Early Poor Readers Remain Poor Readers

[Garrette]

A thread about Bill Cosby's remarks about African-Americans and their culture of romanticizing underachievement sparked a side issue about reading development.

I made the claim that research shows that those who read poorly in the first grade remain poor readers as they grow up. A couple of people disagreed with me, pointing to themselves as counterexamples. Aside from the fact that anecdotes do not constitute counter-evidence, I had not intended to claim 100%, but only the statistically signifcant amount the studies claimed.

I promised to find the studies and post a new thread, so this is it.

Bit of background: I do not claim expert knowledge on this subject or these studies. My wife is writing her dissertation for a PhD in Early Childhood Education, and I frequently help in proofreading, soundboarding, filing, etc. In that role, I have been exposed to quite a bit of her work but of course have not studied it to the same depth she has.

When I asked this weekend if I were representing the studies accurately, she agreed that I was, with the proviso that the studies actually only demonstrate continued poor readership through fourth grade and not through adulthood.

The seminal study is by Juel (1988).

Here is the abstract:

Reading and writing development of 54 children from grade one through four was studied. Poor first-grade readers almost invariably were poor readers at completion of grade four. Poor readers tended to become poor writers. Early writing skill did not predict later ability as well as did early reading ability. (SLD)

A supportive study is Bagdar, Brooks-Gunn, & Furstenberg (1993), but I cannot find a link.

Does anyone agree or disagree? And is anyone aware of further studies on this topic?

 

[ponderingturtle]

I take issue that it stopped in fourth grade and the idea that at fourth grade reading and writing ability are at least proportionately established.

How effective was reading ability in first and fourth grades at determining reading ability at high school graduation? High school graduation being chosen as a example of later ability in life.

 

[Garrette]

I take issue that it stopped in fourth grade and the idea that at fourth grade reading and writing ability are at least proportionately established.

How effective was reading ability in first and fourth grades at determining reading ability at high school graduation?

I don't know.

High school graduation being chosen as a example of later ability in life.

Source?

 

[Garrette]

But how many of them change later?

No idea.

I was a poor reader in first through fourth grades, but later became a better reader.

I refer you, again, to the facts that anecdotes do not make counterexamples and the claim is not that it is 100% true.

This would seem to violate rules of brain function in catagory 3.

I've no idea what Rules you refer to or what Category 3 is.

 

[fuelair]

No idea.

I refer you, again, to the facts that anecdotes do not make counterexamples and the claim is not that it is 100% true.

I've no idea what Rules you refer to or what Category 3 is.

Clearly I cannot guarantee this - but if not, there is an interesting coincidence. In my response to the first anecdotes on your previous post I made 4 points. Point 3 was about the research - which Florida education lives by - which says if children cannot read "well" by the age of 9, the proper brain/neural pathways will never develop and they will never read well enough to "read for learning". At that point, the chance that they will successfully pass the FCAT and graduate (from a public school - private schools are "mysteriously" exempted) is vanishingly close to zero.

 

[Garrette]

Clearly I cannot guarantee this - but if not, there is an interesting coincidence. In my response to the first anecdotes on your previous post I made 4 points. Point 3 was about the research - which Florida education lives by - which says if children cannot read "well" by the age of 9, the proper brain/neural pathways will never develop and they will never read well enough to "read for learning". At that point, the chance that they will successfully pass the FCAT and graduate (from a public school - private schools are "mysteriously" exempted) is vanishingly close to zero.

That helps. Sorry I missed it in the other thread. That's interesting. My wife works in a lab at the University of Louisville that does brain research; she has become quite adept at putting 256 node ERPs on small children. The people who run the lab and developed the neural nets (the ERPs) have demonstrated that they can predict future dyslexia with about 87% accuracy (iirc) simply by checking the brainwaves of infants.

Back to the topic at hand, though, it seems ponderingturtle is still taking issue with the claim if it's made as 100%. I don't know about the Florida research, but the research I have cited makes no such claim.

 

[fuelair]

That helps. Sorry I missed it in the other thread. That's interesting. My wife works in a lab at the University of Louisville that does brain research; she has become quite adept at putting 256 node ERPs on small children. The people who run the lab and developed the neural nets (the ERPs) have demonstrated that they can predict future dyslexia with about 87% accuracy (iirc) simply by checking the brainwaves of infants.

Back to the topic at hand, though, it seems ponderingturtle is still taking issue with the claim if it's made as 100%. I don't know about the Florida research, but the research I have cited makes no such claim.

