There is various insights, principles (praise effort, not results) and methods that will help you guide your child through life but no silverbullet, not even a rusty cannonball.

You can do all the right things and your kid gets in the wrong company, you can do all the wrong things and your kid meets someone who influence them more than you do.

My oldest kid is in 1st grade and read, write and calculates pretty well (comparably to half way through 2nd class). He is in a charter school not because we wanted that but because it ended up being the choice that made sense. He thrives in the strict disciplined environment but who know perhaps it's hindering his ability to think for himself. (we are considering moving him to a more alternative school for the last half of his school life for that reason)

My youngest kid is two and in pre-school he can count, the alphabet, can say which letters and numbers are which.

Maybe this is a good thing for one and a bad thing for the other. Perhaps by not being able to read yet the younger kid would have developed a different perspective, perhaps their "own language" which would influence them later in life. Perhaps it would be better for them to develop their body language than their oral language. There are simply too many factors to even begin claiming one thing is sure to work. Two kids brought up the exact same way can end up being very different people.

All too often we think that children are concepts which we build up to a succesful future, when in fact all they are, are projects we can manage to stay out of the worst trouble.

Anything other than "pay attention to the actual needs of the child" is probably the wrong direction to go. Like, if you try to praise effort instead of results, you're evaluating and judging things rather than searching for their needs. Seriously, though, stop reading and trying to follow parenting advice and pay attention to your goddamn child. Otherwise, you'll wind up doing the "right thing", praise effort, and fail to meet your child's actual needs until you've got a suicidal college student saying "well, it looks like I just didn't try hard enough."

I think this somewhat boils down to being able to take advantage of others experience. If you're the only person you know with a Macbook, would you feel that you are able to take advice from everyone else with Windows desktops? ( Or maybe some poor analogy about tainted kernels and bug reporting :) )

Agile is probably in the same boat with management techniques. Nobody knows what works, and nobody wants to be blamed for doing things that don't work, so there's a booming market in 'experts' that you can offload your judgment to.

Compare this with something like physics, writing, math, sales, or mixed martial arts. It's much easier to tell what works and what doesn't, so there's both less room and less demand for bullshit peddlers.

On the other hand I learned to read in kindergarten like most people but had trouble reading until late in 1st grade when it "clicked" rather quickly and from that point forwards I was reading a higher level than most of my classmates until things evened out over the period of several years. My point is that development happens at different paces for different people.

I would like to know if there are any pediatric studies on how this teaching affects a child and if trying to make them learn too early could have negative effects. Most parents just think "the earlier the better" because they can then talk to other parents and say "did you know my kid is already reading." I don't think this is necessarily a productive approach and when children are not able to live up to their parent's expectations it can cause confidence issues.

Edit: I also have read more of this now and the author makes the point that children did not need to "re-learn" to read but from what I remember my friends did in fact have to re-learn because they had learned to memorize words, or read incorrectly some way or another so it was in fact more difficult for them as they had already learned bad habits.

Of course, your first point is valid - this was only useful because I was lucky enough to have amazing teachers who took the time to issue me a tailored curriculum at a significantly higher level than my peers. I had teachers and programs which allowed me to stay at a cutting edge until early high school when these initiatives existed naturally (and I had the resources to explore intellectually outside of school).

More than that, it gave me a ton of confidence as I found things easier than my peers.

That's not to say that all of this didn't come at a cost - my social growth was definitely stunted. Instead of playing sports I did homework, and instead of sleepovers with friends I worked on school projects.

In the end, I wish I'd had a bit more balance, but I'm really glad I was lucky enough to have the opportunities I did early. I truly believe our ability to learn slows down every single day, and the early years are most formative.

But I DO have that plot- to show the way. To do interesting stuff and invite him along. To keep my door open and try to tempt the poor tyke ever-so-subtly into reading, programming, talking, laughing, telling jokes, and all the like.

We joke that he's going to discover sports and use them to rebel against me, because I'm no good at most of them and can scarcely imagine something so uninteresting as "Playing Catch"- but if he's interested in it of himself, I'll follow along- it's only fair if I'm trying to tempt him to follow in my footsteps, that I allow him to guide me, too! I just- mean, I'm waxing all peotic and shit here- I really just intend to interact with him about as much as he'll let me, have as much fun as we can together, and when opportunities arise (lazy summer days!!?!) - throw in some volcano making, some quark songs, some amateur electrical engineering, some mod programming in there- I want so much for the folks who says that "Play is the best education for a child" to be right, that I reckon I'll give it a go. :D

For now, at a month old, that involves me talking to him just about endlessly- telling him stories (mostly that I make up out of my head, he and I have made some good ones so far!! :) ) and yammering about the news, the weather, the holidays, philosophy, math, genetics, etc., and then listening when he makes noises back and telling him how much I love to listen to the noises. :D

I don't know for sure if it will work out like I hope, but I'm willing to give it a shot. Uh, will report back in 17 years? :D

And your example of athletics is no joke: that is exactly the story of my oldest (age 11), for whom his organizing force in life is baseball. While the interest in baseball emphatically did not come from me (or my wife), I have come to appreciate the existential joy of playing catch with him or watching a ballgame with him or hitting pop-flies to him long after the sun is down. Yes, a part of me wishes that he were more interested in some of the things that I liked at his age (and I will continue to hold those doors open for him should his interests shift) -- but it pales in comparison to the bond we have formed over the stuff that really matters to him.

