Pressure for an early start

In the ‘Independent review of the teaching of early reading’, which was commissioned by the UK government, Sir Jim Rose recommend in 2006 that children should ideally start school after their 4th birthday and that the teaching of phonics (learning to sound out letters and common letter strings for reading and writing simple words) should start as soon as possible after that. He explained why:
‘an appropriate introduction to phonic work by the age of five enables our children to cover ground that many of their counterparts in countries whose language is much less complex phonetically do not have to cover”.

Like most people, Sir Jim Rose confuses ‘language’ with ‘spelling’, but he is right, about the English literacy learning burden being much heavier than in most other languages. The cross-European research led by Philip Seymour (2003) established that English spelling inconsistencies ensure that English-speaking children take nearly three times longer than the European average (of one year) to master the basics of reading and writing, despite the English language being one of the simplest in the world.

Because English literacy acquisition takes so much longer, it makes logical sense to begin teaching children to read and write from a relatively young age. Nobody can learn much without acquiring at least basic literacy skills first. If English-speaking children began learning them at 6 or 7, as other Europeans do, they would start their general education much later than most. There is also plenty of evidence that the best readers and spellers nearly all start learning to read and write very early at home.

Yet incredible though it may seem, whenever English literacy problems and educational underachievement attract another bout of media coverage, quite a few otherwise sensible people, such as Professor Alan Smithers, suggest that they are due to English-speaking children being made to start learning to read and write too early. They point out that Finland is consistently near the top in international educational league tables, yet does not begin formal schooling until 7.

Making children learn any skill before they are mature enough for it is generally accepted as a bad idea. But how long should you delay the start to learning a skill that is undoubtedly going to take a very long time master, often makes no logical sense, but is crucial for all other learning? The Seymour research established not only that English literacy acquisition took longer, but also that this was not due to English literacy learning starting exceptionally early.

Learning to read, with some letters having different sounds in at least 2000 common words (one, bone, gone) and 3700 words having unpredictable spellings (roll, coal, bowl) – as can be seen at www.englishspellingproblems.co.uk - takes a long time, no matter how late pupils start to tackle this burden. It may even be easier to accept English spelling irregularities more readily if children are introduced them before their reasoning skills become too developed. Perhaps I found the lack of logic in English spelling more distracting, because I did not encounter them until the age of 14, and immediately found it blatantly obvious and annoying?

Given the great English literacy learning burden, allowing children to begin tackling it, as soon as they are ready, therefore seems a good idea. Unfortunately, many children are not ready for it, by 4, 5 or even 6.

Our daughter first began to show a keen interest in learning to read at 3½. With a little help from me and a few Ladybird ‘John and Jane’ books, she became fluent long before she turned 5. She also confirmed the theory that early readers learn to spell without much difficulty.

Our son, by contrast, was not even particularly fond of being read to until he was nearly 5. He much preferred to be left to play with his Lego. Trying to teach him to read before he started school would have been traumatic for him and us. At school, his reading progress was laborious, and in sharp contrast to his love of maths. He needed a great deal of patient help and cajoling at home, to keep going. And although he eventually came to enjoy reading more than most, English spelling quirks still trip him up occasionally, even in adulthood. Both children went to Cambridge, she to study modern languages, he natural sciences.

When a spelling system requires children ‘to cover ground that many of their counterparts ... do not have to cover”, pressure to start literacy learning early is inevitable. It makes it much more difficult to give children the sort of leisurely childhood enjoyed by most Europeans, and which would be better for many English-speaking ones too.