Why? It takes 40 contact hours to teach a nine year old to read, according to John Taylor Gatto. You can teach all of primary school Math in the same time to a 12 year old. What’s the point of doing it earlier? There are little or no compounding gains from doing so. Countries that start teaching reading at 4 don’t do better than those that wait until 7. See France versus Germany or Finland.
The entire point of the zone of proximal development is that you can spend weeks teaching something to a six year old that a nine year old will pick up in an afternoon because they’re just more developed.
Remove a screen and a kid can have crazy skills.
Screens are really the opium of the people.
I watched maybe half an hour of TV per day, at most. And that would have been "educational" programs like Blue Peter. I remember coming home from school and waiting for TV to start broadcasting - staring at that weird test pattern with the girl and the clown head, willing it to start quicker. Though we did get The Clangers and Magic Roundabout, and weird stuff like The Tomorrow People that I never understood.
I spent my days riding my bike up and down the lane, building treehouses, rambling through the countryside, playing with Lego, plastic Airfix kits, all of that.
Still no superpowers.
The non-intuitive thing about basic reading and math skills is this:
If you delay the learning, you learn it much more quickly.
So the (ordinary, with no developmental issues) kid who doesn't read until 10, can exceed his or her peers in just a couple years.
The very unfortunate corollary, however, is this:
The kid with developmental issues might go undiagnosed for a longer time than necessary, with long-lasting repercussions and follow-on effects. It's even possible to reinforce a mild issue and turn it into a larger one.
This then becomes a classical optimization problem. Optimize for the common case for broad benefit, or optimize for the rare case with significant negative effects. There is no right answer for everyone.
Is there any source for this?
It appears there's evidence that this is true in general[1] (though the author suggests they could go even faster if they updated their methods further)
I also remember reading in a Tony Buzan book his speculation that learning to read too early interfered with the, what he claims, is the natural eidetic memory potential in children. I don't have any of his books here to find the reference, unfortunately. Perhaps there's something in it, perhaps not.
[1] https://theconversation.com/steiner-schools-should-adopt-mod...
Immersion learning is used and studied mostly for foreign languages but I wonder about how effective it proves in general for small children given vs trying to teach them actively and leaving them to observe it. It may be a fringe case technique when directly teaching them is ironically less effective or even more effective when it does work but unreliable.
Just providing another perspective.
Basically give kids time for unstructured learning using the hours after school/after homework study time that are currently effectively used up toiling at zero sum, super structured activities strictly aimed at getting into college.
Would you be able to sustain enough interest to really delve into something when you're that tired out?
Structured activities still work, because the motivation is largely external. I reserve judgement as to how good that is for the kids doing them, but I will agree that it's a workable setup.
IMHO, you can't go halfway. Either you fill up their time with supposedly educational/socializing opportunities, or you give them enough time and space to explore based on intrinsic motivation. With your "unafterschooling", your kids will naturally use it for playtime or zombie screen time. One, or possibly both, of those is likely to be the best possible use of that time, so that's ok; just don't expect them to pick up new skills when you've stacked the odds against it.
(Yes, I'm biased. I'm homeschooling -- not unschooling -- my kids, and there was a major readjustment period to get free of the "school attitude" before things started to click. We couldn't have done that when school was still in their headspace.)
If you want a suggestion, I'd keep learning Vulkan on a side, but chose a higher-level graphics library for actually programming a game. Just to keep yourself interested and to see progress quicker. There are so many decisions and design choices in making a good game, so keeping graphics simple and small can give you more creative freedom. (If that's your final goal.)
I'd recommend trying to keep life balanced. If it refreshes you then enjoy. Just don't burn out on it or get stuck in perfectionism. Find that happy zone where you can feel productive or entertained or have something to share.
As the other two comments allude to, I think the keys are using it as a learning process to learn time management (i.e. avoid burn-out and over committing) and how to make it social (i.e. find other classmates to work on it with you).
I think the key is to not have it get into a 7 hours of structured school plus 4 hours of structured after school extracurriculars (i.e. sports, piano or any other competitive zero sum activities etc.) where an 'adult' is telling what activities to complete. Basically in such a schedule in no part of the day has the child done any activity where they thought for themselves.
Would much rather give them time in their remaining 4 hours to provide some structure on how to research an area/project for focus and create something self directed.
So true. There's nothing about the school start time that makes sense other than enabling parents to go to work afterwards.
Though I feel the same about my morning standup as a 38 year old...
Personally I could have used more socialization, but there is plenty of time after school to learn.
Not sure how much of this are special challenges specific to remote learning and Zoom and how much of it is just that the curriculum has to be tailored towards the slowest learners.
If anything, I would say the focus on unschooling when it comes to early childhood should be read early and read often. Interestingly, this seems to play into the larger controversy of intensive phonics instruction vs. the less structured "whole language approach."
> to me, is fucking terrifying.
I could barely read at age 10, and I was in public school! That's why my parents took me out and homeschooled me. Which fixed the problem in a few months with intensive one-on-one phonics from my mom that the school system just wasn't going to do.