So don't. If you want him to learn violin you too should learn, show him how fun it is so he can learn with you.

If you want you kid to learn soldering. Then have fun soldering for few hours per week and let him be with you when you do that.

You don't have to (shouldn't?) force anything on your child. Children are starving for fun and are willing to try anything they see you have fun with.

I just want to follow up and say that as a parent, you should do your best to involve them in whatever it is that you're doing. If you're cooking, have them help you measure things. If you're playing board games, let them move/place the pieces for you. If it's something that they can't safely be involved with, talk to them about what's going on.

Explain what you're doing along the way.

Involve them, and expose them, to a wide range of activities. Children's minds can handle and process a lot more than most people give them credit for.

If a kid is bored because they're in a class that's too simple and they already know it all, the problem isn't that the kid is "too" far ahead; there's no such thing, as long as the kid is having fun. The problem is that the class isn't useful or interesting, so they shouldn't be in it. That's quite fixable.

I could have gone to a school for the gifted, but I wanted to be with normal people, not the over achievers (friends that went later told me my worries where justified). At some point I just decided to minimize all school effort and did my own thing as good as I could, but hated school since 2nd or 3rd grade.

I dropped from winning some math competition every now and than to the lowest mark that got me through, but I would do it this way again.

I'm happy with whom (not what) I have become, a thing surprisingly few can say.

This is just from my own experience, but my parents had me play for a number of years. I enjoyed it, but being a costly thing to commit to with lessons and private orchestras, it can get pricey. Money wasn't the issue though, but it led me into feeling pressured to constantly practice well beyond what I considered enjoyable (~3 hours a day) and I got burned out on it.

I went through the Suzuki Method[1], which puts a huge emphasis on memorization and that was part of my gripe with it. It just kind of sucked the fun and enjoyment out of playing when the biggest focus as a child is memorizing the same song to the point of hating it. The Suzuki Method has a number of success stories so I don't think it's bad. However, it's likely to be successful over time with a certain type of student. Others end up getting burnt out such as myself.

My friend that was my age that I played violin together with sometimes started a few years before me and burned out a year or so before I did. Similar situation with her time invested and pressure to play.

I still play now as an adult for fun and don't regret playing as a kid, but I would only suggest being cautious about how you approach it if you want it to be more than a recreational hobby.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzuki_method

A few pages a night, a chapter, whatever. She enjoyed it. Now she is 2 and she reads for fun. She doesn't "read" read, but she can recognize letters, and she knows what letter her name starts with, what letter her cousin's name starts with, and can figure out the first letter of a bunch of words.

But she reads for fun, she will pick up her books and pretend to read them. She grabbed one of our Christmas cards and read it aloud to us. Apparantly this Christmas card said "Merry Christmas to the Princess" but reading is still something that to her is a fun thing, not a chore, and she does get better, she does recognize letters, she does recognize words, and when she does, she gets excited and wants to read more.

I think this is the big thing. I think the thing that school does to learning is terrible by making it a mandatory chore that you are punished (even indirectly) for not succeeding at.

Learning the way that my daughter is means that reading is always fun. If you pick up something and play with it, and then realize you've learned something, it's always fun. You never hate reading because when you don't want to do it, you just don't. Pressuring your kid to do it when they don't want to will teach them to resent the activity itself.

But your son is a month old. You will learn a lot more about him as he gets older. Everyone around me is surrounded by babies right now, I guess that kind of happens when you have a baby, but what I've learned is that every kid is super different, and the parents don't get to choose it, they just get to deal with it. You can't force your kid to be what you want him to be.

What is important I think is that you remove certain barriers, and leave certain barriers in. Leave in all of the barriers that he can learn to climb over. Help remove the imaginary barriers about what he's allowed to do or what is appropriate.

For instance, you might think that certain math or engineering tasks are too much to handle for someone his age, so you keep them away from him. These are the barriers you should remove. Don't force him to do it necessarily, but if he wants to know or wants to do it, unless it's going to hurt him (a 3 year old with a soldering iron might be an iffy prospect), then make sure he knows he has the opportunity to try in a safe space, or at least give him a path to get there. On the other hand, don't do too much for him, don't remove all barriers, if he wants to work with expensive materials, give him a limited amount, or find a way for him to earn it, especially if you can actually get him to earn the money to buy it directly. This teaches him to overcome those barriers.

But he's one month old, you're on a high, you're thinking about everything. Things will get harder, that high will fade, and you'll start wanting to take back your life. Keep him in your mind then, think about what he's feeling, and what he likes, and how you can encourage him. He's a person, not a project or a trophy.

