
How and Why I Taught My Toddler to Read (2010) - nkurz
http://larrysanger.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/How-and-Why-I-Taught-My-Toddler-to-Read.htm
======
ThomPete
Rule #1 of bringing up a child. There are no rules.

There is various insights, principles (praise effort, not results) and methods
that will help you guide your child through life but no silverbullet, not even
a rusty cannonball.

You can do all the right things and your kid gets in the wrong company, you
can do all the wrong things and your kid meets someone who influence them more
than you do.

My oldest kid is in 1st grade and read, write and calculates pretty well
(comparably to half way through 2nd class). He is in a charter school not
because we wanted that but because it ended up being the choice that made
sense. He thrives in the strict disciplined environment but who know perhaps
it's hindering his ability to think for himself. (we are considering moving
him to a more alternative school for the last half of his school life for that
reason)

My youngest kid is two and in pre-school he can count, the alphabet, can say
which letters and numbers are which.

Maybe this is a good thing for one and a bad thing for the other. Perhaps by
not being able to read yet the younger kid would have developed a different
perspective, perhaps their "own language" which would influence them later in
life. Perhaps it would be better for them to develop their body language than
their oral language. There are simply too many factors to even begin claiming
one thing is sure to work. Two kids brought up the exact same way can end up
being very different people.

All too often we think that children are concepts which we build up to a
succesful future, when in fact all they are, are projects we can manage to
stay out of the worst trouble.

~~~
ThrustVectoring
People want to be reassured that they're doing the "right thing", that what
they're doing is "correct" according to some external source of truth. It's no
surprise that there's this much counterproductive parenting advice (even
"praise effort, not results" is merely slightly less bad).

Anything other than "pay attention to the actual needs of the child" is
probably the wrong direction to go. Like, if you try to praise effort instead
of results, you're evaluating and judging things rather than searching for
their needs. Seriously, though, stop reading and trying to follow parenting
advice and pay attention to your goddamn child. Otherwise, you'll wind up
doing the "right thing", praise effort, and fail to meet your child's actual
needs until you've got a suicidal college student saying "well, it looks like
I just didn't try hard enough."

~~~
lfowles
> People want to be reassured that they're doing the "right thing", that what
> they're doing is "correct" according to some external source of truth

I think this somewhat boils down to being able to take advantage of others
experience. If you're the only person you know with a Macbook, would you feel
that you are able to take advice from everyone else with Windows desktops? (
Or maybe some poor analogy about tainted kernels and bug reporting :) )

~~~
ThrustVectoring
My point is that I expect to see parenting advice regardless of whether or not
it actually makes anything better. Similar things happen with nutrition -
administrators of schools, prisons, and other facilities want to have an
excuse for why they serve the food they serve. So, professional nutritional
advice is given regardless of whether or not nutritionists have any idea what
they're doing.

Agile is probably in the same boat with management techniques. Nobody knows
what works, and nobody wants to be blamed for doing things that don't work, so
there's a booming market in 'experts' that you can offload your judgment to.

Compare this with something like physics, writing, math, sales, or mixed
martial arts. It's much easier to tell what works and what doesn't, so there's
both less room and less demand for bullshit peddlers.

------
n0us
I had friends who learned how to read when they were toddlers and it had
literally no effect on them later in life other than that they were bored in
school until everyone else had the chance to learn who did not have their
parents expose them to this.

On the other hand I learned to read in kindergarten like most people but had
trouble reading until late in 1st grade when it "clicked" rather quickly and
from that point forwards I was reading a higher level than most of my
classmates until things evened out over the period of several years. My point
is that development happens at different paces for different people.

I would like to know if there are any pediatric studies on how this teaching
affects a child and if trying to make them learn too early could have negative
effects. Most parents just think "the earlier the better" because they can
then talk to other parents and say "did you know my kid is already reading." I
don't think this is necessarily a productive approach and when children are
not able to live up to their parent's expectations it can cause confidence
issues.

Edit: I also have read more of this now and the author makes the point that
children did not need to "re-learn" to read but from what I remember my
friends did in fact have to re-learn because they had learned to memorize
words, or read incorrectly some way or another so it was in fact more
difficult for them as they had already learned bad habits.

~~~
ngoel36
My parents taught me how to read and do some relatively complex math prior to
kindergarten - today I feel that I owe nearly all of my academic & career
success to that.

