An integral part of the mythos surrounding home education in this country that it does not really matter if a child learns to read far later than is usual at school. Mothers talk of their children not reading until eleven, twelve or even later and the claim is made that they quickly catch up with those children who learnt to read at six or seven. On the face of it, this seems implausible. It is generally the case that the earlier we acquire some skill, whether it is riding a bicycle, swimming or reading; the easier it is and the more proficient we are likely to be at it when we are teenagers. Still, let us look at the evidence objectively and see what it suggests.
We come now to a problem. There is no evidence at all for the assertion that learning to read at twelve has no ill effects upon a child's educational prospects. There is much evidence from schools that the opposite is true and that the educational prospects of a child who is illiterate when starting secondary school are very poor. Still, it might be argued, school and home education are two very different things. Just because an illiterate child in a secondary school is set for failure, that does not mean that the same is true of a child who is being educated at home. I would put the case differently and say that illiteracy will harm a child's education at the age of eleven, but for a child who is not being educated, it won't make any difference. This hypothesis seems to me to make at least as much sense as claiming that illiterate home educated eleven or twelve year-olds are not held back by their inability to read.
Now I can only find two pieces of research on this subject and those are the work of Paula Rothermel and Alan Thomas. These are both small scale pieces of work and their conclusions are diametrically opposed to each other, which is not promising to begin with. Paula Rothemel said that the home educated six year-olds whom she looked at were very advanced in their reading ability, with 94% of them in the top band for reading. In the school population, one would expect only 16% to be this good at reading. Unfortunately, this was based on a tiny sample of seventeen children, only one of whom she tested herself. This is such a small sample that we can really not take it seriously. Alan Thomas noted that quite a few home educated children were late in reading, but that their parents said that this did not matter and that they soon caught up when they did start reading. These children were not tested and so it is impossible to know whether or not their reading ability really was on a par in their teenage years with those who learnt to read at six or seven.
This would be a very fruitful area for research, if home educating parents were at all keen on having their children's abilities tested; which many of them are not. The best that one can say is that the jury is still out on this question. Some parents claim that it has not harmed their children to be illiterate until their teenage years and this might conceivably be true. This does remind one though of those people who deny that smoking is harmful by citing some ninety year-old uncle who smoked eighty a day and died of some illness wholly unrelated to smoking! Such a claim, even if true, does not affect the fact that smoking is in general bad for people. This may very well be the case with learning to read and write later than is common in schools. It may from time to time happen that a child learns to read at the age of twelve and that this does not harm his educational prospects. It is hard to see though, how this can be an advantage. In other words, it might just be the case that it did not cause any particular harm, but it is not easy to see why it should have been a good thing for the acquisition of literacy to be delayed until this age. As I said earlier, the evidence from schools suggests strongly that the prognosis is poor for those starting secondary school unable to read and write. If the case is really different for home educated children, then a little evidence might not come amiss.
'As I said earlier, the evidence from schools suggests strongly that the prognosis is poor for those starting secondary school unable to read and write.'
ReplyDeleteWell, of course it is. That's because in secondary schools, most learning is expected to take place via written material and because literacy tends to improve with increased exposure to written material.
The question one needs to ask is why some children in schools fail to learn to read before secondary age, even though literacy skills are a core part of learning at school and reading is actively taught from an early age. The key issue isn't whether there is a difference between home educated and school educated children regarding reading age, but why some children are 'late readers' or can't read at all.
'That's because in secondary schools, most learning is expected to take place via written material '
ReplyDeleteHard to imagine getting to grips with the Periodic table if one were illiterate!
'The key issue isn't whether there is a difference between home educated and school educated children regarding reading age, but why some children are 'late readers' or can't read at all.'
In schools, illiteracy at the age of twelve will set alarm bells ringing. Among some home educators, it is seen as being fine. This is a difference between home and school education.
You might want to look outside the HE community for research on reading and other learning. The Centre for Educational Neuroscience has done some interesting work in this area.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.educationalneuroscience.org.uk
Some of the papers that they have presented are available on their website along with some of the research and seminar recordings.