I had some teachers that tailored the curriculum for students like me (special projects, more advanced literature) and then others that kind of just left us to our own devices. In my case, I ended up doing all my schoolwork before lunch. The second half of the day I'd tinker around on the old Apple PCs my school had, read through the limited selection of interesting books in the school library or help some of my classmates with their schoolwork. Some teachers encouraged a few of us to tutor/mentor some of our peers, but I don't think it was encouraged enough.

I can't directly relate that to where I am now, but I know overall it contributed to my ability to work/learn independently with minimal guidance. Might have also spurred my interest in problem solving and programming since I would be bored and become curious about how things worked around me.

If there was a negative, it made me think much of school was really boring the first 8-9 years. When I had a teacher that was too busy to adjust their curriculum for more advanced students, I assumed this was how school would always be. I didn't want to have a negative opinion of the education system, but it was hard at the time to have a positive one.

When I reached high school, I had to get out of the habit of thinking schoolwork (and homework) was some "busy work" chore I had to do in order to move onto the next grade. This was a bit harder in some courses than others--since I had to train myself to pay attention and actually take notes versus memorizing. Thankfully, I had some great high school teachers that helped me along the way. My high school education was overall a positive experience.

Do I think I would have been better off being home schooled or in a private school with more attention? Hard to say. Perhaps better in some ways, but not in others. Always a trade off.

I too spent much of my free time tinkering with old Apple PCs - I started programming in QuickBASIC in the 5th grade because of it, and I owe my career today at a major tech startup to that.

I also empathize with the transition in high school - I always found history class to be a relative struggle due to the change from repetitive memorization to actual understanding/notes.

I probably would have struggled through history if I hadn't had an abnormal interest in subject. Two of my favorite things to read when I was bored were encyclopedias and reading ahead in my school history book. Guessing that probably helped me with lessening the struggle of memorizing history facts.

Everything seems to show little to no effect, but as far as I can tell it's not inherently a bad thing to do. Kids just happen to learn to read at about the time they're intellectually ready for it.

Firstly, that link you posted "determined the emergent literacy and language effects of a LOW-INTENSITY LITERACY PROMOTION PROGRAM". So if it had not much effect, that's not very surprising since its not actually talking about the same thing as the original link. It would back up what we know about most education programs and schooling: it generally has a very small/negligible effect after you control out for genetics and home environment.

But I will just quote some lines from the linked article, just so we're clear what it actually says:

"Children who are read to more often and earlier in life have better academic and social outcomes at school,1 which in turn predict their future work and life outcomes"

"Recent literature reviews11- 14 have identified several features of early literacy environments that most consistently predict better outcomes. These reviews suggest that children who achieve at school typically have more books in the home, have parents that report reading to them more frequently (usually every day but at least 3 times per week), and begin shared reading at a very early age (usually before 18 months of age). How parents read to children also appears to be important. The dialogic approach is a child-adult interactive approach to reading aloud that, compared with other styles,15 predicts better emergent literacy skills, such as print motivation, vocabulary, print awareness, narrative skills, letter knowledge, and phonologic awareness."

I always thought the greatest thing a parent can do with a child is to read to them, Dr. Seuss. That does not mean teaching children to read before they are ready positively effects them.

dr. seuss is a tricky one because the "things" in his book are so totally made up. i often find myself reading him to my toddlers and wondering if any of it makes sense.

The twenty somethings are back from college. Last Saturday they collectively entered a fantasy world with the Santa Con pub crawl. Two guys were wearing Thing 1 costumes. Men acting like children just can't be healthy. Perhaps they grew up in a fantasy they never left.

For me imagination is the greatest thing. I produce so much thought and ideas -- new stuff every day. I sit at a computer with the IDE open and want to make something happen. That is where imagination comes in. I can't stop it, ideas just keep coming, but that doesn't mean they are good. I had a boss whose ego was so big she treated anything she thought as a good idea just because she thought it. The real power of imagination is that I can take new ideas and further imagine the different outcomes without typing a single key. As a coder looking at a blank new JS file, when I ask myself, "What should we do?" I'm quoting Dr. Seuss' The Cat in the Hat. I should probably go to work now, and like in the book, I'll be spending most of my day breaking perfectly fine things cursing myself for not writing more tests.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_age_effect

I learned later in life that the purpose of school isn't to learn. The purpose of school is to try to guarantee a standard of knowledge. The other lesson to learn in school is that it's your teacher who determines your qualification, and that they're a person who gets frustrated, tired, can be lazy, can be angry or petty, but can also be happy, proud, encouraged, inspired, etc.

As an adult, I know how to behave in a classroom. I understand why showing off is not appreciated. I know why I have to go over things that I already know. Because I know these things, they don't bother me. There's always boredom, but you pay attention not because you need to, but because it helps the teacher, and making the teacher's life easier is better for the class and your evaluation. The goal of the game isn't to understand the material, the goal of the game is to be evaluated highly. Understanding the material is only half the game.