Of course, your first point is valid - this was only useful because I was
lucky enough to have amazing teachers who took the time to issue me a tailored
curriculum at a significantly higher level than my peers. I had teachers and
programs which allowed me to stay at a cutting edge until early high school
when these initiatives existed naturally (and I had the resources to explore
intellectually outside of school).

More than that, it gave me a ton of confidence as I found things easier than
my peers.

That's not to say that all of this didn't come at a cost - my social growth
was definitely stunted. Instead of playing sports I did homework, and instead
of sleepovers with friends I worked on school projects.

In the end, I wish I'd had a bit more balance, but I'm really glad I was lucky
enough to have the opportunities I did early. I truly believe our ability to
learn slows down every single day, and the early years are most formative.

~~~
Fordrus
I'm so torn on exactly what to do for my month-old firstborn kid. I love him
so much, I want to raise him with all possible advantages, but I don't want to
create a living death zombie student out him- I figure my best bet is just to
try and have fun. I know it might benefit him for me to discipline him into
playing violin at 3, learning to read by 2, soldering projects by
<unreasonably low age for electrical engineering here>, but I don't think I
could handle that if I were him, and I don't want to impose that on him.

But I DO have that plot- to show the way. To do interesting stuff and invite
him along. To keep my door open and try to tempt the poor tyke ever-so-subtly
into reading, programming, talking, laughing, telling jokes, and all the like.

We joke that he's going to discover sports and use them to rebel against me,
because I'm no good at most of them and can scarcely imagine something so
uninteresting as "Playing Catch"\- but if he's interested in it of himself,
I'll follow along- it's only fair if I'm trying to tempt him to follow in my
footsteps, that I allow him to guide me, too! I just- mean, I'm waxing all
peotic and shit here- I really just intend to interact with him about as much
as he'll let me, have as much fun as we can together, and when opportunities
arise (lazy summer days!!?!) - throw in some volcano making, some quark songs,
some amateur electrical engineering, some mod programming in there- I want so
much for the folks who says that "Play is the best education for a child" to
be right, that I reckon I'll give it a go. :D

For now, at a month old, that involves me talking to him just about endlessly-
telling him stories (mostly that I make up out of my head, he and I have made
some good ones so far!! :) ) and yammering about the news, the weather, the
holidays, philosophy, math, genetics, etc., and then listening when he makes
noises back and telling him how much I love to listen to the noises. :D

I don't know for sure if it will work out like I hope, but I'm willing to give
it a shot. Uh, will report back in 17 years? :D

~~~
scotty79
> I don't want to impose that on him

So don't. If you want him to learn violin you too should learn, show him how
fun it is so he can learn with you.

If you want you kid to learn soldering. Then have fun soldering for few hours
per week and let him be with you when you do that.

You don't have to (shouldn't?) force anything on your child. Children are
starving for fun and are willing to try anything they see you have fun with.

~~~
marklubi
> have fun soldering for few hours per week and let him be with you when you
> do that.

I just want to follow up and say that as a parent, you should do your best to
involve them in whatever it is that you're doing. If you're cooking, have them
help you measure things. If you're playing board games, let them move/place
the pieces for you. If it's something that they can't safely be involved with,
talk to them about what's going on.

Explain what you're doing along the way.

Involve them, and expose them, to a wide range of activities. Children's minds
can handle and process a lot more than most people give them credit for.

------
skrebbel
As a parent of a toddler and a baby, this article bothers me to bits.

The author somehow seems to implicitly assumes that being able to read as
early as possible is good, period. Younger == better. He has a huge "why"
chapter, where he debunks and defends all kinds of criticism he's gotten, but
I haven't been able to at all find the section where he simply describes _why
it 's a good idea_. Not why it's _not not_ a good idea, that's not good
enough. Why would I teach my children to read already?

There might be good reasons, but this author is so consumed with the "it's
possible! it's not harmful!" part of things that what should have been the
central argument is nearly entirely missing.

I mean, seriously, it's possible and it's not harmful? I can think of a _lot_
of things that are possible and not harmful but still wouldn't do with my
kids.

~~~
yummyfajitas
Because having more skills is good under virtually all circumstances? The
child can now read if the desire or need arises, and can choose not to read
under other circumstances.

~~~
feider
Really, more skills the better? I have 3yr old son and I've been reading to
him / teaching him to read only as much as he can concentrate while enjoying
it. It is really easy to be too pushy and have a child lost interest. The
skills does not matter nearly as much as the learning experiences. I rather
hope that he grows an interest in learning itself than teach him read under 4
of age and possible hating the experience.