She actually had already started learning some reading at 4 when she was in preschool. It was mostly just sounding out letters but at that point kids can start to sound out simple words too. Preschool is elective though so plenty of kids won’t start that young.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Letter_People
…and I am fairly sure they had us reading short stories in first grade. (But only fairly certain; I could read short stories halfway through kindergarten, so that could be coloring my recollection.)
turning 25 this week…in base-16.
Motivation is one thing -- necessity is another. If you need it (not just want; literally need it for some reason), you'll have a pretty strong motivation to acquire it. (Or give up. But that's where parental guidance comes in.)
For what it's worth I didnt learn to read until I was 9 and by 11 had a college age reading level.
I think some of the later learners in reading (who were not disabled, or at least not traditionally disabled) might also have some other correlations.
> All of the people I know who did better on their own
> than in a classroom were able to do so because they
> could gobble up half a library in a weekend.
TLDR - just because someone can read, doesn't mean they will, and my experience is that they won't.
My gf works in inside technical sales for an industrial instruments rep/distributor, and therefore a large part of her job is passing information between customers and manufacturers while trying to keep both happy and process orders. On a good day, she probably is forced to send the same requests for information at least two or three times on average before finally getting an answer. People just refuse to read even extremely short emails asking for straightforward information like shipping addresses which simply must be provided to proceed with the order. I wouldn't last a month doing her job without losing my damn mind.
Here is a screen grab of a typical email. https://imgur.com/5d36jpq
The first questions I get are "when is first practice".
all the information is there for an active reader to figure out what they need to do, but I can see how a linear reader (who isn't holding all the information in their head to begin with) could miss it. I had to reread the email to know exactly when the first practice would be. an extremely pedantic reader might be unsure whether "see you next tuesday!" refers to a second informational meeting or the first actual practice.
Good point either way.
Both require literacy, but one of these things is fun, while the other is a chore.
Perhaps they are unrelated. perhaps I drew a wrong conclusion. But perhaps they aren't hurried, they are just lazy.
It's okay for an adult to be lazy. It's okay for a kid to be lazy. It's probably not great for a homeschooled kid to be lazy, but you can invent games and rewards and other incentives and make this work.
But it's irresponsible parenting to allow your homeschooled kid to be illiterate at 10. You're not going to convince me otherwise with comparisons to lazy parents not wanting to read your boring emails. It is so obviously not the same thing.
The whole concept behind unschooling is that you allow a child to find the things that they find interesting, and then allow them to voraciously teach themselves as much as they can, as fast as they can. This doesn't work at all if your kid can't read.
For example, I know a lot of people who say they are too lazy to watch a movie with subtitles. When you dig deeper, they then tell you that it's hard to follow the movie because they have to concentrate on the subtitles or that the subtitles go too fast. That shows that they are actually not very good readers and.
For the specific example of the OP. You might be right, it might just be laziness but those parents do take the time to reply to the email to ask for clarifications. So, either the email was ambiguous or a lot of people just have a hard time reading a block of text. In my experience, the later is often true.
That said I fully agree with you that allowing a home schooled kid to be illiterate at 10 is criminally irresponsible. Reading is the key to knowledge and any parent homeschooling their kids should make damn sure that their kid will learn to read and see the value in it.
I have a minor quibble with this. I consider myself a "good" reader, at least as far as literal comprehension goes (I was never much good at literary analysis). I can understand pretty much any entry on cppreference. on the rare occasion I lost points on vocab/grammar quizzes in grade school, I was almost always able to persuade the teacher that they themselves were mistaken. FWIW (not a whole lot imo), I got an 800 on the critical reading section of the SAT.
I am however a very slow reader. I absolutely cannot keep up with the subtitles on a foreign film while also taking in the action of the scene. most of my friends in college could probably do a reading assignment in half the time it took me or less. perhaps this is just to protect my delicate ego, but I consider speed at reading words to be one of the least important parts of being a "good reader".
What's the role of literacy if you don't use it? What's the use of literacy without engagement?
There are lots of ways to learn things without reading. While I personally taught my kids reading at an earlier age than 10 (they are also not home-schooled), I've also seen kids learn "late" but still learn as needed. I also see a ton of kids who can't read even though they were "taught it" early.
On a side note, Montessori methods for teaching are quite interesting in how they use materials to teach concepts most traditional schools rely on abstract ideas and worksheets. They don't need to read to do the Montessori materials, but worksheets certainly require some level of reading to understand what's to be done.
If an adult doesn't want to use their literacy, that's their choice, but the unschooling method requires that a kid be able to use their literacy to learn things that interest them at their own pace. A lazy child is going to need additional motivation for unschooling to be effective. An illiterate child is going to have an "at their own pace" that's close to zero.
If you're a parent, and you think you're homeschooling your kid with this "unschooling" method, and they still can't read at ten, then you, as a parent, need to drop the charade that unschooling is working for your kid and teach them how to fucking read, stat.
> He didn't even learn how to read until he was around 10.
to me, is fucking terrifying.
All of the people I know who did better on their own than in a classroom were able to do so because they could gobble up half a library in a weekend. I think you need to be able to read abnormally well for this unschooling concept to work as intended, and so good reading skills is one of the few things that I absolutely would not compromise on.