This tells me that their parents failed at step 2, perhaps thinking the school would take care of the rest.

My kid is gorgeous too BTW! She learned to walk really early. Kind peoples said 'ooh look! so bright! so more advanced than Jonny or Bea!'

I said that I didn't think that she is going to be any better at walking than Jonny and Bea ultimately.

Now you reminded me how I hated when parents used me for such dick waving contests.

My typical reaction was to stop whatever I was being praised for and quickly do something to piss off both them and whomever happened to be the target of their bragging.

If you are a parent - just don't do that.

I know this question is always asked. But if you love your child and give it all attention it needs does any teaching have any negative effects on the child? Apart from knowing too much without the need, which affects many people even as adults.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity#Linguist...

However, when it comes to skills like reading, math, logic, athletics, creative, or production type things, you can only know too much if there's a set of skills you can't use or your breadth is so great you're mediocre or worse at most of them.

It sounds like the issue was putting them through school, not teaching them to read early.

The author somehow seems to implicitly assumes that being able to read as early as possible is good, period. Younger == better. He has a huge "why" chapter, where he debunks and defends all kinds of criticism he's gotten, but I haven't been able to at all find the section where he simply describes why it's a good idea. Not why it's not not a good idea, that's not good enough. Why would I teach my children to read already?

There might be good reasons, but this author is so consumed with the "it's possible! it's not harmful!" part of things that what should have been the central argument is nearly entirely missing.

I mean, seriously, it's possible and it's not harmful? I can think of a lot of things that are possible and not harmful but still wouldn't do with my kids.

You may disagree with the author's reasons but at least read the whole article before saying that quite a long section is "entirely missing".

I agree, both the learning experience and the acquired skills matter. What's often overlooked is that every child develops at their own pace, and the skills progression taught in schools is based on both normative ideals and descriptive "modal" pace. Offering a child new material that they "should not be learning yet" is not a crime, nor an offense to the child, nor a criticism on other parenting methods (or other children, for that matter).

Not to mention that skills development doesn't occur across a single line. As an example, a child of a friend of mine is now almost two years old, and still vocalizes at most two syllables. Yet she's able to comprehend (and execute) very complicated sentences and commands, in two languages. Still, she's now officially labeled a "deficient" child, with all the counselling and monitoring that that entails...

Someone who are good a at multitude of things but very superficially does not make them more well rounded than one that practices on area more deeply. There are many many many areas that seem to be simple to learn because you can do them very quickly. But thats not what skills are about. Sure you can fake it, but unless you tried to dig deeper into something and learn what it means to learn then you aren't really going to be at a bigger advantage later on in life.

The very act of going deeper into a specific skill is teaching you something that just brushing over a wide area of skills isn't. In fact by going deeper into some of the typical things kids learn you are more likely to be able to also become better at others because you learn what it means to dig in rather than brush over.

Yes you can create a circumstance where literacy is gained through onerous means, but you can use that same hypothetical with pretty much any form of parental guidance till you get to the point where children are now only learning what they want to and not what is necssary.

Pretty big assumption there.

I'd think in context---a child taught how to read in a one-on-one interaction with a parent is more likely to have their difficulties noted and receive help from that same parent, than a child taught how to read in a one-on-fifteen classroom setting.

So I wonder: isn't reading a benefit in and of itself? If there's no direct harm, then it ought to be at worst a waste of time.

Again, that's a big assumption. Plausible problems:

1. developing language skills early stunts development of more visual skills

2. too much structured time has drawbacks

3. "it ought to be at worst a waste of time" ... and additional stress. Opportunity costs could also include relationship capital (pushing your kid to do unimportant things means you can't push as hard in other areas).

The author of the article went into detail as to what possible harm there could be, and why he thought they were avoided or null.

Your stance seems to be summarized as: 'what if parents are thoughtless, naive, and too forceful?'.

In this case, the author was none of that, and really shouldn't be compared to this hypothetical worst case scenario.

> developing language skills early stunts development of more visual skills

This seems incredibly unlikely. I'd in fact bet money that developing any skill young will not stunt the growth of another skill, so long as a normal amount of time is spent invested in that other skill comparative to normal children.

> too much structured time has drawbacks

Indeed, but according to the author all they did was read to the child before dinner, and have them sound out words as they pointed to them. Does 30 minutes to an hour of reading and pointing count as too much structured time?

> Opportunity costs could also include relationship capital (pushing your kid to do unimportant things means you can't push as hard in other areas).

This sounds like a problem of methodology, not of aims. If teaching a child anything causes alienation, then you are doing it wrong, especially if that thing is a basic skill that they must learn.

Sure there are many areas where reading is good, but it's not as simply as you want to present it here. Not by a longshot.

However, how do you know that "having more skills is good under virtually all circumstances" when toddlers are concerned? I have no reason to assume that learning to read at a very young age is harmful (which is why I'm not against it), but I can easily imagine ways that it could be harmful (or beneficial). But making a definitive ruling either way requires knowledge that neither I nor you possess. So I say "go ahead if that's what you want" just because I'd rather not recommend against something unless it is shown to be bad. But you seem to make a big assumption about developmental psychology that you have absolutely no basis to make.