The problem with research that comes from within the HE community is that it is often incomplete or bais. The problem with research from outside the HE community is that either we think that is bias and so dismiss it, or we don't even know it is there.
'In schools, illiteracy at the age of twelve will set alarm bells ringing. Among some home educators, it is seen as being fine. This is a difference between home and school education. '
ReplyDeleteOf course it would set alarm bells ringing. What I was asking was why it happens? Putting it another way, whether not reading by twelve sets alarm bells ringing or whether it is seen as fine, appears to make not one jot of difference to whether some children read or not.
If all children in schools could read by the age of six, then one would start to wonder about the approach of the laissez-faire home educator. Since around 25% of the school population can't read well at 16, you can't assume that the 'they'll learn when they are ready' approach is the only thing that's responsible for late reading.
I don't know that doing things later is necessarily detreimental to development.
ReplyDeleteI can only give you examples of my own children. Oldest ds learnt to read at the age of 3 1/2 because he wanted to. When tested at 11 he had a reading age of 16. Oldest dd came out of school at 8 knowing only her alphabet, about half the letter sounds and barely reading CVC words. We went right back to basics, and by 9 1/2 she was reading properly and by 10 was reading thick chapter books. When tested at 13 her reading age was 14. Youngest dd was home from the age of 4 and so I taught her sightwords and phonics but didnt bother with proper reading education until she wanted too at about 6 1/2. She was reading properly by 8 and at 10 reads the likes of Harry Potter, Wind in the Willows and The Various. When she was tested at 10 her reading age was 14. Youngest ds is 6 in March and we have only just started reading.
Just to add - all were tested 'officially' by Ed Psychs/Speech and Language, and occupation therapists. All exhibited good or high IQ if you believe in that kind of things. So it appears that the girls late reading had no ill effects on their reading or education.
My oldest three were also 'behind' with bike riding too. Ds was 11, dd was 10 and youngest dd was 9 - they all ride competently and it hasnt held them back at all.
Achieving something later isnt necessarily a bad thing.
I don't have any personal experience of children learning to read later as both of mine were reading fluently by six. But I have known of children in my local home educating community who read much later than that.
ReplyDeleteI suspect that large scale research is out of the question but I am very interested in what day to day life is like for older children who can't read. I have never discussed this with such a child because it's never seemed appropriate. That's interesting in itself, isn't it? I've always felt a bit awkward about it and that any questioning would be embarrassing for the child. I do wonder if those children feel that. There is a point beyond which all the people around you will start to assume you can read - from people in museums and libraries to bus drivers and shop workers - and, indeed, other children too. It must take a fair amount of work to manage those expectations. I don't think that's necessarily a terrible thing, and it would probably be better if we all made fewer assumptions about the literacy levels of those around us, but I don't imagine it's a positive experience.
What I would like to hear is more of the voices of children who have read later - more about their experiences and their opinions.
"This would be a very fruitful area for research, if home educating parents were at all keen on having their children's abilities tested; which many of them are not."
ReplyDeleteA child who started learning to read at 13 gained GCSE English at 16. Is that a good enough test?
"Such a claim, even if true, does not affect the fact that smoking is in general bad for people. This may very well be the case with learning to read and write later than is common in schools."
It may be, but we have plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest that this is not true (except, obviously, in schools) and no evidence to suggest that it is harmful. Certainly, international evidence shows that beginning to learn at 7 is not harmful and may even be preferable judging from results in older children.
We even have biological reasons for believing later can be better, at least for some children. Adolescence is an important time for brain growth and development.
Brain Development in Young Adolescents
http://www.nea.org/tools/16653.htm
"Adolescence is a critical time for brain growth (see interview with neuroscientist Jay Giedd). Significant intellectual processes are emerging. Adolescents are moving from concrete to abstract thinking and to the beginnings of metacognition (the active monitoring and regulation of thinking processes). They are developing skills in deductive reasoning, problem solving, and generalizing."
Decoding the written word is abstract thinking and certainly involves deduction and problem solving. So maybe for some children, adolescence is the perfect time to learn to read. The development of abstract thinking to this degree may even be essential before some children are able to learn to read and may explain why so many school children reach 12 unable to read. It's even possible that children who learn to read before they have developed abstract thinking sufficiently use less efficient pathways for reading than those who learn after - they may learn to read *despite* starting early. My late reader certainly learnt to read more quickly and easily than children aged 5 in school because I've seen both.
