Via Annie Murphy Paul, a study
indicates that learning to read later (e.g., 7 years old versus 4 years old) does not make learning to read faster. Who’da thunk it?
Steiner schools, called also Valdorf schools are based on different concepts. Besides later reading they say that the most important thing is to have a good teacher. In my region, they really have the very best teachers. These schools are like another country.
So, the comparison is not only among the early and late readers. The comparison is between the pupils of random teachers and best teachers. I think, this is an unprofessional study.
There are other possibilities to compare early and late readers. For example, in my region children must start to read at 7 but many are reading at 5 - 6. Than they go to the same schools. Nobody is studying them.
My Aunty sends her daughter to a Steiner school and Steiner is very very different curriculum to a traditional school system. In a Steiner school the children keep the same teacher for the whole duration of primary school k-7 as in a traditional school children change teacher every year so reading instruction from the teacher will change even if they are following a national curriculum. So I am not sure if that would have an effect on reading and reading pace.
I don’t really know if the study is comparitable when the curriculums are so different and even the way reading is taught is different.I think the study to be a fair and equitable study I think the only way you can compare is to do a study and on traditional schooloed children where one group is taught at 4 and the other group is taught at 7 but getting parents to agree to that study would be another thing??
In Valdorf schools,
“In early childhood learning is largely experiential, imitative and sensory-based.[22] The education emphasizes learning through practical activities.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldorf_education
Children are preparing for reading all the time but with another methods.
Similar discussion was here
http://forum.brillkids.com/teaching-your-child-math/article-on-the-case-against-teaching-math/
Some children did not learn math in a traditional way but at the same time they did something what can be considered a much better math education for this age.
And in general, I want to say something about the studies on early education.
(This is a first time I say it but I am thinking about it for years, since I am in Brillkids.)
There are several studies who say that some early skills are predictors of later success. Like this
http://udel.edu/~njordan/Jordan_Developmental%20Psychology.pdf
Researchers do not consider that some children have parents who spend a lot of time teaching their children. And these parents who were good parents for 4 years old (for early readers, for example), they continue to be good parents in continuing years. These parents continue to encourage the education of their children and may be that is the reason of later “academic success”. Who can partition these two factors?
In general though the pace of learning slows with age - and we see this very clearly when trying to teach someone older how to use all the new technology we have now - give it to a three year old and they have it figiured out pretty quickly. I would imagine the same thing happens with reading - it takes illiterate adults learning to read longer than it would take a child (and an adult probably puts in more effort than the child as the motivation is generally higher and also they have chosen to learn this themselves rather than having it forced on them as a child does) The ONLY difference I would say that might slow down the younger child (4 year old rather than a 7 year old) is that in general the 4 year old must start with letter sounds which we would hope the 7 year old already knows and you would also expect a 7 year old to have a larger starting vocabulary than a 4 year old. I imagine that there may be some other factors evening up the pace too - as in general a 4 year old should be memorising and able to apply rules faster than a 7 year old. (That is my opinion)
In Joan Beck’s book “How to Raise a Brighter Child” she says that learning to read earlier is better because young children tend to enjoy the repetition that is required to learn. Young kids often love to sing the alphabet over and over or practice counting to 100. Older children tend to dislike a lot of repetition. The basics of reading and math are probably more easily learned by younger children.
As for this study, I’m not sure why the differences in the types of schools would somehow make the results questionable. The study was looking at a simple question. Did 7 year olds progress at a faster rate in learning to read than 4 year olds? As long as you are comparing similar populations (economically and so on), I don’t think different styles of teaching would be a huge issue. I don’t know the philosophy behind the Steiner model but I assume it is probably along the lines that later learning is better. This study shows that the pace of learning isn’t any faster and there is a small spelling disadvantage among the later readers.
It would be interesting to see studies that compare reading abilities of Steiner and state school kids at the same grade level. It should be of some concern that the reading abilities of 9 year old Steiner kids are at the same level as 6 year olds in state schools. I would be curious to know if that disparity in ability persists into later grades.