OT: teaching your toddler to read

[princessmom29]

I think this is a really valid point, but I don't know that the classroom is the only place to get this list of experiences---with the exception of the classroom cultural experience. Intense pretend play can happen at home. A structured day can happen at home. Experimentation and exploration can happen at home. Integrating a color or word or letter or number or concept of the day can happen at home. Pre-school, even a great classroom like yours, isn't the right place for every child (or parent) and home education does not necessarily mean you're going to have a wide eyed daydreamer who can't sit still upon entering Kindergarten. One size never fits all.

Back to the original point--I am not "teaching" my 16 month old to read, but he does recognize the word "baby." When I read, I do point out words as I go. I have him "read" stories back to me when I'm done. We read a lot, talk about the world, play games...he's a lovely kid and excels at problem solving and making connections between things.

My niece, who is 4 months older, watches the "your baby can read" dvds in the car. Her parents don't do the flash cards. She can count to 20, she knows her colors, her abcs, shapes....I know she gets a lot of attention at daycare and at home, too. I don't know if it's the DVDs or that she is a different child, but she seems to excel at knowing "things."

Anyway--Original poster, I hope you find the right thing for you

You definitely can teach all of these things to your child at home if you are proactive about doing it and make the conious effort every day to do so. A parent could definitely do the reading to find out what is needed when and do it, but I think that it is even more valuble when shared with peers. Every child sees thinga a little differently, and if is fascinating to me to see them feed off of one another's thoughts and ideas. That interaction seems to come much more easily for kids in K that have had it in preschool. I cannot comment past K because I never taught elem. There is also something to be said for learnig how to behave in a peer group in a structured setting, and adapting to a school climate before starting K. We worked on things like waiting your turn to talk, working together on a group project, ect. I just feel like these are good skills to have already been exposed to starting K. Every child is different, but I think that on the whole kids are better off for having been in a good preschool program.

 

[CuteAndFluffy]

You definitely can teach all of these things to your child at home if you are proactive about doing it and make the conious effort every day to do so. A parent could definitely do the reading to find out what is needed when and do it, but I think that it is even more valuble when shared with peers. Every child sees thinga a little differently, and if is fascinating to me to see them feed off of one another's thoughts and ideas. That interaction seems to come much more easily for kids in K that have had it in preschool. I cannot comment past K because I never taught elem. There is also something to be said for learnig how to behave in a peer group in a structured setting, and adapting to a school climate before starting K. We worked on things like waiting your turn to talk, working together on a group project, ect. I just feel like these are good skills to have already been exposed to starting K. Every child is different, but I think that on the whole kids are better off for having been in a good preschool program.

It's interesting, because all along I've believed that Kindergarten is the place *to* learn those things. From one perspective the goal of Kindergarten is to teach children about independence, socialization and the school day, introduction of basic concepts in math, languages, following directions, etc. fall second in line and big things like addition and beginning reading fall well down the list.

It may be convenient to have a classroom full of children who have learned the ropes in preschool, but is it really necessary?

I understand your perspective, but I think you and I simply fall on opposite sides of the issue. I am glad there are early childhood educators out there like you who speak with such conviction and have such dedication. If I were to opt for a preschool program for my son, I would want someone like you as his teacher.

 

[Indiana Rose Lee]

I do, but I taught half day preK/K for 4 years while I was getting a second (chemistry) degree. My sister is also an early childhood.

I really don't think that those gains completely disappear. On a stadardized test satudents may level out, but if you look at things like study skills and concentration and focus in the classroom, kids who have preschool and are exposed to that kind of structure earlier tend to do better in those areas, at least in my experience. I personally feel that any exposure to learning that a child gets can only be of benefit to them. Knowledge is power and the more they can get, the better. I think it is =kind of cynical to think that parents only put their kids in school because it is more convinent for them. I think most parents truly want what is best for their kids.

Knowledge and early reading are two different animals. Knowledge can be gained from hearing books, taking walks, building, cutting, etc. Teaching babies to recognize words is merely to give mommy bragging rights. Nice way to use a kid.

 

[Indiana Rose Lee]

I do, but I taught half day preK/K for 4 years while I was getting a second (chemistry) degree. My sister is also an early childhood.

I really don't think that those gains completely disappear. On a stadardized test satudents may level out, but if you look at things like study skills and concentration and focus in the classroom, kids who have preschool and are exposed to that kind of structure earlier tend to do better in those areas, at least in my experience. I personally feel that any exposure to learning that a child gets can only be of benefit to them. Knowledge is power and the more they can get, the better. I think it is =kind of cynical to think that parents only put their kids in school because it is more convinent for them. I think most parents truly want what is best for their kids.