Of course, that was thirty-odd years ago, before kindergarten-aged kids were expected to be familiar with English lit back to Chaucer and mathematics up to basic trigonometry. I can see how in the modern environment someone might react negatively to the suggestion that it doesn't hurt kids to know how to read when they're two, because letting on about it could well result in an environment where a kid who's three years old and can't yet read is either developmentally delayed or has bad parents, or of course possibly both.

Edited to add: It doesn't help at all that the author of the article under discussion couches his reasoning in terms of improved educational outcomes -- he's explicitly trying to turn his kids into highly performant overachievers, and that is super creepy. If that's your only available perspective on the matter, I can't blame you at all for being bothered by it, because I actually was taught to read at age two like he's advocating and it bothers me too. He sounds more like an education researcher than like a father, and that's disturbing.

But Mom didn't teach me to read early because she had some kind of n=1 eugenics experiment in mind. She did it because she loved me and thought I'd enjoy being able to read, and she didn't use the rather chilly and vaguely clinical-sounding methods this author describes. As she described it to me not long ago, she'd just read part of a story to me, showing me each word in turn and helping me sound it out and learn its meaning, and offer me as much help as I wanted in figuring the rest out for myself -- which I would, because I wanted to know how the story turned out. Evidently this method worked well enough, and as I said before, I've never regretted it. Make of that what you like, of course.

(Again, as in my other comment, I feel it worthwhile to point out that this isn't a purely theoretical discussion for me: I was myself taught to read at age two, and have never been other than glad of it.)

Not when you're two. When you're two you need to learn that asking questions is okay, how to ask questions, and how people answer questions.

During early years teaching it's apparently fairly trivial to identify the children who are recognizing shapes over the deconstruction technique, there's a test where they are shown lists of words with nonsense words thrown in, for those recognising shapes, when they see 'strom' they cannot help but unknowingly correct it to 'storm', their brain just fixes it for them, it's close enough and the word 'strom' has probably not been encountered, children implementing the deconstruction technique will have less of a problem.

Why teachers care is that it helps them identify children who may have issues identifying letter shapes but can pass other tests by recognising whole words, early diagnosis of dyslexia can have a very positive impact on a child's educational progress.

What I mean is that identifying the parts of the whole through de-construction is not the only way we recognize things.

To start the "compound interest" benefits as early as possible?

I regret I've lost the study (observational, not experimental) on students in North Rhine Westphalia on long term effects of early reading instruction but it showed children who learned to read later doing better at 16 or 17 than the ones who learned to read earlier. I think it was published in an economic of education journal but that's all I remember.

Edit:

The below study shows tiny differences between performance/school readiness of French and German children on entering primary school despite the French system being much more school like and placing a much greater emphasis on reading. Italics in abstract not in original.

French nursery schools and German kindergartens: effects of individual and contextual variables on early learning

Eur J Psychol Educ (2011) 26:199–213 DOI 10.1007/s10212-010-0043-4

The present article investigates the effects of individual and contextual variables on children’s early learning in French nursery schools and German kindergartens. Our study of 552 children at preschools in France (299 children from French nursery schools) and Germany (253 children from German kindergartens) measured skills that facilitate the learning of reading, writing and arithmetic at primary school. We also evaluated educational family practices and parents’ expectations of their children’s pre-school education. In order to take into account the hierarchical structure of our data, multilevel models were used in the analysis, which was carried out using MLwiN software version 2.02 (Rasbash et al.2005). Although French nursery schools emphasise academic learning, we did not find any significant differences in overall performances between the French and German samples. However, significant differences were obtained for some subscale results. In addition, our results indicate that individual and contextual variables have an impact on the differences observed between children from the two countries.

It's easy to forget, but 0-5 is, in terms of these advanced skills like "reading" (as opposed to "understanding what my body feels like"), not even 1/4th of a childhood. There's no way to stick a concrete number on it, but it's probably less than 10%.

We have a lot of evidence that depriving a child of the basics of life can affect them all their life, but I am not sure I've ever seen a study that has ever supported the idea that it is beneficial to accelerate education at the toddler phase. It's like trying to win a marathon by running really fast in the first 300 meters; unless you are going to be able to maintain that pace for the entire rest of the marathon, you probably haven't accomplished much.

And anecdotally I learnt to read at 4 and half and buy they time I was 11 I have a reading age several years higher than the adult population average.

A sample of 250 could be wrong but at least it's a study, and so much better than an anecdote.

It's also much better than the original article, which says, as justification for teaching children to read early, "I will wait for the results of empirical studies before insisting on definitive claims, but my guesses are as follows.... Again, I know this is just speculation, but it seems very reasonable to me, and in the absence of better evidence, I feel justified in acting on what seems very reasonable."

So, to sum up: the best evidence we have says this does not work.

