. Most of them remember being taught to read. They remember the effort. They remember boring levelled readers. They just remember all around hating it. It was a lot of work. They would go to school learn to read and the last thing they wanted to do in their free time was boring school work reading.

James is 2.75 and he loves to read. He isn't too fond of the more challenging phonics instruction, but he is a whole word reader now and I loves to read books to me. We read a lot for fun. He is young enough to cuddle on my lap and read to me. And his reading ability is improving exponentially each day.
We read a lot of books. There is so much to learn in this world and school is based on reading. So we read a lot because he will never know life not knowing how to read. Reading is something that is just done naturally, like walking and taking a bath. It is not drudgery. And just like going for a walk and taking a bubble bath it can be fun.

[TeachingMyToddlers]

Because the novelty and fascination of words may very well be gone if not nurtured before age 5 or 6 rolls around, completely missing that sensitive period.

Because understanding print gives kids more confidence in understaning and maneuvering through the world, whether it's being able to read the dishwasher cycles before mischievously turning them on or knowing that the words on the public bathrooms designate who uses them.

Why hold them back when they are clearly capable, ans easier to teach before there are more distractions in the world. It acts as insurance in the unfortunate event they get a not so good kindergarten or first grade teacher, which you may not figure out until it's too late. Learning early can give your child years of extra reading enjoyment and potentially save them a lot of heartache. IMO, The stakes are too high not to start early.

For what it's worth, I have one memory of not knowing how to read. It was during something I didn't understand on Sesame street that stuck with me for whatever reason. I, too, hope my kids will never remember NOT knowing how to read, or how to read simple music. However, they have such good memories they just might remember anyway!

[Frukc]

I believe that any early teaching is not only the teaching of Something; it is the training of brain. Brain grows mostly during the first 5 years, and my aim is not the particular skill or knowledge; my aim is what we here (in my region) call "the easy head" - someone who can learn faster and easier than others can.

I teach reading because I think that it as a good training for brain. "Brain grows by use" (G.Doman).

[Tamsyn]

I've been reading "Alexander Schreiner Reminisces"

He quotes Sigmund Spaeth as saying, "Everyone should dabble a bit in music, just for the fun and sociability.  Sing in the church choir, play in an orchestra, participate in making music with friends and neighbors.  But do not expect your child to become a professional musician unless he shows a decided interest in music before he starts school!"

Schreiner goes on to tell stories of his children's early interest in music, "All of which makes me wonder what I was doing musically while I was cutting teeth and learning to walk and talk.  I've been told that mostly I was listening.  I loved to hear the weekly choir rehearsals in our home.  The morning after, I was busy at the piano playing by ear what I had heard the night before.  My parents decided that my musical interest was worthy of lessons, but alas, no teacher would have me.  They said that I should wait until I had learned to read.  So my lessons began when I was seven, and at eight I was carrying the full load of a church organist, playing for both choir and congregation."

Later he has a section, which I will fully quote here:

How Old Should One Be to Begin Music?

This question is frequently posed by parents to musicians.  I have given my share of responses, and have written short articles on the subject.  My feeling, in essence, is to ask the child!  Children should have music lessons when they want them, which means, when they are interested.

Of course, one can learn at any age.  One can begin at eighty.  Whatever one learns, according to the gospel, he will take with him through the eternities.  However, if one wishes to become proficient in music, he must begin very early.

A lawyer, a physician, an engineer, or a scientist can begin to study seriously in his field during his years in college, say at age twenty.  But if one wants to do professional work in music, twenty is much too late.  One needs to begin by age eight or earlier.

In a happy, playful, facetious way, I have said that Mozart began at age three and Beethoven at age four, but I didn't begin until the age of five.  All these years since then, I have been working like thunder to catch up!

For amateur purposes, it is possible to begin music at any age.  But for professional purposes, if you begin at twenty, you can never catch up with someone who started ten years earlier."