'I am very interested in what day to day life is like for older children who can't read.'
ReplyDeleteI too have wondered about this. To me, the inability to read must be as devastating a handicap as being unable to hear or see. I taught my own child to read when she was fifteen months old. By her second birthday, she was a fluent reader. My reasons were not 'educational', but because I wanted her to share the greatest pleasure which I have in life. I literally cannot imagine what a life without reading and books would feel like. Of course, reading is useful for learning and passing examination, but the real value of reading is in reading for its own sake. I feel desperately sorry for those unable to share in this joy and like you, hardly like to ask what it feels like. It would be like asking a person in a wheelchair what it felt like not being able to walk!
'you can't assume that the 'they'll learn when they are ready' approach is the only thing that's responsible for late reading.'
ReplyDeleteI am assuming nothing; merely drawing attention to the lack of research. Some schools are able to teach every six year-old to reach. The chances of a child learning to read are higher with structured teaching than without.
"This would be a very fruitful area for research, if home educating parents were at all keen on having their children's abilities tested; which many of them are not."
ReplyDeleteA child who started learning to read at 13 gained GCSE English at 16. Is that a good enough test?
"Such a claim, even if true, does not affect the fact that smoking is in general bad for people. This may very well be the case with learning to read and write later than is common in schools."
It may be, but we have plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest that this is not true (except, obviously, in schools) and no evidence to suggest that it is harmful. Certainly, international evidence shows that beginning to learn at 7 is not harmful and may even be preferable judging from results in older children.
We even have biological reasons for believing later can be better, at least for some children. Adolescence is an important time for brain growth and development.
Brain Development in Young Adolescents
www.nea.org/tools/16653.htm
"Adolescence is a critical time for brain growth (see interview with neuroscientist Jay Giedd). Significant intellectual processes are emerging. Adolescents are moving from concrete to abstract thinking and to the beginnings of metacognition (the active monitoring and regulation of thinking processes). They are developing skills in deductive reasoning, problem solving, and generalizing."
Decoding the written word is a perfect example of abstract thinking and certainly involves deduction and problem solving. So maybe for some children, adolescence is the perfect time to learn to read. This development of abstract thinking to this degree may even be essential before some children are able to learn to read and may explain why so many school children reach 12 without being able to learn. It's even possible that children who learn to read before they have developed abstract thinking use less efficient pathways for reading than those who learn after - they learn to read *despite* starting early. My late reader certainly learnt to read more quickly and easily than children aged 5 in school because I've seen both.
"Hard to imagine getting to grips with the Periodic table if one were illiterate!"
ReplyDeleteIn school, yes, but why would it be a problem at home?
"As I said earlier, the evidence from schools suggests strongly that the prognosis is poor for those starting secondary school unable to read and write. If the case is really different for home educated children, then a little evidence might not come amiss."
Logically there are huge differences between someone who cannot read despite 7-8 years of teaching, and someone who hasn't chosen to learn yet. There are likely to be different reasons for the late reading (physical or developmental problems/delay v. choice) and the outcomes are likely to be very different. Think of the low esteem alone after failing to learn to read for 7-8+ years despite continuous attempts. Compare this to the satisfaction felt by my late reader when they learnt what usually takes years in months. They were really impressed with themselves, LOL!
"The problem with research from outside the HE community is that either we think that is bias and so dismiss it, or we don't even know it is there."
The problem with reading research in particular from outside the HE community is that it invariably looks at children who have failed to learn to read, despite years of effort.
Anonymous says,
ReplyDelete"It's even possible that children who learn to read before they have developed abstract thinking sufficiently use less efficient pathways for reading than those who learn after - they may learn to read *despite* starting early. My late reader certainly learnt to read more quickly and easily than children aged 5 in school because I've seen both."