~~~
tremon
Huh? Yes, the more skills the better. Your post doesn't exactly read as an
attack on that assumption, but as a criticism on the method of teaching.

I agree, both the learning experience and the acquired skills matter. What's
often overlooked is that every child develops at their own pace, and the
skills progression taught in schools is based on both normative ideals and
descriptive "modal" pace. Offering a child new material that they "should not
be learning yet" is not a crime, nor an offense to the child, nor a criticism
on other parenting methods (or other children, for that matter).

Not to mention that skills development doesn't occur across a single line. As
an example, a child of a friend of mine is now almost two years old, and still
vocalizes at most two syllables. Yet she's able to comprehend (and execute)
very complicated sentences and commands, in two languages. Still, she's now
officially labeled a "deficient" child, with all the counselling and
monitoring that that entails...

~~~
ThomPete
You need to define skills first and how deep you are talking about.

Someone who are good a at multitude of things but very superficially does not
make them more well rounded than one that practices on area more deeply. There
are many many many areas that seem to be simple to learn because you can do
them very quickly. But thats not what skills are about. Sure you can fake it,
but unless you tried to dig deeper into something and learn what it means to
learn then you aren't really going to be at a bigger advantage later on in
life.

The very act of going deeper into a specific skill is teaching you something
that just brushing over a wide area of skills isn't. In fact by going deeper
into some of the typical things kids learn you are more likely to be able to
also become better at others because you learn what it means to dig in rather
than brush over.

------
ScottBurson
I learned to read very early through nothing more than being read to. No
flashcards, no phonics, no refrigerator magnets. Of course the books my
parents started with had small words and lots of pictures, as appropriate for
a beginning reader, but they were not even explicitly trying to get me to read
-- they were just trying to stimulate my mind generally.

This is just one more anecdote, of course, but I think it's an interesting
contrast to Sanger's story. Because of my experience I am a little skeptical
of the whole phonics and sounding-out-words thing. While the connection
between sound and spelling is certainly not arbitrary, English is not exactly
phonetically spelled either. I suspect an excessive emphasis on phonics makes
it harder for kids to learn to spell.

But that's a quibble. I think it's great that Sanger has done this and would
encourage any parents so inclined to do similarly.

Edited to add: reading on, I come to this line:

 _Some critics say that, even if very small children of average or low
intelligence can memorize words, they’re just memorizing the overall shape of
the word—they aren’t sounding out the words or learning phonics, and so they
aren’t really reading._

By the logic of these critics, Chinese speakers never "really" learn to read!
Obviously, I quite disagree. I think recognition of the shape of the word is
very much reading, and makes one a better speller too.

------
kohanz
I'm fascinated by this essay because a lot of the activities described by the
author are what we have been doing with our 21-month old son. Not through any
concerted plan, but mostly because my wife and I love to read and that love
for books has been passed on to our son. I wouldn't say he "reads" yet and
he's not able to recite the full alphabet yet (we read a lot of books, but so
far I'm not into drilling him with flash cards and he's not on any screens
yet), but by comparison to his (daycare) peers, his vocabulary and
verbalization skills are significantly ahead and I believe these activities
are connected.

One of the most interesting developments from my point of view is that while
my son most enjoys sitting beside us to read a book together, lately he also
enjoys "reading" alone. To help us buy an extra half hour of sleep-in (he's
not a great sleeper AND an early riser) in the morning we will come to his
crib when he's calling for us and put a pile of board books in there. He will
then sit there for about half an hour (those of you with toddlers will know
that this kind of attention span is no small feat) and flip through them
quietly. By the time he's done, all of the books have been "read", multiple
times. Of course he's not "reading" the words, but I do believe he's reading
the books and in his mind reciting the words that he remembers from when we
read them to him.

To me, the above is just one example of how he keeps proving to me that there
is a lot more going on in the minds of our little ones than we often give them
credit for. I believe we (or at least myself) have a tendency to underestimate
the intelligence and capacity for learning that these little people have,
because we judge them based on their outputs, which lag behind their actual
learning by quite a bit.