The research isn't (as far as I know) from Florida - it is just quoted over and over in Florida newspapers and by Florida school boards as the reason that Florida 3rd graders must be proficient at reading by the time they take the FCAT reading test in 3rd grade or they do not move to 4th grade - because if they are not proficient by then they wil not ever..............etc. (as in previous). [Interestingly, the state requires that districts work hard with reviewing the students who have not passed FCAT reading on reading - to get them to raise scores/pass FCAT - even though the quoted research says this can't occur!] {FCAT reading, to shorten, is largely non-fiction passages which must be examined, interpretated , used to build data, etc. - i.e. used/read to learn from}
Technically, we have been given no real source of the research though I originally heard it earlier than Floridas' use when I was researching the literature on brain-based learning and the development of pathways - particularly the window of opportunity for building them. The implication would be that some people either have a longer window OR that there are situations that can cause a different path development. That (either) is sheer speculation , though.

 

[Beth]

I don't have any studies at hand, but here is some personal experience for what it's worth:

We homeschool our children. Further, we follow a philosophy known as 'child-led learning'. That means, we try not to push schedules and curriculum on our children, but instead build on their own interests. Since basics are just that, basics, no matter where their interests lie, they will eventually need to know how to read, do math, etc.

Our daughter was a late reader (it turned out her father was also) and did not learn to read until age 9 - considerably behind what is considered appropriate then or today (she's 19 now). We were quite concerned about this when she was younger, but as I researched the ways homeschoolers dealt with this problem one unexpected fact came up repeatedl: for homeschoolers, the age they learned to read at made no difference in their eventual success in reading or other acedemics. Essentially, what typically occurred (and did eventually occur with our daughter) is that once they decide to learn to read, they reading ability progresses rapidly and they catch up with or exceed their schooled peers within about a year.

However, with schooled children, since so much of the curriculum is designed assuming a certain level of reading ability, if a child is behind in reading ability, they will fall behind in all other subjects. With homeschooled children, if a child is not reading, the parents simply help them learn in other ways and thus, they need not fall behind in other subjects. Certainly this was true with our daughter.

So, while the studies may well indicate that schooled children suffer long-term as a result of late reading, my opinion is that such a finding is indicates a failure of the school system to adequately adjust to the individual needs of the children rather than an indication that it is supremely important for every child to be reading by a certain age. I see the problem as not that such children cannot 'catch up' with reading later, but that within our currently educational system such children must inevitably fall behind in other subjects as well due to being late readers.

 

[Garrette]

I don't have any studies at hand, but here is some personal experience for what it's worth:

We homeschool our children. Further, we follow a philosophy known as 'child-led learning'. That means, we try not to push schedules and curriculum on our children, but instead build on their own interests. Since basics are just that, basics, no matter where their interests lie, they will eventually need to know how to read, do math, etc.

Our daughter was a late reader (it turned out her father was also) and did not learn to read until age 9 - considerably behind what is considered appropriate then or today (she's 19 now). We were quite concerned about this when she was younger, but as I researched the ways homeschoolers dealt with this problem one unexpected fact came up repeatedl: for homeschoolers, the age they learned to read at made no difference in their eventual success in reading or other acedemics. Essentially, what typically occurred (and did eventually occur with our daughter) is that once they decide to learn to read, they reading ability progresses rapidly and they catch up with or exceed their schooled peers within about a year.

However, with schooled children, since so much of the curriculum is designed assuming a certain level of reading ability, if a child is behind in reading ability, they will fall behind in all other subjects. With homeschooled children, if a child is not reading, the parents simply help them learn in other ways and thus, they need not fall behind in other subjects. Certainly this was true with our daughter.

So, while the studies may well indicate that schooled children suffer long-term as a result of late reading, my opinion is that such a finding is indicates a failure of the school system to adequately adjust to the individual needs of the children rather than an indication that it is supremely important for every child to be reading by a certain age. I see the problem as not that such children cannot 'catch up' with reading later, but that within our currently educational system such children must inevitably fall behind in other subjects as well due to being late readers.

Please remember Garrette's Law:

No anecdote in opposition to the claim defended by Garrette shall be allowed into evidence. All anecdotes in support, shall.

Ahem.

Interesting. A study along those lines (the importance of individualization) would be intriguing.. The idea that Juel's studies merely point out failings in the school system is an intriguing hypothesis.

An alternative hypothesis might be that the neural pathways necessary for reading development are stimulated with other, individualized instruction in home-schooled children but the instruction in formal schooling is not individualized enough to do that. In either case, stimulation/development of the neural pathways is the determinant to later ability.

But I'm speculating from the layman's bench.

 

[Hardenbergh]

I think it's very important to learn reading skills in the lower grades. I was very fortunate to have excellent teachers. I feel that I was able to read as well in the 4th, 5th & 6th grade as I did in high school.