That's an interesting idea but I doubt it. If you take Simon's daughter as an example (I don't suppose you mind, Simon?) it seems that her acquisition of literacy alongside speech was extremely efficient. While I take your point about abstract thinking, I think there's a huge difference between understanding that a picture of a dog represents a dog and understanding economic theories. The latter might well be easier after adolescence but the former is perfectly possible for most four year olds. I think that reading is more like the de-coding of pictures - i.e. the picture stands for a dog and the d stands for the sound 'duh'.
"Hard to imagine getting to grips with the Periodic table if one were illiterate!"
ReplyDeleteIn school, yes, but why would it be a problem at home?'
Could you outline the way in which you would get an illiterate person to get to grips with the periodic table? This should be interesting.
'
' I think that reading is more like the de-coding of pictures - i.e. the picture stands for a dog and the d stands for the sound 'duh'.'
ReplyDeleteI think that is precisely right, Allie. There is nothing really abstract about the process. We all know toddlers who point at a dog and say 'dog'. It is only a step from this to pointing at a picture or a printed word and doing the same.
I suppose that is taking the theory too far because I know some children are ready to learn to read early. I have a child who learnt to read at 3 and I'm still not sure how they did it. However, I think it's possible that some children are just not ready and attempting to force the issue is likely to be harmful. A 25% failure rate seems to suggest that something is going seriously wrong for something you claim to be so simple and easy.
ReplyDelete"Could you outline the way in which you would get an illiterate person to get to grips with the periodic table? This should be interesting."
ReplyDeleteIt would be easier for you to explain what could not be learnt through conversation and looking at material together. Books can be read to a child, TV programs watched, there are also images of the different elements, videos of reactions and experiments (www.periodicvideos.com/ is a good example) or carrying out experiments yourself where possible. An illiterate person can still understand a periodic chart and see how elements change as you move across a row or down a group. They could easily understand diagrams of electrons and electron shells and learn that all elements in the 2nd group have 2 valence electrons in an s-shell, for instance, if the parent goes through it with them.
Early readers also learn much higher level science than their own reading level would allow in this way. Certainly both my early and late reading children had a good understanding of the water cycle and the progression of the seasons, for instance, long before their reading level would have enabled them to learn this independently.
"Some parents claim that it has not harmed their children to be illiterate until their teenage years and this might conceivably be true. This does remind one though of those people who deny that smoking is harmful by citing some ninety year-old uncle who smoked eighty a day and died of some illness wholly unrelated to smoking!"
ReplyDeleteA bit like you claiming that early academics has not harmed your child? Ahh, but wait, you did say that early academics may have harmed your child. Something about a reduced time spent on physical activities at a young age causing your daughter to be clumsy now? Or did I dream that?
'A 25% failure rate seems to suggest that something is going seriously wrong for something you claim to be so simple and easy.'
ReplyDeleteWhere does this 25% failure rate come from?
'Ahh, but wait, you did say that early academics may have harmed your child'
ReplyDeleteNor too sure what you mean by early academics. If you mean that time spent on one thing will mean less time spent on other things, then this is quite true.
suzyg gave it:
ReplyDelete"Since around 25% of the school population can't read well at 16, you can't assume that the 'they'll learn when they are ready' approach is the only thing that's responsible for late reading."
Functional illiteracy is usually claimed to be 20%, but is functional literacy 'good enough' to be classed as successful? If it's good enough for you, then you can reduce the 25% failure rate to a 20% failure rate.
"If you mean that time spent on one thing will mean less time spent on other things, then this is quite true."
ReplyDeleteAnd the same is obviously true for time not spent learning to read. In my experience, it takes far longer for a child who isn't interested in learning to read to learn to read at 5 than it takes a child who does want to learn to read at 11. On this basis alone, learning to read when you want to learn to read is better learning time management.
Anonymous says,
ReplyDelete"On this basis alone, learning to read when you want to learn to read is better learning time management."
While this does make sense to me, I am very glad that my children did want to read early in their childhoods because I think it has massively explanded their ability to learn autonomously.