If head start had anything to prove that we'd have mandatory preschool. I've written grants for them. There is nothing to indicate that preschool benefits past 2nd grade.

 

[princessmom29]

Knowledge and early reading are two different animals. Knowledge can be gained from hearing books, taking walks, building, cutting, etc. Teaching babies to recognize words is merely to give mommy bragging rights. Nice way to use a kid.

For the record, I chimed in here NOT supporting teaching toddlers to read. Where did you get from my posts that I support teaching a kid to be a prrrot?? I am completely against that and thought I made that clear in my first post. Trying to teach and 18 month old to read by drilling them on it is silly and counterproductive. I think that learning to read, add ect is best left to K, but I do think they need to to be stimulated to learn at an early age, mostly through experience and play based learning, and that kids who have been exposed to a good preschool program outside the home have an advantage. Being in a classroom setting away from mom and gaining that independence is invaluble.

If head start had anything to prove that we'd have mandatory preschool. I've written grants for them. There is nothing to indicate that preschool benefits past 2nd grade.

I don't care for the way head start programs, at least the ones I have seen, are set up. I cannot speak to the nation as awhole but the programs I have toured locally were not something I would want to teach in or want my child to be a part of. Their focus is much more on rote instruction rather than inquiry based learning. They are focused on teaching 4 year olds and earlyer to sit in a desk and behave rather than instilling a lifelong love of learning and school in a child. It is more about how long can I get you to sit still and how much reading and math can I shove down your throat than instilling a love of learning. Head start and a well thought out effective preschool program are totaltally different things as far as I have seen. I would personally never place my child in any of the head start programs offerd locally becuase I don't think that thery go about things in anywhere approaching the right way. Even if all of the gains of a good preschool disappear by 2nd grade, isn't it still worth it if it makes getting to second grade a smoother process? There are 2 years in between preschool and the start of scond grade where that child will not be struggling when perhaps others are. Those two years go a long way toward shaping a child's atttitude toward school in general. I want my DD to see school as a place she enjoys being and to love learning new things. If being ready by going to preschool first can help achieve that, then why not send her? Eveyone is going to have a differnt opinion on this but I just don't see how a good preschool program can hurt a child, and if there is any chance it might help them, why not?

 

[princessmom29]

It's interesting, because all along I've believed that Kindergarten is the place *to* learn those things. From one perspective the goal of Kindergarten is to teach children about independence, socialization and the school day, introduction of basic concepts in math, languages, following directions, etc. fall second in line and big things like addition and beginning reading fall well down the list.

It may be convenient to have a classroom full of children who have learned the ropes in preschool, but is it really necessary?

I understand your perspective, but I think you and I simply fall on opposite sides of the issue. I am glad there are early childhood educators out there like you who speak with such conviction and have such dedication. If I were to opt for a preschool program for my son, I would want someone like you as his teacher.

K used to be where kids learned thes things, but now most K curricilums expect them to come in knowing all of that and ready to learn to read, write ect. We may not agree with it, but that is the way almost all public and most private K programs are structured now. They are not teaching how to wait in line to go to the batroom, or how to play nicely with others. Kids are expected to have those skills as well as recognizing all letters and thier sounds, count to ten, write their name, know colors, shapes ect. I know a lot of parents who don't like it and think K should be about these things, but the reality is that the vast majority of programs these days expect that children have had preschool when writing their curricilium. NCLB accountability has froced the hands of the public schools, and most private schools are having to teach more and more in K to keep up. I am not really sure how I feel about the changes that have taken place in K. Part of me says that children need to be challenged, but part of me says let them be kids. I think there needs to be a balance between the two somewhere along the way. I don't think 5 year olds should be taking standardized tests and getting numerical grades the first quarter of K(which is what our public schools do), but I also don't think K should be a glorified daycare where there in no structured instruction. I think kids in general are capable of far more at an early age than we as adults often give them credit for, but I think that it has to be presented in the right manner. My DD is in a private K becuase i do not agree with how the public schools here do things in early elementary. There is way too much focus on mastery of this or that skill as evidenced by this or that test. They are essentially teaching to the tests that the teachers are being measured by. Teachers hands are tied because they loose their jobs if the kids don't measure up to what the test says they should know. In our system there are quarterly CRT's as well as the once a year tests, even in K.