END QUOTE

Alexander Schreiner was a child musician prodigy, and since he is my great-great uncle, I have always had a special interest in his life.  I think there really is an element of truth to his sentiment about trying to catch up with Mozart and Beethoven, even though his music education began much earlier than his formal lessons.

In my own studies of prodigies, I have seen a common thread.  I believe that what leads these children to success is first an interest and the opportunity, and finally work.  Our tiny children LOVE to read, but they are still working at it.  If we give them the opportunity, and make it interesting, they will want to work at it, and they will succeed.

Here is the value for my own 5-year-old who is reading well.  He is very interested in anatomy, and says that he wants to become a doctor.  We'll see, I'm not going to hold him to it!  But for the time being, he shows a keen interest, and we bought him an anatomy book, with some awesome 3D pictures.  Instead of simply looking at the pictures and guessing what everything is, he can amuse himself by reading about it.  He loves that book, and shows it to everyone who comes to our home.

In the case of Alexander Schreiner, I have to wonder if those music teachers would have taken him as a student if he had known how to read.  Certainly knowing how to read has helped my 3-year-old, who is decidedly showing an interest in music.  (Much to the delight of her mommy!    )

So I close with this question:  What is the value of waiting to teach your child reading (math/music/etc) until they are 5?

[nee1]

Later he has a section, which I will fully quote here:

How Old Should One Be to Begin Music?

This question is frequently posed by parents to musicians.  I have given my share of responses, and have written short articles on the subject.  My feeling, in essence, is to ask the child!  Children should have music lessons when they want them, which means, when they are interested.

Of course, one can learn at any age.  One can begin at eighty.  Whatever one learns, according to the gospel, he will take with him through the eternities.  However, if one wishes to become proficient in music, he must begin very early.

A lawyer, a physician, an engineer, or a scientist can begin to study seriously in his field during his years in college, say at age twenty.  But if one wants to do professional work in music, twenty is much too late.  One needs to begin by age eight or earlier.

In a happy, playful, facetious way, I have said that Mozart began at age three and Beethoven at age four, but I didn't begin until the age of five.  All these years since then, I have been working like thunder to catch up!

For amateur purposes, it is possible to begin music at any age.  But for professional purposes, if you begin at twenty, you can never catch up with someone who started ten years earlier."

END QUOTE

.

Exactly, Tamsyn. Thanks for that quote.

After reading Anders Ericson’s research on `deliberate practice ‘ and all of that, I’ve become very convinced of the need for an early start. If one requires at least 10,000 hours of deliberate practice to become an expert at anything (or the 10 year rule as Gladwell Malcolm calls it), it only makes sense to start early. By starting early, you can easily accumulate your hours, and by the time your peers are starting out, you’re already proficient.

When I read of 8 year olds getting A* grades at UK A level maths, and then study their history as outlined by their parents, I see that they were products of an early start. By the time their peers start out learning how to count,  they’re already doing advanced maths. And there is absolutely no way their peers will catch up, except:
1) The advanced kids slow down their efforts  (or are dumbed down in school, as is usually the case)
2) The late starters work very, very hard to overcome their late start.

I read an interesting book ‘Genius explained’ by Michael Howe. He did biographical studies of people we could call geniuses, e.g., Mozart. And he outlined Mozart’s history; that Mozart was the product of a very early start. Several others too. Ok, maybe few may have caught up, but I can wager every cent they did have to work very, very  hard to overcome their late start and accumulate their required hours of practice.

document.getElementById('recent_loading').style.display = 'none';document.getElementById('recent_page_box').style.display = '';

Page: 1/4  

Loading...

Members

• Total Members: 214772
• Latest: addisonjones

Stats

• Total Posts: 110526
• Total Topics: 19136
• Online Today: 514
• Online Ever: 826
• (January 22, 2020, 12:09:49 AM)

Users Online

• Users: 0
• Guests: 319
• Total: 319