I'm also not bullish on the positive effects of primary school on cognitive skills full stop. Unschooled children are only a year behind their counterparts in public schools on average. That's a really small effect for the difference between more than five hours a day of purposeful instruction versus none whatsoever. The same study does show children in structured homeschool doing one to five grade levels better depending on what's tested so there almost certainly are students who benefit from earlier more advanced reading instruction but the implications for mass schooling are unclear. If we can't even have children in different classes by ability level instead of age group I don't hold out much hope for sane educational policy.

The Impact of Schooling on Academic Achievement: Evidence From Homeschooled and Traditionally Schooled Students

This is just one more anecdote, of course, but I think it's an interesting contrast to Sanger's story. Because of my experience I am a little skeptical of the whole phonics and sounding-out-words thing. While the connection between sound and spelling is certainly not arbitrary, English is not exactly phonetically spelled either. I suspect an excessive emphasis on phonics makes it harder for kids to learn to spell.

But that's a quibble. I think it's great that Sanger has done this and would encourage any parents so inclined to do similarly.

Edited to add: reading on, I come to this line:

Some critics say that, even if very small children of average or low intelligence can memorize words, they’re just memorizing the overall shape of the word—they aren’t sounding out the words or learning phonics, and so they aren’t really reading.

By the logic of these critics, Chinese speakers never "really" learn to read! Obviously, I quite disagree. I think recognition of the shape of the word is very much reading, and makes one a better speller too.

One of the most interesting developments from my point of view is that while my son most enjoys sitting beside us to read a book together, lately he also enjoys "reading" alone. To help us buy an extra half hour of sleep-in (he's not a great sleeper AND an early riser) in the morning we will come to his crib when he's calling for us and put a pile of board books in there. He will then sit there for about half an hour (those of you with toddlers will know that this kind of attention span is no small feat) and flip through them quietly. By the time he's done, all of the books have been "read", multiple times. Of course he's not "reading" the words, but I do believe he's reading the books and in his mind reciting the words that he remembers from when we read them to him.

To me, the above is just one example of how he keeps proving to me that there is a lot more going on in the minds of our little ones than we often give them credit for. I believe we (or at least myself) have a tendency to underestimate the intelligence and capacity for learning that these little people have, because we judge them based on their outputs, which lag behind their actual learning by quite a bit.

And then one day, as if by nowhere, I could read the words. I so clearly remember that sense of discovery. It was such a delicious feeling. I STILL remember the story and the pictures from that book to this day.

It had one very important effect - teachers considered him to be among the smartest of the class, which turned into a self-fulfilling prophecy, a virtuous circle, at least for primary school.

It seems to be incredibly powerful to give a child a positive label in this way. It also makes you wonder how many talented kids get left behind for the opposite reason.

I guess I have a tendency to root for the underdog, but I think it should be part of a teacher's job to consciously avoid falling victim to this effect.

I'm not saying this is what happened to your son - if he learned to read at 3 I'm sure he's pretty smart anyway. And if I ever have a child, I'll do anything I can to give them an advantage. The education system, on the other hand, should be aiming for fairness, not labeling kids as "smart" or "sporty" while they're still in primary school.

[0] http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/18891749

Holding back a child until the others have caught up is as much the antithesis of fairness as giving an advanced child extra benefits at the expense of the less advanced ones.

> Holding back a child until the others have caught up is as much the antithesis of fairness as giving an advanced child extra benefits at the expense of the less advanced ones

I couldn't agree more, other then to say apportioning finite teaching resources is a zero-sum game. If you give more attention to one kid (because of their perceived intelligence or for any other reason) then you are holding back another, whether you like it or not.

I found it amazing how difficult it is to find scientific studies on how to teach reading, in my post above I kind of go into how the US government funded a large review of all the data in the late 1990s.

I think the most important thing is to just read to your child every day. My son also knew the alphabet before the age of two, but I think this is no different than teaching a child "dog" or "square" or "ball", they are all abstracts to a degree. Also, learning the sounds of each letter was pretty easy too. The hard part that we are against right now is putting it all together: I can't consistently get him to sound out a simple word, even though individually he knows what each letter does.

There have been some comments wondering about issues of myopia if one has their child read. There is not a lot of conclusive evidence of what causes myopia, but recently there was a good paper published in JAMA where they randomized schools (this was in China), to enforce a certain amount of outdoor time every day. Those kids who were in the outdoor groups had statistically less myopia.

I get especially frustrated with English because of all its exceptions and inconsistencies. (E.g., his name starts with 'C' but is pronounced the same as if it were 'K'. He knows that his breakfast 'Cereal' begins with the same letter as his name, but why does it sound like 'S'?) It feels like a poor system to encourage a child to learn when they could learn other things.

My delight in my child's learning comes from his ability to use and process interesting communication. I loved seeing him develop an understanding of what it is to "trick" somebody, learning how to synthesise an original story, to attempt sarcasm, how to mash two words together to form a made-up word, or to convey implicit information through pitch and speed of speech.

These are the little milestones that I actively try to teach, because each one raises the quality of our communication together.