I can't think of an interest which can't be expanded and enriched by an ability to read about it. My children have been interested in many things - from wittling to crotchet, from mustelids to local politics. While it is true that I could have read to them about these things (and sometimes did) I wasn't available 24/7. I couldn't drop out of a conversation with one child to satisfy the other's immediate need for information. Because they could read I didn't have to. They could learn when and how much they wanted to and weren't dependent on me as an aid. That was, I think, better learning time management.
It wouldn't have been good time management for our child. One the occasions when we bowed to family pressure or became nervous and instituted 'reading lessons', no matter how much fun we made it with games or various books, even regular daily sessions made no difference, they could just not remember letters, let alone words, from one day to the next.
ReplyDelete"It wouldn't have been good time management for our child."
ReplyDeleteYes, I'm sure you're right, which is why I think it's good that parents can facilitate the sort of learning that suits their own child. I'm not saying that everyone should home educate in the same way at all.
But I am interested in what it's like to be an older child who doesn't read independently because it has struck me that I have *never* heard about this from a child. I have heard from parents who have children who read later (in double figures years) but never from those children.
What I observed in my children's lives was the massively empowering effect of being able to read independently. That's why I think reading is a good thing :-) I can quite believe that the right time to acquire this skill differs between children, but I do wonder about people claiming that not being able to read in later childhood years hasn't been a problem for their child.
I suppose what I'm saying is that I can understand spending childhood years illiterate if that's the lesser evil (i.e. less damaging than trying to address the reading issue) but I struggle to see the lack of ability to read as insignificant for the child concerned. Does that make any sense?
What usually happens is the child is labelled dyslexic and then that lets the parent off the hook. 'See? That's why they never learned to read!'
ReplyDelete'I suppose what I'm saying is that I can understand spending childhood years illiterate if that's the lesser evil (i.e. less damaging than trying to address the reading issue) but I struggle to see the lack of ability to read as insignificant for the child concerned. Does that make any sense?'
ReplyDeleteIt's massively significant for them. It can have a huge impact on their self-esteem. Usually, the only way out for all concerned is to pay for a Dyslexia diagnosis which may or may not be accurate.
It's a bit like not allowing a child to run about, confining them to a wheelchair and then, after years of that, complaining that they can't walk.
'It's a bit like not allowing a child to run about, confining them to a wheelchair and then, after years of that, complaining that they can't walk.'
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely spot on.
''Functional illiteracy is usually claimed to be 20%, '
ReplyDeleteThis is a horribly misleading claim! The literacy rate in the UK is around 99%/100%, if by that we mean people who can read the Daily Mirror, understand signs and write simple letters. If we use the index of high rates of 'document literacy', then around 20% of people do have difficulties. However, having problems with interpreting a train timetable does not make you illiterate.
"Hard to imagine getting to grips with the Periodic table if one were illiterate!"
ReplyDeleteYou could learn the periodic table off by heart and understand it, without being able to read a word.
Both my children could read when we learned about the periodic table, but neither of them were reading *about* the periodic table. In fact, like Anonymous, most of our work on science is either practical or audio-visual. Many scientific concepts are much clearer when presented visually or discussed, or even acted out than through the written word.
"If we use the index of high rates of 'document literacy', then around 20% of people do have difficulties. However, having problems with interpreting a train timetable does not make you illiterate."
ReplyDeleteIf that's the attitude of those in charge than I'm not surprised we have problems in this country. My late reading young people have no trouble interpreting train timetables and travel all over the country!
"It's massively significant for them. It can have a huge impact on their self-esteem."
ReplyDeleteIt hasn't had that effect on my late reading children, one of whom has done far more than I ever did at their age including driving all around the country to concerts and to visit HE friends by car on their own as soon as they passed their driving test at just 18 and then getting a part-time job, a flat share and studying part time in another part of the country.
"Usually, the only way out for all concerned is to pay for a Dyslexia diagnosis which may or may not be accurate."
Or they can learn to read at 13, go to college, gain various qualifications and get a job to support further study.
"But I am interested in what it's like to be an older child who doesn't read independently because it has struck me that I have *never* heard about this from a child."
ReplyDeleteWhat would you ask them? I'll see if either of my late readers are want to reply.
Simon said,
ReplyDelete"Hard to imagine getting to grips with the Periodic table if one were illiterate!"
