[skywhopper]

Yeah, agreed, there's really no substance to the interview that I can grab a hold of. The main thing that I would be wary of is the idea that there is a single approach or method that will work for every child.

"Phonics" is mentioned a few times in the interview, ie, the connection between (English) spelling of written words and the spoken language they represent. I immediately found myself wondering how this relates to how children learn to read in other languages whose written forms are either far more phoenetically entwined with their spoken forms (eg, Portugese and Finnish, as I understand it), or far less (eg, Mandarin or Arabic). (I'm sure I'm oversimplifying complex relationships and reality in the overbroad sentence I just wrote, but I'm happy to hear how my received CW is wrong about these languages.)

Anecdatally: when my own daughter was about four, we had some friends whose son had learned to read from a Phonics book at four, and when we knew him at five, he could read pretty much anything you put in front of him (how much he understood, who knows, but he could translate the text into spoken language that we could understand). Both her mother and I were also reading at four, and so we expected our daughter would be able to do the same. We were inspired by this kid's example to get our daughter started early, and tried the same Phonics book with her.

Unfortunately, she didn't take to it so well. She seemed to understand what was happening well enough, but it never clicked or became natural, and it was ultimately a frustrating experience for us and our daughter. So we eventually stopped the lessons, and let her learn at her own pace. She happily made it through kindergarten and first grade without really showing any interest in or being able to read with any proficiency. She was clearly smart, and her teachers told us not to worry about it. Then in second grade mid-year, something just clicked, and she started voraciously consuming books, with her reading ability testing well above grade level.

Now at 16, she's still a voracious reader, and a writer who has completed NaNoWriMo three times, reads and writes every second of the day, and has an incredibly sophisticated grasp on storytelling, analyzing the writing behind books and movies and TV shows with a clarity that I personally have never had.

So, how did she learn to read? I have no idea. It wasn't phonics. But I suspect she would have managed it no matter what instruction she received. I also doubt that she is really a meaningful example, other than to say that it's complicated, and humans vary in their learning styles, and we should focus on the goal of reading and comprehending, trying to discover all the ways that individuals can and do learn to read, and having our teachers focus on identifying and encouraging the best methods for each student and not so much on imposing specific mechanics of how the statistically typical student achieves reading proficiency.

[Confiks]

If some rich and complex learning material doesn't immediately 'click', that doesn't mean it is ineffective. You might just be laying the groundwork to understanding those complex ideas later, for example when they are connected to other ideas or when the motivation to learn surfaces. Learning is sometimes too focused on 'understanding' and immediate results, while often very puzzled faces and proclamations of non-understanding are the best indication that real learning is going on.

[kokey]

My son is hyperlexic (and on the autistic spectrum) and he basically taught himself to read phonetically when he was 3 by watching youtube videos of phonics. I was not taught reading at a young age, it was considered bad to teach kids early where I grew up, but when I started school at 6 and we did the phonics I was almost immediately able to read well beyond my age. Hyperlexia is a bit like the opposite of dyslexia and I think it's is a bit of a spectrum where most people find themselves closer to the center. My son really struggled with receptive language, or language in general. Hyperlexic kids often only start to get the hang of receptive language (as in understand spoken language) and use language for communication (aka 'start talking') between the age of 4.5 to 5.5, so I suspect kids who are less on the hyperlexic side (aka most kids, and also 'early talkers') probably only start to get into the groove of reading after that age. Hyperlexia and dyslexia is just symptoms of a component of our brains that processes our environment and I think there's huge variation in humans when it comes to this and it's kind of independent from our intelligence (though it could affect our test scores, for sure)

[teslabox]

> So, how did she learn to read? I have no idea. It wasn't phonics. But I suspect she would have managed it no matter what instruction she received.

I think John Taylor Gatto pointed out that some children learn to read when they're 2, some when they're 8, and by the time they're 12 you can't tell the difference.

I met a man who was traumatized when his first grade teacher tried to force him to read, before he was ready. The lesson was put in front of him, and 1st-grade-him thought he was stupid for not being able to perform.

[sp332]

The amount of text that a person has read improves their reading speed. So someone who has a big head start like that is going to have an advantage for more than a few years. It's true that eventually other factors might average them out, but why would you want to be illiterate for years and then make everything else you're trying to learn more difficult for years more? It's much less stressful to learn to read early.

[jackhack]

You're missing the point.

"illiterate for years" is of no consequence when we are talking about 5-8 year old children. The point was there was no discernible difference in children who learned to read a a variety of ages.

In factory schools, if one is "delayed", that classification/label is attached to the child and becomes a part of their identity. Few escape it. Similarly, one who reads well at age three is held up as "gifted", and placed on a social/academic pedestal.

People have a wide variance of ability and timing during normal development. saying "it's much less stressful to learn to read early" is arrogant and naive. It's extraordinarily stressful to a child to be told they are stupid/slow when they are simply not ready, and stereotyped and classified as a result.

[sp332]

Yeah, I did miss the point. No one should be called stupid while they're trying to learn. But we should provide a lot of encouragement and hand-holding to kids to get them reading as soon as they can.

Gatto's quip aside, there are actual studies that look at correlations. "Using third-grade national percentile rankings... into below (0-24th national percentile), at (25th-74th national percentile) and above grade level (75th-100th national percentile) groupings, we find correlational evidence that students who were at and above grade level in third grade graduate and attend college at higher rates than their peers who were below grade level in third grade." https://www.chapinhall.org/sites/default/files/Reading_on_Gr...

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/reading-and-maths... found a 10% difference in earnings at age 30 for differences in reading skill at age 10.