~~~
magic_beans
Some of my earliest memories as a child revolve around "reading". I was deeply
drawn to one book in particular, a beautifully illustrated version of the
Twelve Dancing Princesses. I remember being overwhelmed by the many words, and
would instead look at the pictures, over and over, not necessarily trying to
read the words, but hearing them echoed in my head from when my mother read
them to me.

And then one day, as if by nowhere, I could read the words. I so clearly
remember that sense of discovery. It was such a delicious feeling. I STILL
remember the story and the pictures from that book to this day.

~~~
kohanz
Thank you for sharing this. Recently my wife and I have both lamented that
although this is a lovely stage of his life that we are thoroughly enjoying,
we are somewhat saddened by the thought that he will not remember much or any
of it (I certainly don't have any concrete memories from this early age).
Perhaps this is me again not giving the young brain enough credit. The fact
that you do remember something like this is heartening for me.

------
Luc
My son could read at age 3. We taught him the letters, and reading words came
rather easily from playing a Nintendo game. He was self-motivated.

It had one very important effect - teachers considered him to be among the
smartest of the class, which turned into a self-fulfilling prophecy, a
virtuous circle, at least for primary school.

~~~
J-dawg
This effect seems to be frighteningly powerful. Apparently professional
athletes are disproportionately more likely to be born in the 2nd half of the
school year [0]. They simply grow bigger and show athletic promise a few
months earlier than their peers, which leads to them being identified as
promising athletes.

It seems to be incredibly powerful to give a child a positive label in this
way. It also makes you wonder how many talented kids get left behind for the
opposite reason.

I guess I have a tendency to root for the underdog, but I think it should be
part of a teacher's job to consciously avoid falling victim to this effect.

I'm not saying this is what happened to your son - if he learned to read at 3
I'm sure he's pretty smart anyway. And if I ever have a child, I'll do
anything I can to give them an advantage. The education system, on the other
hand, should be aiming for fairness, not labeling kids as "smart" or "sporty"
while they're still in primary school.

[0]
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/18891749](http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/18891749)

~~~
frobozz
Yes, but remember that fairness should not be a Harrison Bergeron-style
equality, but that each child should have equal opportunity to fulfil their
potential in whatever avenues are appropriate for that child.

Holding back a child until the others have caught up is as much the antithesis
of fairness as giving an advanced child extra benefits at the expense of the
less advanced ones.

~~~
J-dawg
Firstly, thanks for introducing me to Harrison Bergeron. I'm looking forward
to reading it. I love HN for things like this.

> Holding back a child until the others have caught up is as much the
> antithesis of fairness as giving an advanced child extra benefits at the
> expense of the less advanced ones

I couldn't agree more, other then to say apportioning finite teaching
resources is a zero-sum game. If you give more attention to one kid (because
of their perceived intelligence or for any other reason) then you _are_
holding back another, whether you like it or not.

~~~
germinalphrase
And this is the core (if covert) problem with large class sizes. Not that a
teacher can't instruct 30 kids vs. 20 kids - but that 150 kids per semester
just leaves less time to interact with each student at a meaningful level.

------
Herodotus38
Thank you for posting this. I have been looking for a detailed personal
account of teaching a toddler to read for a while. My son is two and a half
and like this author, I have been trying to find out how to teach him to read.
A couple weeks ago I posted my own reflections on what I have been doing here:
[http://hmcscreening.blogspot.com/2015/12/on-teaching-
reading...](http://hmcscreening.blogspot.com/2015/12/on-teaching-reading.html)

I found it amazing how difficult it is to find scientific studies on how to
teach reading, in my post above I kind of go into how the US government funded
a large review of all the data in the late 1990s.

I think the most important thing is to just read to your child every day. My
son also knew the alphabet before the age of two, but I think this is no
different than teaching a child "dog" or "square" or "ball", they are all
abstracts to a degree. Also, learning the sounds of each letter was pretty
easy too. The hard part that we are against right now is putting it all
together: I can't consistently get him to sound out a simple word, even though
individually he knows what each letter does.

There have been some comments wondering about issues of myopia if one has
their child read. There is not a lot of conclusive evidence of what causes
myopia, but recently there was a good paper published in JAMA where they
randomized schools (this was in China), to enforce a certain amount of outdoor
time every day. Those kids who were in the outdoor groups had statistically
less myopia.

~~~
interpol_p
I have a toddler of similar age and, despite reading to him every day, I'm not
sure I care how early he learns to parse the symbols himself. He gets the
alphabet, and can sound out very few words, but I don't actively teach it
unless he shows interest.