Errr, see your own post of the 18th February.
Anonymous says,
ReplyDelete"It's massively significant for them. It can have a huge impact on their self-esteem. Usually, the only way out for all concerned is to pay for a Dyslexia diagnosis which may or may not be accurate."
Do you think that this is happening to home educated children in any number?
"What would you ask them? I'll see if either of my late readers are want to reply."
ReplyDeleteThanks. I guess I'd like to know if they felt that they missed out on anything by reading later. Also, were they aware of a time when most other children of their age were reading and, if so, how did they feel about that? Were they embarrassed by not being able to read or was it not a big deal for them? Do they feel that they are now as confident with reading as people who learned at a younger age?
As someone who can't remember a time when I couldn't read - and the same goes for my children - it's hard to imagine what it's like.
'Do you think that this is happening to home educated children in any number?'
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, among those I know, it's very common. I wouldn't be able to comment on the national picture.
Allie wrote,
ReplyDelete"I guess I'd like to know if they felt that they missed out on anything by reading later."
Late Reading Teen (LRT):No.
"Also, were they aware of a time when most other children of their age were reading and, if so, how did they feel about that?"
LRT: I was aware but it didn't affect me I was busy doing other things.
"Were they embarrassed by not being able to read or was it not a big deal for them?"
LRT: Yes, a bit when people noticed, but not very often.
"Do they feel that they are now as confident with reading as people who learned at a younger age?"
LRT: Yes. I wanted to be able to read when I was younger, but I had a short attention span when we tried. When I was older I didn't want to spend the time on it but I knew I would need it for college.
"As someone who can't remember a time when I couldn't read - and the same goes for my children - it's hard to imagine what it's like."
Back to me: I am the same and have struggled to understand why some children are not interested in reading for themselves. I always have a book on the go and can't imagine not. I asked why he didn't want to learn to read even though he obviously loves books (probably more so than his early reading sibling). He said that he could get me to read to him and he didn't have to take the time to learn to read when he could be out doing other things.
"'Do you think that this is happening to home educated children in any number?'
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, among those I know, it's very common. I wouldn't be able to comment on the national picture."
I know about 5 families that have followed this approach with various reading ages from 3-13/14. Out of about 12 children, one was diagnosed with dyslexia. The other children in the same family learnt at younger and older ages without problems. I suppose if someone is dyslexic it is likely to be discovered later than usual when following this approach - though from what I've heard it can sometimes go completely undiagnosed in schools.
Were these children properly diagnosed at a recognised test centre (a Dyslexia Action Centre, for e.g.)? Or have the parents made the 'diagnosis'? If they have been officially diagnosed, why do you doubt the diagnosis? The testing my friend's child went through seemed extensive. I doubt they would mistake someone who just hadn't learnt to read yet for someone with dyslexia.
Thanks for that information, Anonymous. It's interesting to hear and good to know that it wasn't too tricky not being able to read when they were younger.
ReplyDeleteWhat I find interesting is that I don't think my children invested much time in learning to read because it grew out of the sharing of books that we were doing anyway - that and games/jigsaws etc. We didn't do any scheme or formal lessons. It started with picking out odd CVC words in the text or as we were out and about in the world. From there it just seemed to unfold for both of them and they could read anything in a few months.
I wonder if it is possible that if a child doesn't 'pick it up' like this at an early age then they will have to invest more time and effort later on? I suppose I'm thinking along the lines of how a second language can be acquired very easily in early childhood but takes more effort later. But I don't know - maybe it's more a case of finding the right moment for each individual child. And if that moment doesn't come along then, in the end, a reason will appear - like college.
I do worry about what other Anonymous says. I don't know what to think really. I suppose there is no reason why there shouldn't be as many home educated children with dyslexia as there are in the general population - or more, given that some children will have left school because of their dyslexia not being catered for. Is it really likely that people would invite a diagnosis of dyslexia if they thought it wasn't an accurate one? Or is Anonymous suggesting that people are deluding themselves?
'Is it really likely that people would invite a diagnosis of dyslexia if they thought it wasn't an accurate one? Or is Anonymous suggesting that people are deluding themselves?'