I think the important point in all of these kinds of essays is that they draw parents who are invested in their children, which is probably what really matters more than "I did Doman's method" or "I spent an hour with flashcards".

What I liked about this essay was the little glimpses into things that he tried that I haven't thought of yet (like alphabet magnets to play with). Some of the links he had to other people's blogs (especially one of the homeschooled kids) made me cringe as it was such unabashed promotion of how great their child was, and here is a picture of his graduation at their house: the kid is by himself with his parents, no other children around. What kind of life is that? What good is it to "create a genius", if that is even possible, if they don't enjoy life?

I want to teach my daughter some foundational principles from which to build a predictive model, but with English the insanity seems to begin immediately.

Some letters have multiple sounds, like C and G. Some sounds have multiple representations, like DG/J and KS/X. Some letters don't have their sound in their name, like W and Y. Reading phonetically is a technique that only works until it doesn't; silent characters, partially anglicized loan words, etc.

So while I'm trying to teach all this, I'm also doing my own discovery of what a qwerty-cubed language I'm dealing with. I never realized how broken the written language is until I tried to show it to someone.

I had plastic letters I played with, with my mom. No flashcards I can recall. No video. My mom read to me tons and tons (no finger running though). My favorite stuff more times than anyone can count. Some SF too, although I'm not sure how early. She bought me comic books but refused to read them for me. Long story short. When I was about six and went to pre-school I remember reading aloud one of my favorite short stories to group of other children.

They know a big part of the alphabet now. Didn't hurt them one bit. And they're two.

On the other hand, my son isn't interested at all. So I don't force it on him. I just read him a cool story about Iron Man & friends :-)

http://larrysanger.org/2014/03/report-on-the-boys-march-2014...

http://larrysanger.org/2014/03/report-on-the-boys-march-2014...

http://larrysanger.org/2013/04/brief-update-about-the-boys/

http://larrysanger.org/2012/10/update-about-the-boys-2/

After reading all of the really long article, I simply did not have time reading these updates, so I don't know whats in them, but it does seem relevant here.

Finnish Kids Don't Learn To Read In Kindergarten. They Turn Out Great Anyway.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/finland-schools-kinderga...

As someone with myopia myself, I know there's already a genetic risk. I'm not sure whether I'd want to exacerbate that risk by pushing the child to do lots of close work from a very young age.

Getting a kid into adulthood with perfect or near-perfect eyesight could well be a greater gift than helping them be an academic superstar. But who knows? When you have kids, do you lie awake at night thinking about this stuff? I guess if this thread is teaching me anything, it's that my indecisiveness would make me a pretty terrible parent.

Isn't there a widely available patch for low-$X00, and a permanent fix in adulthood for not much more than that? People spend 100x that much money on e.g. private schools, which are only a partial attempt to get closer to academic superstardom, not a 100% effective way to get perfect, like the treatments for myopia.

Realistically, these conditions are derived from eye shape, so I don't think reading early has anything to do with this. If you have some evidence, I'd be interested though.

I also find it interesting that Larry Sanger's latest post is about the loss of democracy and freedom in the USA. My view, based on Sudbury model of schooling, is that true, vibrant democracy comes from a life lived in a self-governing community.

A link on such things: http://www.educationfutures.org/Respect.htm

An excerpt of that on the basic philosophical treatment of children:

> The root ideas of a democratic education are as simple as they are radical: children should be accorded the same human rights and freedoms as adults; they should be granted responsibility for the conduct of their affairs; and they should be full participants in the life of their community. Democratic schools provide an environment where children can live their formative years in exactly the same manner as they will live out their mature years--as free citizens of a society devoted to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The world these children will inhabit as adults will be a familiar one, a world that has been part and parcel of their childhood.

The adult world does not live up to this ideal - at all.

In TFA, he refers to two important longitudinal studies which indicate that there is a persistent positive effect between early readers and non-early readers. I have not read those studies, but I can't help but wonder how well they controlled for confounding factors.

That is, that early reading is an effect or rather evidence, of their long run aptitude in school. That if the early readers were compared not just with the general population, but with students who were not early readers but had the same income levels, parental education level, family structure, etc.

He also claims without evidence that any child can be taught to read at an early age. But it sounds like in his sample N=2. If there is evidence where a random sample (rather than a self selecting sample, which would introduce bias) of children are taught reading early and have a persistent benefit I would like to see it.

That being said, good for him,and good for him to recommend this to others. It seems clear that his children seem happy, well-adjusted and achieving their academic potential. Given his personal experience, why wouldn't he share it? But I don't think the evidence is there to claim this is universal.

My first child was reading pretty early, but only developed good comprehension recently (age 11-12). Despite the fact that they could read rapidly and clearly out loud without pauses, they were missing the meaning of what they were reading. I don't know how to avoid this, but I'm hoping that simply introducing more words early on will help to alleviate this problem.

Raising children well is hard. There are lots of wrong ways, but also many right ways. I constantly worry that I'm setting up my child for years of therapy or failure.