I get especially frustrated with English because of all its exceptions and
inconsistencies. (E.g., his name starts with 'C' but is pronounced the same as
if it were 'K'. He knows that his breakfast 'Cereal' begins with the same
letter as his name, but why does it sound like 'S'?) It feels like a poor
system to encourage a child to learn when they could learn other things.

My delight in my child's learning comes from his ability to use and process
interesting communication. I loved seeing him develop an understanding of what
it is to "trick" somebody, learning how to synthesise an original story, to
attempt sarcasm, how to mash two words together to form a made-up word, or to
convey implicit information through pitch and speed of speech.

These are the little milestones that I actively try to teach, because each one
raises the quality of our communication together.

~~~
Herodotus38
I totally agree with you about English being a horrible language to try and
teach. Not to mention things like 'th' or 'sh' or heaven help us, "ph" sounds.
My hope is that if he can read independently, he can sooner start self-
directed learning. I agree with you that there is much more to enjoy and teach
than reading as an ends to itself, but the other things you mentioned, which
involve creativity and synthesis, are arguably more important. I feel like
nothing about education or learning is really well known, and we get one shot
in life. I'm going to try and do what I think best to try and make my toddler
a better person than me (whatever that means).

I think the important point in all of these kinds of essays is that they draw
parents who are invested in their children, which is probably what really
matters more than "I did Doman's method" or "I spent an hour with flashcards".

What I liked about this essay was the little glimpses into things that he
tried that I haven't thought of yet (like alphabet magnets to play with). Some
of the links he had to other people's blogs (especially one of the
homeschooled kids) made me cringe as it was such unabashed promotion of how
great their child was, and here is a picture of his graduation at their house:
the kid is by himself with his parents, no other children around. What kind of
life is that? What good is it to "create a genius", if that is even possible,
if they don't enjoy life?

------
scotty79
> I thoroughly acquainted him with the alphabet and got him used to the idea
> of sounding out words with refrigerator magnets. Next, I started showing him
> flashcards (words plus pictures) arranged into increasingly difficult
> phonetic groupings, in a systematic order. About the same time, we started
> watching Your Baby Can Read—I am glad that I was able to put aside my
> misgivings about the off-putting hype surrounding YBCR and Doman’s method.
> Both before and after the most intensive “teaching” period, when he was two,
> I read huge amounts to him, which he liked. After I started teaching him to
> read, I made a point of always running my finger under the text as I read to
> him. That sums up our method,

I had plastic letters I played with, with my mom. No flashcards I can recall.
No video. My mom read to me tons and tons (no finger running though). My
favorite stuff more times than anyone can count. Some SF too, although I'm not
sure how early. She bought me comic books but refused to read them for me.
Long story short. When I was about six and went to pre-school I remember
reading aloud one of my favorite short stories to group of other children.

------
cmarschner
Nature is quite fair in one respect: for every child on this planet a week has
168 hours. Spend time teaching your child reading and math, and some other
children will have learnt something else - climbing trees, using a bicycle,
making friends, showing empathy. Parents should think of the opportunity costs
when they push their kids into one direction only because they perceive a
certain extra value in that.

~~~
kalms
But doing it before bedtime, before a meal... I don't see the harm in that. My
daughters are genuinely interested in it and are looking forward to it. We
practice the words and pronunciation; practice different letters. And then
topped off with me reading a story.

They know a big part of the alphabet now. Didn't hurt them one bit. And
they're two.

On the other hand, my son isn't interested at all. So I don't force it on him.
I just read him a cool story about Iron Man & friends :-)

------
Illniyar
Followups:

[http://larrysanger.org/2014/03/report-on-the-boys-
march-2014...](http://larrysanger.org/2014/03/report-on-the-boys-march-2014/)

[http://larrysanger.org/2014/03/report-on-the-boys-
march-2014...](http://larrysanger.org/2014/03/report-on-the-boys-march-2014/)

[http://larrysanger.org/2013/04/brief-update-about-the-
boys/](http://larrysanger.org/2013/04/brief-update-about-the-boys/)

[http://larrysanger.org/2012/10/update-about-the-
boys-2/](http://larrysanger.org/2012/10/update-about-the-boys-2/)

After reading all of the really long article, I simply did not have time
reading these updates, so I don't know whats in them, but it does seem
relevant here.