ReplyDeleteAn official dx of Dyslexia will get you 25% extra time in exams, a reader, a scribe and/or use of a laptop. This is a powerful incentive for some.
"An official dx of Dyslexia will get you 25% extra time in exams, a reader, a scribe and/or use of a laptop. This is a powerful incentive for some."
ReplyDeleteSo, are you suggesting that people are being knowingly deceitful? Or do you think they believe their child to be dyslexic when they are not? Or do you not 'believe' in dyslexia at all?
If you are someone who has a wide circle of home educating friends and acquaintances (which you seem to be implying) then do you believe that the scenario you described is, in some way, a folly of the home educating 'community' - as far as one can be claimed to exist? Or is this about the individual choices of individual families?
No, I don't think parents are deliberately deceptive at all.
ReplyDeleteYes, I do believe in the existence of specific reading difficulties, or Dyslexia. Very, very rarely, some people, despite their best efforts and those of their teachers, seem to have something we used to call 'word-blindness'. The jury is still out on causes.
The vast majority of people diagnosed with dyslexia these days, I suspect, are suffering from poor quality teaching. Most of them are in school. Some are being home educated.
When the child shows no early interest in reading and writing, does not learn 'naturally' by themselves, and that situation persists, some parents will make excuses and jump to a conclusion of Dyslexia. When the child gets to 14 or 15, still unable to read and write to a standard required to pass I/GCSE's, suddenly a diagnosis becomes urgent.
Generally, parents get what they pay for. If they are paying for a diagnosis, that's always what they get, I've found. If they go via the LA or NHS and do not pay privately, they risk someone telling them that their child is not Dyslexic. They just can't read and write yet.
I don't know the answer to the question in the last paragraph. I don't think I have an opinion. It probably requires research.
'So, are you suggesting that people are being knowingly deceitful?'
ReplyDeleteI have known such cases. I have also heard of children claiming that relatives had died in order to get extra marks at GCSE! Certainly I have known one boy who was hopeless at spelling, whose parents managed to get extra time and so on for him in exams. It does happen.
Allie wrote,
ReplyDelete"What I find interesting is that I don't think my children invested much time in learning to read because it grew out of the sharing of books that we were doing anyway - that and games/jigsaws etc. We didn't do any scheme or formal lessons. It started with picking out odd CVC words in the text or as we were out and about in the world. From there it just seemed to unfold for both of them and they could read anything in a few months."
This is how my middle child learnt to read at 3, I'm still not sure how they did it. The late readers had the same environment, we did much of it together at the same time, but with very different results. I think the late readers learnt lots about literacy, just not the decoding text bit.
"I wonder if it is possible that if a child doesn't 'pick it up' like this at an early age then they will have to invest more time and effort later on? I suppose I'm thinking along the lines of how a second language can be acquired very easily in early childhood but takes more effort later."
It didn't look like that. With one child we just worked through a few Oxford Reading Tree books together, then did shared reading of a chapter book for a while. They seemed to spend 5-10 minutes a day (not even every day) for a month or two and then got on with it themselves, asking for individual words or spellings as necessary.
Another worked through a phonics book off and on over about 6 months, again for only a few minutes a day, so a little more effort needed there but I think it resulted in better spelling, certainly better than mine anyway! Both remarked at different times that, once they had started, they couldn't stop themselves reading everything they saw when out and about, on the TV, cereal boxes, etc, etc, so even though they didn't appear to spend much time each day on learning to read, they were reading much more than it appeared from the outside.
It's really interesting, isn't it? I imagine that the crucial thing might be this,
ReplyDelete"I think the late readers learnt lots about literacy, just not the decoding text bit."
Maybe part of what makes the difference between later readers who learn fine and those who struggle could be this familiarity with text - through another person and in family conversation and so on. Then I guess the de-coding bit can come afterwards. So the elements of literacy are all the same - just acquired in a different order.
Yes, that's what I think happened. The late readers either didn't have the patience for the relatively boring task of learning to de-code, or were just not developmentally ready for some unknown reason. I do know that all my children love books and always ask for new ones for Birthdays and Christmas.
ReplyDelete