Essay Sample about Early Reading

Were you one of those kids who had to read aloud to your teacher when you were taught to read? Chances are, you were taught to read somewhat in that manner. “Sound out the word, me.” Then you would sound it out. Chances are too, that was kindergarten or first grade. Well, if the school district was changed and reading was taught earlier, people’s mindsets could be totally different right now. Children who learn to read at an earlier age and are taught well are set up for their future success.

To start, children who learn to read earlier in age end up showing great skills in school. Although it can seem a bit challenging at first, if the children are taught earlier then are learning the same as they would but just a few years earlier. They are just starting earlier. Pincus and Morgenstern wrote about how children who learn to read before school tend to show important skills. They say that there are some children who learn to read before they enter school and those children tend to show great skills in school. (Pincus and Morgenstern) Since children tend to show great things and skills in school when they learn to read earlier in age, it supports the fact of the thesis that learning to read earlier in age sets up children for great things. Not all children are the same way but if they learn to read earlier then it is setting them up for future things to help them. Being taught to read at an earlier age has shown proven facts that kids tend to just get a head start which is setting up their success. To add, when the Americans Institute of Research shared an article about California’s new Kindergarten reading act they say that children who are affected by this act, actually tend to develop new skills before grade school.  It reads that “California's Kindergarten Readiness Act of 2010 revised the cutoff date by which children must turn five for kindergarten entry in that year and established transitional kindergarten…the impact of TK on EL students' school readiness skills, including mathematics skills, language, and literacy skills, and English proficiency” (American Institutes for Research ). When it comes to children being cut off in their birth years for school they are put in transitional kindergarten, statistics show that there has been an improvement in readiness, which includes language and literacy skills. So when they are forced to learn to read in this transitional kindergarten, it prepares them for the future when they are improving their English and literacy skills. This relates back to the idea that learning to read earlier is setting up children for success at an early age. Clearly already being shown by the past two pieces of evidence that this idea of being to read earlier is giving benefits to children at earlier ages. But to have these benefits these children are getting by reading at earlier ages, they must be taught well. 

Secondly, kids who are taught to read correctly will have a good base for the future. Children can gain benefits from reading at an earlier age but only if they are taught right. It would be harder for younger kids to get the benefits of reading at an earlier age if they aren’t taught right. An article that talks about teachers should teach reading to kids,  generalizes that a good base of reading is important. If there is no base then the kids are not set up for their future when it comes to reading, or even teaching reading to others. It says, “So, in teaching reading, depending on the needs of the student, there a time for a focus on the ‘soil’ and a time to focus on nutrients in the environment (texts, talk, and teaching that's explicitly about meaning-making)” (Gabriel 61). When children are being taught to read there must be a good core created to prepare them for their future success. Since this whole idea is younger children being taught to read earlier, since they are younger they have to be taught in ways so they can get the benefits of being taught these curriculums earlier. They won’t be able to just randomly read and be great at it. For example, a similar article brings up the fact that if children are just surrounded by reading then they aren’t going to magically learn to read. Specifically, it says,  “Teaching the brain to read requires regular doses of direct instruction. It won’t happen solely by being in an environment where reading happens” (Fisher and Frey 76). Being taught to read at an early must be taught to grasp the core and base reading. So, it cannot be taught by just giving a book to children and telling them to read.  There must be direct instruction for the base and core to reading to build up. With the right instruction, they are getting set up for success because they will be taught at the right level for their age but still allow them to have these benefits of being able to read earlier in age. But, there are people who tend to disagree with this. 

There is some debate that people believe that kids learning to read early in life will tire them out, but the other side disagrees and thinks it is okay for kids to learn earlier. You can find sources that do support this, the other side of this debate argues that there is a negative effect to teaching kids earlier. Strauss argues that “Other opponents, however, think that teaching PreK students to read has a negative effect…Because young children don’t have the attention span or motivation to handle complex assignments, they may seem like ‘slow readers’  when their brains just aren’t developed enough to read yet” (Strauss). The counterclaim view of this shows that although kids would get to learn to read earlier it could make them see them like they are slow readers and that they might not want to read after struggling when they are forced to read younger. It could also have a negative impact on their brain because they could be starting too young. Although the counterclaim view can make a valid point, the other side cannot be denied because if children don’t want to learn to read earlier, it is going to negatively affect their brains because this whole idea of reading earlier is just to give kids a head start. The University of Melbourne-especially Quach, Jon, and more-supports this side of the argument because they had a MiniLit where kids were tested and they got help on their reading skills. They say that after the MiniLit kids were able to move up in their grades better in skill. (Quach, Jon, et al) Supporting the idea of teaching kids to read earlier when kids are taught well in a MiniLit like this, they are getting skills to read better. The counterargument may disagree with that but all these children are doing is learning to read earlier, it is not damaging them. It is simply just a push to get them going earlier in their life. The Hanover Research Center says that having early skills in math and reading academics is very critical. (Kalb) Since reading are so significant for future skills if the kids are taught earlier then it gives them a head start. So since the counterclaim may disagree with the other side children learning to read earlier and are taught, get a head start to set up a good future.

In conclusion, children who learn to read well at an earlier age from good teaching are given a head start for their future success. From the facts given and the points proven all kids are getting is a push for their success by learning to read earlier. If a good core of that reading is created from good teaching, they are set. So, the next time you get a chance to hang out with someone younger than you, maybe read a book to them so they can be successful when they’re older. 

Works Cited

Pincus, Morris, and Frances Morgenstern. “Should Children Be Taught to Read Earlier?” The Reading Teacher, vol. 18, no. 1, [Wiley, International Reading Association], 1964, pp. 37–42, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20197850.

American Institutes for Research (AIR). “Transitional Kindergarten in California: The Impact of Transitional Kindergarten on English Learner Students. Research Brief.” American Institutes for Research, American Institutes for Research, 1 May 2017. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=ED609122&site=eds-live&scope=site.

Gabriel, Rachael. “The Sciences of Reading Instruction.” Educational Leadership, vol. 78, no. 8, May 2021, pp. 58–64. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=150174239&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

Fisher, Douglas, and Nancy Frey. “Direct Instruction in Early Reading: Direct Instruction Is Key to Teaching Reading but Is Often Misunderstood.” Educational Leadership, vol. 78, no. 3, Nov. 2020, pp. 76–77. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mih&AN=147509361&site=eds-live&scope=site.

Strauss, V. “How Young is Too Young to Teach Reading?” Waterford, 19 February 2019, https://www.waterford.org/education/how-young-is-too-young-to-teach-reading/. Accessed 22 January 2022.

Kalb, G. “Reading to Young Children: A Head-Start in Life.” Department of Education and Training Victoria, https://www.education.vic.gov.au/documents/about/research/readtoyoungchild.pdf. Accessed 31 January 2022.

Quach, Jon, et al. “Finding the fundamentals of reading | Pursuit by The University of Melbourne.” Pursuit, 25 August 2019, https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/finding-the-fundamentals-of-reading. Accessed 30 January 2022.