------
ismail
An interesting read related to topic:

Finnish Kids Don't Learn To Read In Kindergarten. They Turn Out Great Anyway.

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/finland-schools-
kinderga...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/finland-schools-kindergarten-
literacy_560ece14e4b0af3706e0a60c)

~~~
maus42
Well, I would be wary of direct comparisons to English. Finnish is almost
fully phonetically spelled. No spelling bees. An average child will be quite
good reader and a mediocre writer after the first grade, many already before
the first Christmas holiday.

------
J-dawg
I must confess that I haven't read the whole site, but there doesn't seem to
be any mention of the possible effect on the child's eyesight. There is
_probably_ some causative link between the amount of close work you do and
your chance of developing myopia.

As someone with myopia myself, I know there's already a genetic risk. I'm not
sure whether I'd want to exacerbate that risk by pushing the child to do lots
of close work from a very young age.

Getting a kid into adulthood with perfect or near-perfect eyesight could well
be a greater gift than helping them be an academic superstar. But who knows?
When you have kids, do you lie awake at night thinking about this stuff? I
guess if this thread is teaching me anything, it's that my indecisiveness
would make me a pretty terrible parent.

~~~
hawkice
> Getting a kid into adulthood with perfect or near-perfect eyesight could
> well be a greater gift than helping them be an academic superstar.

Isn't there a widely available patch for low-$X00, and a permanent fix in
adulthood for not much more than that? People spend 100x that much money on
e.g. private schools, which are only a partial attempt to get closer to
academic superstardom, not a 100% effective way to get perfect, like the
treatments for myopia.

~~~
J-dawg
I don't think myopia is something to be trivialised. As a shy teenager I hated
wearing glasses. Contacts aren't for everyone, and if by permanent fix you
mean LASIK then well, you're braver than me.

------
jostylr
As counterpoint, A Thousand Rivers goes the opposite way:
[http://schoolingtheworld.org/a-thousand-
rivers/](http://schoolingtheworld.org/a-thousand-rivers/)

I also find it interesting that Larry Sanger's latest post is about the loss
of democracy and freedom in the USA. My view, based on Sudbury model of
schooling, is that true, vibrant democracy comes from a life lived in a self-
governing community.

A link on such things:
[http://www.educationfutures.org/Respect.htm](http://www.educationfutures.org/Respect.htm)

An excerpt of that on the basic philosophical treatment of children:

> The root ideas of a democratic education are as simple as they are radical:
> children should be accorded the same human rights and freedoms as adults;
> they should be granted responsibility for the conduct of their affairs; and
> they should be full participants in the life of their community. Democratic
> schools provide an environment where children can live their formative years
> in exactly the same manner as they will live out their mature years--as free
> citizens of a society devoted to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
> happiness. The world these children will inhabit as adults will be a
> familiar one, a world that has been part and parcel of their childhood.

~~~
dsfsdfd
"The world these children will inhabit as adults will be a familiar one, a
world that has been part and parcel of their childhood."