A child's reading skill at the end of grade three is a better predictor of later school success that any other variable, including family income, ethnic background and home language (L.F. Carter, 1988).

http://educ.ubc.ca/research/vsbliteracy/about/intervention.shtml

This article "Beyond Grade Three" seems to differ with the theory in the first quote:

Reading well at grade three level does not ensure school success. Children still have a lot to learn about reading in the middle school and secondary grades. They need to learn to process the much more challenging texts they will encounter, with their denser grammar, unfamiliar words, and complex ideas. They need to learn how to learn from reading–as well as how to be critical of what they read. Unfortunately, the knowledge base for how to teach children the comprehension and analysis skills they will need to read their social science, math, and science texts is inadequate. Many children read pretty well at the end of grade three, but encounter real difficulties in the higher grades because the task of reading to learn is so different from the task of learning to read.

http://www.gse.harvard.edu/~snow/Aspen_snow.html

 

[Mephisto]

I think I would concur with your wife's assertions, Garrette.

I believe that if a child's interest isn't sparked by reading within the first three grades at school, he's likely to excel (hopefully) elsewhere. I know that anecdotal evidence isn't evidence at all, but by 7th grade I had read (and discussed) all of Edgar Allen Poe's work with several teachers and could read 700 wpm - which I'm told was astounding at that age.

I also indirectly credit my parents for my reading penchant. They were strict disciplinarians and confined me to my room with nothing to do but read. I was an inordinately boisterous kid so I spent quite a bit of time being punished, and consequently, reading.

Thanks for following up on your previous thread. I thought it was a very interesting subject.

(edited to add) Kudos to your wife too - education has got to be the most frustrating career field to enter. I'm glad that someone considers it worthy enough to obtain a Ph.D.

 

[Garrette]

I think I would concur with your wife's assertions, Garrette.

I believe that if a child's interest isn't sparked by reading within the first three grades at school, he's likely to excel (hopefully) elsewhere. I know that anecdotal evidence isn't evidence at all, but by 7th grade I had read (and discussed) all of Edgar Allen Poe's work with several teachers and could read 700 wpm - which I'm told was astounding at that age.

I also indirectly credit my parents for my reading penchant. They were strict disciplinarians and confined me to my room with nothing to do but read. I was an inordinately boisterous kid so I spent quite a bit of time being punished, and consequently, reading.

Thanks for following up on your previous thread. I thought it was a very interesting subject.

(edited to add) Kudos to your wife too - education has got to be the most frustrating career field to enter. I'm glad that someone considers it worthy enough to obtain a Ph.D.

Thanks Mephisto. Sorry I don't have the knowledge base to really discuss it further, but at least it's out there now, and Beth has provided some interesting food for thought.

(Hardenbergh, too; I don't mean to ignore anyone's input).

Regarding reading precociousness, I exhibited it, too, though I can't claim having read all of Poe's work by the 7th grade. I always enjoyed literature classes more than the math and engineering classes I took, but nearly always scored higher grades in math and engineering. I (egotistically) consider the reason to be that I knew more about the literature topics than most of my instructors and so they couldn't grade me realistically.

All three of my children are very good readers, though my middle child doesn't like to do it unless it's Manga (he's still very good at it when he does it).

My oldest child, who is 15, is genetically incapable of surviving five minutes without something to read in his hand. I read fast (I don't know the wpm) but he reads about four times as fast. Finishing 300 page books in a day is easy for him, and he retains it.

I have to push him to get him to include the occasional heavier tome, though, as opposed to all the lightweight stuff he reads. (He's finishing all the Terry Pratchett novels now).

You don't know cognitive dissonance as a parent until you consider punishing your son's misdeeds by prohibiting him reading for a weekend...

 

[Beth]

Please remember Garrette's Law:

No anecdote in opposition to the claim defended by Garrette shall be allowed into evidence. All anecdotes in support, shall.

Ahem.

Interesting. A study along those lines (the importance of individualization) would be intriguing.. The idea that Juel's studies merely point out failings in the school system is an intriguing hypothesis.

An alternative hypothesis might be that the neural pathways necessary for reading development are stimulated with other, individualized instruction in home-schooled children but the instruction in formal schooling is not individualized enough to do that. In either case, stimulation/development of the neural pathways is the determinant to later ability.

But I'm speculating from the layman's bench.

It's an interesting area to study. I don't know about the neural pathways stuff, but it was quite an eye-opener (and a great relief!) for me to discover that homeschooled kids didn't seem to suffer any adverse long-term effects due to being late readers.

