The babies who wead
How can parents best prepare their children to
learn to read? Is the trend towards
younger children reading a good one, or does it amount to too much pressure on
young minds? How and when did you learn
how to read? How and when do you think
you will teach your children to read?
Although the phenomenon of babies being able to read complicated words may seem strange at first, but I believe that humans are supposed to evolve; ergo they get smarter at younger ages. Throughout the last couple of centuries, developed countries have seen a skyrocket in the level of education as well as overall intelligence. The fact that some parents are teaching their toddlers to read complicated words and sentences is just another example of humanity’s indigenous instinct of improving itself and learning new things.
ReplyDeleteSome people might argue that this creates unnecessary pressure on a child’s mind, this might or might not be true and is subject to the parents’ judgment as there’s still is no certain way of knowing the answer to that. In my opinion, the age at which children should be taught to read is entirely dependent on the child and parents. Parents should be able to judge if their child is mature enough to comprehend the concepts of reading and literature.
I do not believe the parents have any real control over whether a child is able to learn to read or not. Yes, they are the ones that have to help the child learn, but if a child simply does not have the motivation and will to learn, the parents cannot do anything about it. Some children are simply born with this personality feature that makes them want to learn even when very young, while others are not. So as for the parents, I think they should respect it if the child does not demonstrate any inclination towards education in the earliest stages of its development. The key part of this is the “earliest stages”. At some point, the parents should start pushing children towards education, but not from the very beginning. I believe there is a reason for starting school at the age of six, not earlier.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I believe that if a child demonstrates the will to learn to read (or basically to learn anything else within the realm of acceptability), the parents should not try to counteract this will of the child. They should assist it and give the child an opportunity to grow. It is as Andrej said. The human race is evolving on the intellectual level and we should go with it not fight it.
If we were to assume that teaching toddlers to read is “too much pressure on young minds”, how do we distinguish between things that fall under this category and things that do not? When was it decided that talking is something that can be taught from the earliest stages of life, without placing too much pressure on young minds? Why do we not refrain from talking in front of toddlers to shield them from this unnecessary pressure? Because it is ridiculous and the toddler will have to learn to speak sooner or later. It is just that we did not often see reading toddlers in the past that causes us to be suspicious about this skill at such an early stage of development today.
I do not think it is unusual that some toddlers might learn to read. I myself learnt to read when I was three, while my younger sister never showed any interest in reading as a toddler. Now we are both able to read and the only difference is that I learnt it earlier than she did. I see no reason we should assume reading as a toddler is “too much pressure on young minds” and it should be encouraged if desired by the toddler.
While I certainly agree on and support providing a firm foundation for a child’s mental development, to me what Sanger is doing to his son, shoving the constitution in his face, seems a bit outrageous if not over the top. I, personally, fail to see what the benefit of his practice is. Yes, one could argue that the child is able to read seemingly complex words, but the question remains what good is it when all it is, is just reading with no comprehension. Compare this to a similar situation: consider a person that could recognize all mathematical symbols and is, thus, able to decipher most of an array of complex mathematical equations, yet, he has but the vaguest notion of they might mean. It’s no use reading them, if their essence cannot be grasped. The same approach might as well apply here. Another possible argument can insist that this early reading enhances a child’s ability to speak and expands their vocabulary. Yet, based on the assertion that the toddler is unaware of the words’ meanings, how is it that his speaking skills improve? How is it that his vocabulary expands if he is unable to invoke the words due to the afore-mentioned problem in the first place? What I’m trying to outline is that a toddler reading without comprehension is about identical to teaching a parrot to repeat one’s words on command. Astonishing – certainly; useful – not all that much.
ReplyDeleteNaturally, it is the logical conclusion that can be drawn is that the parents wish to bestow their offspring with as much opportunities that might give them an edge in life, as possible. This is, by all means, completely justifiable and essential. However, is it really necessary this reading training to begin as soon as the toddler reaches the age of two? Why the hurry when similar if not identical results can be achieved had the child taken up reading at the age of four, at which time the kindergartens usually begin teaching reading? Following that logic, why stop here? We might as well start shoveling basic maths, chemistry or other natural sciences into their tiny heads.
In conclusion, I would be more in favour of an active parent-child interaction focusing on talking, listening and partly reading, over than just simply having the child read off the constitution. Of course, it is encouraging that parents should be in a position to quench a child’s thirst for knowledge should it exhibit such, but forcing it should not become a priority.