The adult world does not live up to this ideal - at all.

~~~
jostylr
That's sad and is the whole point of treating children with respect as human
beings instead of machines that need programming to fulfill the function
designated to them by their creators.

------
JackFr
It's difficult to get the science right, because controls are difficult to
come by.

In TFA, he refers to two important longitudinal studies which indicate that
there is a persistent positive effect between early readers and non-early
readers. I have not read those studies, but I can't help but wonder how well
they controlled for confounding factors.

That is, that early reading is an effect or rather evidence, of their long run
aptitude in school. That if the early readers were compared not just with the
general population, but with students who were not early readers but had the
same income levels, parental education level, family structure, etc.

He also claims without evidence that any child can be taught to read at an
early age. But it sounds like in his sample N=2. If there is evidence where a
random sample (rather than a self selecting sample, which would introduce
bias) of children are taught reading early and have a persistent benefit I
would like to see it.

That being said, good for him,and good for him to recommend this to others. It
seems clear that his children seem happy, well-adjusted and achieving their
academic potential. Given his personal experience, why wouldn't he share it?
But I don't think the evidence is there to claim this is universal.

------
moosey
I've read that introducing your children to more vocabulary is really valuable
(a good starting point: [http://literacy.rice.edu/thirty-million-word-
gap](http://literacy.rice.edu/thirty-million-word-gap)). Given this, instead
of aggressively teaching my next child how to read, I plan on spending more
time reading works that I can understand to them. The author kept on
mentioning 'decoding' rather than 'understanding', and it is possible that
understanding at an early age is more important than decoding.

My first child was reading pretty early, but only developed good comprehension
recently (age 11-12). Despite the fact that they could read rapidly and
clearly out loud without pauses, they were missing the meaning of what they
were reading. I don't know how to avoid this, but I'm hoping that simply
introducing more words early on will help to alleviate this problem.

Raising children well is hard. There are lots of wrong ways, but also many
right ways. I constantly worry that I'm setting up my child for years of
therapy or failure.

------
jtheory
I haven't properly read most of his material yet, but one thing that may be
relevant for some children -- kids manage emotion, questions of agency and
fairness, differently when they're younger.

My wife and I taught our eldest daughter to read starting around 3 or so (not
as young as in this article, but still on the early side). She's now 6, and
quite good at sounding out any words she doesn't know, but sometimes gets
really furious at the spelling of many English words. She wants rules that she
can apply consistently, and (of course) English just... doesn't have those.

Present vs. past tense of "read", anyone? Lead (plumbum) vs. lead (guide) vs.
led? Even words like "Once" and "only" can get her to scowl (she knows how
"on" is pronounced... you've only added an "s" or "ly" sound to the end!)

It's a source of tension, because she'd rather believe we're wrong than accept
that the language is so sadly inconsistent. :/

------
spdionis
I jumped straight to second grade at the age of six because I already read
fluently (in two alphabets, learnt the first at age 4, the second at age 5),
could write ok and math was easy to me. I remember being bored in
kindergarten. I think my grandma taught me how to read but i don't remember
well. My parents say I was always playing with their books.

I remember I could easily read single words but not whole texts until I had
some kind of revelation one day. Then I started to read texts as well and fast
as any adult.

Having already read tens of books (it was my favorite activity, before I got a
playstation) before getting to school I had a clear advantage that remained
until high school. I didn't turn out a bookworm, although I have always been
TERRIBLE at sports (who cares...).

I strongly believe that having a child in constant contact with books at an
early age (you don't even need to be there) will help him develop better on
the intellectual side.

------
steven2012
I would love a follow up from the author on whether or not it made any actual
difference. My bet is that it probably didn't, but I can't think that the
article wouldn't be biased since he obviously thinks that his son is gifted.

~~~
Illniyar
From the site: "

UPDATE 2 (Oct. 3, 2011): my son is now five years old. He is now reading daily
on his own, and has read himself a couple dozen chapter books, including The
Story of the World, Vol. 1: The Ancient World (314 pgs.).

UPDATE 3 (Dec. 16, 2012): at six, my son switches between “serious” literature
which he reads with a dictionary app, including Treasure Island, Tom Sawyer,
and The Secret Garden, and easier literature including Beverly Cleary books,
the Hardy Boys, and Encyclopedia Brown. If his answers to regular
comprehension questions are any indication, he’s understanding what he reads
pretty well.

UPDATE 4 (Mar. 26, 2013): I’m delighted to report that my second son,
following methods similar to those I used with my first, is now 2.5 years old
and reading at a first grade level.

UPDATE 5 (Aug. 25, 2014): my second is following in his brother’s footsteps,
reading a version of the Odyssey (he’s crazy about Greek mythology—go figure)
at age 3.5: "

------
vitro
As a parent of a toddler, I am considering teaching my kid the music instead.
There has been interesting HN discussion about that here:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9067377](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9067377)

In a way it also contains reading skills but also develops the kid's emotions
(books as well, you could argue), sensitivity, coordination, patience and
perseverance.. Book reading is kind of lone activity, while in music you learn
to listen, cooperate with others.. Seems to me that it develops the human
being in a more wholesome way.

------
z3t4
If you want to make your kids smarter, read books/stories with them! It will
make them better at understanding the context, making them better readers when
they get older.

------
ericssmith
Just to weigh in here, since I also taught both of my kids to read at an early
age. I also taught them arithmetic early.

The biggest win is confidence about learning. This was particularly meaningful
when they got into more "competitive" environments, by which I mean first
grade where kids are expected to perform in front of their peers. When I tell
my kids that just because they have trouble with something in school, that
doesn't mean they aren't good at learning or at the subjects, they believe me
because they have succeeded at both reading and math outside of that setting.