I wish I could direct you to some studies on it, but I don't know that there are any formal ones available. At least, when I was researching it, all I could find were anecdotal evidence, but ALL of the acendotal evidence I found on homeschoolers indicated that they did not suffer as a result of delayed reading and there was quite a bit of speculation that pushing children to read before they were ready was actually detrimental to the development of that skill.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I don't know.


Source?

I have no idea if such a study would be done, but first to fourth grades does not seem to be very longitudinal of long term ability unless you accept that reading ability is largely locked in place at 4th grade.

 

[ponderingturtle]

No idea.

I refer you, again, to the facts that anecdotes do not make counterexamples and the claim is not that it is 100% true.

I've no idea what Rules you refer to or what Category 3 is.

Category three was your part in the other thread where you listed them in order, three was the claim that by neuro biology reading ability was largely locked into place by 4th grade.

 

[ponderingturtle]

That helps. Sorry I missed it in the other thread. That's interesting. My wife works in a lab at the University of Louisville that does brain research; she has become quite adept at putting 256 node ERPs on small children. The people who run the lab and developed the neural nets (the ERPs) have demonstrated that they can predict future dyslexia with about 87% accuracy (iirc) simply by checking the brainwaves of infants.

Back to the topic at hand, though, it seems ponderingturtle is still taking issue with the claim if it's made as 100%. I don't know about the Florida research, but the research I have cited makes no such claim.

No you never listed any confience interval, so any positive correlation supports your claims no matter how weak.

 

[ponderingturtle]

The research isn't (as far as I know) from Florida - it is just quoted over and over in Florida newspapers and by Florida school boards as the reason that Florida 3rd graders must be proficient at reading by the time they take the FCAT reading test in 3rd grade or they do not move to 4th grade - because if they are not proficient by then they wil not ever..............etc. (as in previous). [Interestingly, the state requires that districts work hard with reviewing the students who have not passed FCAT reading on reading - to get them to raise scores/pass FCAT - even though the quoted research says this can't occur!] {FCAT reading, to shorten, is largely non-fiction passages which must be examined, interpretated , used to build data, etc. - i.e. used/read to learn from}

And this is why I take exception to such claims. I would have been held back likely for 2 years, even though in high school I was an honors student and advanced in most classes except English.

Now mabey I am a statistical aberation, but this learning pattern seems to run in my family.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I don't have any studies at hand, but here is some personal experience for what it's worth:

We homeschool our children. Further, we follow a philosophy known as 'child-led learning'. That means, we try not to push schedules and curriculum on our children, but instead build on their own interests. Since basics are just that, basics, no matter where their interests lie, they will eventually need to know how to read, do math, etc.

Our daughter was a late reader (it turned out her father was also) and did not learn to read until age 9 - considerably behind what is considered appropriate then or today (she's 19 now). We were quite concerned about this when she was younger, but as I researched the ways homeschoolers dealt with this problem one unexpected fact came up repeatedl: for homeschoolers, the age they learned to read at made no difference in their eventual success in reading or other acedemics. Essentially, what typically occurred (and did eventually occur with our daughter) is that once they decide to learn to read, they reading ability progresses rapidly and they catch up with or exceed their schooled peers within about a year.

However, with schooled children, since so much of the curriculum is designed assuming a certain level of reading ability, if a child is behind in reading ability, they will fall behind in all other subjects. With homeschooled children, if a child is not reading, the parents simply help them learn in other ways and thus, they need not fall behind in other subjects. Certainly this was true with our daughter.

So, while the studies may well indicate that schooled children suffer long-term as a result of late reading, my opinion is that such a finding is indicates a failure of the school system to adequately adjust to the individual needs of the children rather than an indication that it is supremely important for every child to be reading by a certain age. I see the problem as not that such children cannot 'catch up' with reading later, but that within our currently educational system such children must inevitably fall behind in other subjects as well due to being late readers.

This is interesting and fits well with my educational background. I was in a small class with two teachers from second grade until high school. So when you have 8 students and 2 teachers you can make up for deficits in some areas so they do not effect other areas.

 

[Beth]

This is interesting and fits well with my educational background. I was in a small class with two teachers from second grade until high school. So when you have 8 students and 2 teachers you can make up for deficits in some areas so they do not effect other areas.

Yes. I think that nothing tops individualized education geared to the child, not a set of standards.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yes. I think that nothing tops individualized education geared to the child, not a set of standards.

But that requires parents who fight for their child, and know that there are such programs available. So all the correlation between low reading at 4th grade and low reading in life might be both caused by apathetic parents.

That most of those who do not read well by then are either not capable of reading well, or do not have a background to support education. So that these both stick with the individual later so you get it as a good indicator even if it is irrelevant as both are caused by the same thing.