One of the issues is that for kids that read early, they don't actually end up better than other kids. For kids that read late, being in a class watching other kids learn easily and them not being able to because their brain development hasn't reached that point yet, that can be detrimental to future learning. Kids lose confidence, and don't think of themselves as someone who can learn. One of the biggest indicators of academic success is whether a kid sees themself as a learner.

However, one thing that kids pushed into early academic work often lack is social skills. This is what the unstructured play teaches, and is just as important as book skills.

[–] Rangelus 2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

One of the issues is that for kids that read early, they don't actually end up better than other kids.

This doesn't appear to actually be the case.

[–] liv 2 points 11 months ago

Thanks this is an interesting paper.

[–] Dave 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Some caveats to my claim. The thing (book? podcast? can't remember, so take with a grain of salt) was saying kids that read early (ages 3-4) aren't more likely to have a degree at age 35 when controlling for other factors.

The study you've linked is looking at reading ability at age 6, which may change things. I also couldn't find anything in the paper stating they had controlled for other factors. If a child with a parent at home reads earlier, and one that doesn't reads later, the difference in life success is unlikely to be related to the reading, but more likely to be related to them growing up in a household wealthy enough to have a stay at home parent. This wouldn't be effective data for changing a school system to focus on reading earlier.

To put this in context with what I was saying, if reading is pushed hard from age 4 and some kids do well and for some who aren't quite ready this causes a detrimental impact that causes them to be poor learners for life - well this would show in your study as reading ability at 6 years old being strongly predictive of reading ability at 42. Basically, I don't believe the study you've linked helps us narrow down anything because they don't seem to have controlled for anything.

I did try to find a study to back up my claims, or even disprove my claims, but I couldn't find a study that looked further than 10 years or so, and even then they weren't controlling for other factors.

Maybe our school system is failing because of a lack of data on how to do things better?

[–] Rangelus 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

To be fair, the study does not actually show a causation but an "association".

Anecdotally, but from personal experience, the best young readers tend to be the ones that enjoy reading the most. Fostering that love of reading is, in my opinion, something that needs to happen at home.

I agree we need better data.

[–] liv 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Confidence is key, and a sense of entitlement (to what they are entitled to, not the negative kind). Part of that is the social culture at the school. I saw an interesting study by some linguists once who found that chanting "shame" at each other for achieving is not universal.

One of the issues is that for kids that read early, they don’t actually end up better than other kids.

Ah, that's good to know. I got taught to read as a preschooler and did end up better at that kind of thing than other kids, so when friends and whanau didn't teach before age 5, it always low-key gave me anxiety. Now the kids are older I'm chill but it's good to know they weren't being disadvantaged.

[–] Dave 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

So in another reply I've caveat-ed what I said. Firstly, I read/heard it in a book/podcast, I didn't see the study myself.

Second is that the did not relate early reading ability to late reading ability, they related it to 'life success' - which was judged based on whether they had a degree at age 35, which as someone who feels pretty successful, and didn't have a degree at age 35 (and still don't), isn't necessarily a good way to judge, but it's at least a clear yes/no which makes things easier.

A kid could be an early reader that grows up to be a fantastic reader, but doesn't do well in society.

I saw an interesting study by some linguists once who found that chanting “shame” at each other for achieving is not universal.

I'm not sure if I just can't remember but I don't recall people chanting "shame" at people for achieving. It sounds like a high school thing, but definitely after the underachievers left school at 15 or 16 people were celebrated for achievement, mostly in sports but I don't remember anyone being mocked for academic achievement. Our dux and runner up dux (can't remember word) were both at least moderately popular.

[–] liv 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

To be honest I was intending to look up the study. That puts it in another light though; I thought it was about correlations with literacy and possibly ability to synthesise information. All bets are off again damn it.

I agree, that success/degree metric is not fit for purpose. Not only does having a degree not measure life success, it doesn't even measure being able to read and write very well (this isn't me being anti-intellectual, I have three of them myself).

I don’t remember anyone being mocked for academic achievement

Oh yeah, sorry, for the shame thing I was definitely talking about primary school not high school!! (I thought you guys all had kids in that age). The study is on regional differences in New Zealand childrens' slang; the shame thing was an unexpected finding - it's shame, shame-o, shame-a-lame, but the high decile schools didn't have this word or custom.

[–] Dave 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I agree, that success/degree metric is not fit for purpose. Not only does having a degree not measure life success, it doesn’t even measure being able to read and write very well (this isn’t me being anti-intellectual, I have three of them myself).

I don't think it's trying to measure reading/writing ability. If the difference between ok and good/great skills doesn't impact people's life outcomes (however we measure that), do we care about improving this skill? (I found this a hard sentence to write because it feels like a silly thing to say, but as a philosophical statement I think it's worth thinking about)

Oh yeah, sorry, for the shame thing I was definitely talking about primary school not high school!! (I thought you guys all had kids in that age). The study is on regional differences in New Zealand childrens’ slang; the shame thing was an unexpected finding - it’s shame, shame-o, shame-a-lame, but the high decile schools didn’t have this word or custom.

Interesting! It sounded like a high school thing to me. I haven't heard of it before, but I went to mid-decile primary schools. And even so, if the study was recent then it could be newer slang that didn't exist when I was a kid.

[–] liv 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

No, it's not a new thing. I get the impression I'm your age or slightly older, and I went to a primary school where if the teacher said your work was good, or you got an award, the whole class would chorus "shaaaame".

I guess this is one of those if you know, you know things - I remember a colleague whispering "ow, shaaame" to me as a joke once when there was an announcement that I got awarded a grant!

The fact you haven't heard of it illustrates my point that NZ schools are not all alike in the culture around learning.

If the difference between ok and good/great skills doesn’t impact people’s life outcomes (however we measure that), do we care about improving this skill?

This is where correlation becomes less useful. It really depends on what other skills and resources the person can draw on - not everyone is cut out to be a plumber or a lawyer. My instinct is that we need to give students the opportunity to have a range of well-mastered skills in their toolbox, and then to develop their aptitudes.

[–] Dave 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Perhaps what we need first is a goal. Is our goal for kids to be able to get jobs? To get jobs they like? To make lots of money? Or is our goal for people to be happy? Feel in control? Have many opportunities? Live an ethical life?

Without a goal it's hard to know whether school is failing kids.

I know many would say a school is there to teach reading and writing and maths. I don't think schools are (or should be) there for that purpose, but rather to improve society by educating everyone. That may need to happen through teaching reading, writing, and maths, but if we don't know our goal we don't know if that's the way to achieve it.

[–] liv 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I agree with everything you've just said.

All too often I think people can't see beyond it's there to babysit kids for 8h so parents can work.

[–] Dave 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

That podcast I mentioned earlier actually said that's why kids in NZ generally start school at 5. It used to be 6, and in the war (first world war, maybe?) they changed it to 5 so more women to work while the men were at war. So the first year of school was literally to babysit.

[–] liv 2 points 11 months ago

That's interesting. Social changes so often happen for slightly weird reasons. Giving women the vote was partly about who they would likely vote for.