In a household of 8, there are things that simply make life easier. One such thing I used to take for granted was having early readers. Ease in homeschooling skyrockets for parents and children once the skill of fluent reading is mastered. Children can read directions for themselves and work more independently once they can confidently and fluently read.
My two oldest children learned to read pretty easily. This is despite the fact that the oldest started late (we adopted him at the age of 7 from a non-english speaking country, he was reading fluently before he hit nine with the use of alphapbet cards and McGuffey Revised readers. No phonics workbooks or other materials were needed. The same was true of his younger brother. At four we started the McGuffey Primer after the basic letter sounds were mastered. By first grade the Second Reader was finished and DS 2 was reading Alice in Wonderland and his Apologia Science book independently. I did not know this was not normal for most people. I taught two kids to read the same way and they were both excelling.
I started the McGuffey Primer with my third and fourth children but part way through (I think in the First Reader) my second child started flipping letters and entire words. This child read well, but seemed to begin really tripping up with writing and began flipping letters. I researched dyslexia and programs to correct and prevent reversals. I learned about Writing Road to Reading (WRTR) and bought the book. I read through it three times and became very frustrated with it. I couldn't figure out how to implement the philosophy of the book into a real life teaching scenario in my home. I liked what I was reading, but I became frustrated with the fact that what I was reading was useless if I couldn't figure out how to DO it. Then a friend told me about Spell to Write and Read (SWR). I looked it up online and bought it. After reading The Writing Road to Reading three times, Spell to Write and Read was a breeze. I dropped McGuffey and dove in with SWR. This is where I believe I went wrong. I should not have dropped the readers.
You see, SWR and WRTR type programs in general tell parents that students will learn to spell words first. After students learn to spell while learning rules of spelling and phonemic patters, the child will just pick up a book and start reading. Like a good ol' homeschooling mom with lots of kiddos I included DS 3 in with DS 2's spelling lessons. DS 4 was just too little, so he kept reading every day in McGuffey.
I learned the hard way that spelling to learn to read seriously retards a child's ability to be an early reader. My third child is frustrated with reading. He isn't just picking up books and reading as WRTR type programs say he will. He does and can read, but reading fluently in third grade is a serious struggle for him. He no longer enjoys it because he feels like he just can't understand what he's reading and he gets emotionally upset and ends up hating it. DS 4 (1 year younger than DS 3) loves to read and read as well as DS 2 in first grade. I see a pattern here. The only one who isn't thriving, had to spell to read while mom put his reader lessons on hold.
SWR is an excellent program for teaching spelling. I do plan on using it with my younger children, but I absolutely will not use it to teach reading. I will use it to teach spelling after a child is able to read.
Phonics vs. Sight Words
I would like to say a few humble words about this raging debate among educators about phonics versus sight methods of teaching reading. I have read and was sold in the beginning of a phonics only approach to teaching a child to read. The whole word approach to teaching reading has been painted by phonics proponents as the evil villan that will destroy children's ability to learn to read. However, many phonics programs will teach children sight words that seem to "break" the rules. Does this somehow undermine the argument of the phonics proponents that the sight word approach will mar a child's ability to have a command of the written word?
Why the fuss? As I have read noth sides of the debate online, I am coming to the conclusion that the Phonics vs. Sight Reading or Whole Language debate amounts to alot of political mumbo jumbo. Two groups of people want schools to follow their way at the expense of the other. The teaching materials in agreement with the current winner sell in mass, making big money for curriculum publishers.
What I find with my children is that they need both, never just one or the other. This has been true of all of them. My three year old can identify many sight words and he is learning his letters quite well. The goal is to get him reading fluently by first grade. If by the time he is five, he is needing further phonics instruction, I will give him thorough lessons in phonics. (Rod and Staff's first grade phonics lessons are great.) However, words like could, or though are more easily learned by sight for a little guy.
Early vs. Late Learning
I have heard many moms suggest to me in my early years of schooling that I should not push my kids to start official school too soon. Especially when boys are the students (I have all boys), it is assumed that boys just need more time before learning to read and do school in general. I will say in light of my above comments, that I am very against procrastinating a child's education. Children (yes, boys included) absorb huge amounts of information in their toddler years. Children are very capable of learning more than grown-ups think to give them credit for. Little boys are capable of learning to sit still in church or to obey their parents and how to read. My kids haven't learned more at early ages, becuase they are limited to the amount of information presented to them. Their abilities far exceed the limitations that "experts" place on them in educational literature.
If I could give anyone only one piece of homeschooling advice it would be simple. Teach them to read as early as possible!