My wife and I taught our eldest daughter to read starting around 3 or so (not as young as in this article, but still on the early side). She's now 6, and quite good at sounding out any words she doesn't know, but sometimes gets really furious at the spelling of many English words. She wants rules that she can apply consistently, and (of course) English just... doesn't have those.

Present vs. past tense of "read", anyone? Lead (plumbum) vs. lead (guide) vs. led? Even words like "Once" and "only" can get her to scowl (she knows how "on" is pronounced... you've only added an "s" or "ly" sound to the end!)

It's a source of tension, because she'd rather believe we're wrong than accept that the language is so sadly inconsistent. :/

I remember I could easily read single words but not whole texts until I had some kind of revelation one day. Then I started to read texts as well and fast as any adult.

Having already read tens of books (it was my favorite activity, before I got a playstation) before getting to school I had a clear advantage that remained until high school. I didn't turn out a bookworm, although I have always been TERRIBLE at sports (who cares...).

I strongly believe that having a child in constant contact with books at an early age (you don't even need to be there) will help him develop better on the intellectual side.

UPDATE 2 (Oct. 3, 2011): my son is now five years old. He is now reading daily on his own, and has read himself a couple dozen chapter books, including The Story of the World, Vol. 1: The Ancient World (314 pgs.).

UPDATE 3 (Dec. 16, 2012): at six, my son switches between “serious” literature which he reads with a dictionary app, including Treasure Island, Tom Sawyer, and The Secret Garden, and easier literature including Beverly Cleary books, the Hardy Boys, and Encyclopedia Brown. If his answers to regular comprehension questions are any indication, he’s understanding what he reads pretty well.

UPDATE 4 (Mar. 26, 2013): I’m delighted to report that my second son, following methods similar to those I used with my first, is now 2.5 years old and reading at a first grade level.

UPDATE 5 (Aug. 25, 2014): my second is following in his brother’s footsteps, reading a version of the Odyssey (he’s crazy about Greek mythology—go figure) at age 3.5: "

In a way it also contains reading skills but also develops the kid's emotions (books as well, you could argue), sensitivity, coordination, patience and perseverance.. Book reading is kind of lone activity, while in music you learn to listen, cooperate with others.. Seems to me that it develops the human being in a more wholesome way.

The biggest win is confidence about learning. This was particularly meaningful when they got into more "competitive" environments, by which I mean first grade where kids are expected to perform in front of their peers. When I tell my kids that just because they have trouble with something in school, that doesn't mean they aren't good at learning or at the subjects, they believe me because they have succeeded at both reading and math outside of that setting.

I believe kids are capable of a lot more than they are supported on. The trick, in my view, is to constantly know where that boundary is.

Both reading and math have notions of basic mechanical skills and meaning. My kids weren't great at the meaning part until they were over 6. But they both excelled at the mechanics part early. As an example, early on they learned to add by counting up. But later I was able to replace this with "tricks" (aka "math thinking"). A example is adding 9 to a number. Adding by counting is tedious and prone to mistakes. But if you've learned to add 10, then it is always one less. Similarly, since addition commutes, instead of 2 + 8, change it around to 8+2, which is easier and quicker. Both of my kids have embraced this approach to math of learning the shortcuts, which is actually where they get to experience the patterns and relationships that make math fun and interesting. When I showed them how the digits in multiples of 9 always add to 9, they were astounded. And then I showed them how the digits in multiples of 8 add up to a descending, and repeating "countdown" pattern. Wow. My daughter (who just turned 8) knows a bunch of these insights into the behavior of numbers and operations on them, and confidently says "I'm good at math" despite obviously struggling in other areas (gym, music, art) relative to her peers.

My son reads Junie B. Jones quietly to himself and bursts out laughing. He has discovered the meaning part. And when my daughter got a book about feelings, she finally discovered the power and relevance of reading.

Incidentally, my kids spend about 40 minutes on reading and math in the evening. They get roughly 2 1/2 hours to do other things between school and dinner. There isn't an opportunity cost.

The reason was this: if they can read before primary school, they will certainly be bored out of their minds, and would be detrimental to their school experience.

Today, I still think it was the right thing to do.

I learned to read before primary school, I was bored out of my mind. The school offered to make me skip a class, my parents declined because they thought being too young would be detrimental to my school experience.

Knowing me, that was a mistake. To this day, I regret not being put through an accelerated curriculum, or at least being taken out of school and given a chance to spend that time learning on my own.

Overall, despite being bored in primary school, I am still glad I learned before, as it afforded me the opportunity to learn more things by reading on my own, and it protected me from the general poor quality of reading education in school.

I thought I had a lot of control over my daughter's development when it was just her.... not so much after her two very different siblings. :)

In fact, the school system assumes that any child who enters first grade already has the basics of literacy and numeracy -- a child who doesn't know how to read will probably be channeled to a special class for slow/disadvantaged kids.

This seems like a cultural quirk and doesn't appear to make people smarter in the long run, however.