No benefit in learning to read early?

I have been reading with interest the newspaper reports about research by Sebastian Sugatte in New Zealand. The gist of the matter is that according to this man, there is no advantage to children in learning to read early, as opposed to waiting a few years and then starting at seven. Music to the ears of autonomous educators!

There are a few things worth noting about this piece of work. Firstly, this is reported as being; "a report published by Otago University" written by "Dr Sebastian Sugatte". Precisely as in the case with Paula Rothermel's research, this report fails to make it clear that this was a thesis written by a student, rather than academic work conducted by the university itself. This does not of course invalidate the findings, but it is worth bearing in mind.

Another point to remember is that this is not exactly an unbiased piece of work. Sebastian Sugatte was for years a leading light in the students' Anthroposophical Society at the university. He has always been a dedicated supporter of Rudolf Steiner's theories about education. In other words, he did not embark on this research in order to test whether children did better if they delayed learning to read until seven. Rather, he believed this firmly and went looking for evidence to support the hypothesis. That this is so can be seen from the wording he uses. He talks of the age at which children are, "forced to start reading"! How's that for objective, academic language? There is a lack of candour on the part of the man, as can be seen in this quotation from the New Zealand Herald. He is speaking of the apparent discovery that children learning later were not disadvantaged, "Dr Suggate said he was surprised by his own findings that this was not the case." For a dedicated anthroposophist to make such a statement with a straight face suggests strongly that there is an element of deliberate deception involved.

One hesitates to be snobbish about these matters, but perhaps controversial findings of this sort might be given more attention if they emanated from work carried out by professors at Harvard or UCL, rather than by a student at Otago. The whole thing is a little dubious, regardless of who carried it out though. I have had dealings with a couple of Steiner schools in this country and a few things strike me at once. Firstly, just because the schools themselves don't encourage children of five and six to read, that does not mean that parents are not teaching them at home. Indeed, I have actually seen this for myself. Some parents prefer the Steiner schools because they are gentle and non pushy, but they supplement what happens at school by giving their children informal little lessons at home. Some children attend part-time, just for social reasons and their parents then teach them at home. The report in the Telegraph talks of children, "left without books until they turn seven", but I would be surprised to hear that that is really the case.

In short, this is interesting, but far more needs to be known about it. I observe that Sebastian Sugatte took into account such factors as income, literacy in the home and so on, but unless the situation in New Zealand is dramatically different from this country, there are huge differences between those families who favour Steiner schools and those who send their kids to the local state primary. Delaying the formal teaching of reading from five to seven is perhaps not one of the greatest of these differences.