I believe kids are capable of a lot more than they are supported on. The
trick, in my view, is to constantly know where that boundary is.

Both reading and math have notions of basic mechanical skills and meaning. My
kids weren't great at the meaning part until they were over 6. But they both
excelled at the mechanics part early. As an example, early on they learned to
add by counting up. But later I was able to replace this with "tricks" (aka
"math thinking"). A example is adding 9 to a number. Adding by counting is
tedious and prone to mistakes. But if you've learned to add 10, then it is
always one less. Similarly, since addition commutes, instead of 2 + 8, change
it around to 8+2, which is easier and quicker. Both of my kids have embraced
this approach to math of learning the shortcuts, which is actually where they
get to experience the patterns and relationships that make math fun and
interesting. When I showed them how the digits in multiples of 9 always add to
9, they were astounded. And then I showed them how the digits in multiples of
8 add up to a descending, and repeating "countdown" pattern. Wow. My daughter
(who just turned 8) knows a bunch of these insights into the behavior of
numbers and operations on them, and confidently says "I'm good at math"
despite obviously struggling in other areas (gym, music, art) relative to her
peers.

My son reads Junie B. Jones quietly to himself and bursts out laughing. He has
discovered the meaning part. And when my daughter got a book about feelings,
she finally discovered the power and relevance of reading.

Incidentally, my kids spend about 40 minutes on reading and math in the
evening. They get roughly 2 1/2 hours to do other things between school and
dinner. There isn't an opportunity cost.

------
toolslive
My sons were 4 when they wanted to learn how to read from their older sister
(7 at the time). I diverted their attention and learned them how to play chess
instead (anything that's not taught in primary school would do).

The reason was this: if they can read before primary school, they will
certainly be bored out of their minds, and would be detrimental to their
school experience.

Today, I still think it was the right thing to do.

~~~
murbard2
I'm not a typical case but...

I learned to read before primary school, I was bored out of my mind. The
school offered to make me skip a class, my parents declined because they
thought being too young would be detrimental to my school experience.

Knowing me, that was a mistake. To this day, I regret not being put through an
accelerated curriculum, or at least being taken out of school and given a
chance to spend that time learning on my own.

Overall, despite being bored in primary school, I am still glad I learned
before, as it afforded me the opportunity to learn more things by reading on
my own, and it protected me from the general poor quality of reading education
in school.

------
grayclhn
It seems like the author only has one child, at least from the very beginning
of the essay. I'd be interested in reading a revised version after raising a
second or third child.

I thought I had a lot of control over my daughter's development when it was
just her.... not so much after her two very different siblings. :)

------
Retr0spectrum
PDF version, with better formatting: [http://larrysanger.org/wp-
content/uploads/2010/12/How-and-Wh...](http://larrysanger.org/wp-
content/uploads/2010/12/How-and-Why-I-Taught-My-Toddler-to-Read.pdf)

------
chris_wot
For those who don't know, Larry Sanger was instrumental in setting up
Wikipedia with Jimmy Wales. There's quite a lot of controversy over who
_founded_ Wikipedia, but nobody can deny Larry was one of the earliest members
of the project.

------
guidedlight
What about the perception that greatly advancing your toddler's learning
before they start school, may mean your child will be placed into an education
system that simply isn't designed to cater for them?

~~~
gliese1337
I feel like that was addressed, in bits and pieces. If you're worried about
your kid ending up "abnormal" or "out of place"... well, yeah, they will. But
the author (and myself) have no problem with "abnormal". "Normal" is not
necessarily _good_. He does say that he's worried about _boredom_ (and again,
I agree), but that is much more easily fixed by looking for teachers or
special programs that can cater to the child's needs, maybe skipping grades...
or, if that fails, continuing to enrich your child's education yourself.

------
daljeetv
Anne Fernald (Stanford) has done some really impressive research on talking to
children and how that affects how well they do in school.
([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpHwJyjm7rM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpHwJyjm7rM))

------
otabdeveloper1
Where I live, a child who enters first grade without knowing how to read is an
abnormality.

In fact, the school system assumes that any child who enters first grade
already has the basics of literacy and numeracy -- a child who doesn't know
how to read will probably be channeled to a special class for
slow/disadvantaged kids.

This seems like a cultural quirk and doesn't appear to make people smarter in
the long run, however.

~~~
skrebbel
Interesting! And where would that be?

------
known
Tell toddler to teach you;

