Why are some parents against exposing their children to their full potential?

Question

Some people are very against the idea of teaching a child to read when they are a very young age, or starting to teach them when they are babies (My brother read when he was 3, I read when I was 4). I was just curious why? I don't see any harm in allowing children to learn at a young age and letting them explore their potential and showing them that there are no limits to their capabilities- but others say this is pushing things on them (when really it's all about moderation).

Babies and young children have growing and expanding minds and it's been proven that they soak in everything like a sponge, so why not teach them?

Answer 1

Nothing wrong with teaching your kids when they're geeked & ready to learn.  Just so long as you let the child lead the way, you're fine.  It's when you expect your child to do things on *your* timetable that you're pushing things onto them and could actually quash that natural desire to learn by setting them up for failure.

Answer 2

I wasn't home schooled but I did learn how to read by the time I was 3 and I was potty trained by the time I was 2 not turning 2 and just getting started. my daughter is 3 and she is potty trained knows how to spell her name using her block letters of course. and she is now learning to read. I think it's all because of what my parents did with me so I'm doing it with my child. it's a parents choice I guess. some parents don't want to rush their children it's not wrong.

Answer 3

I think teaching and forcing is different... so... if you introduce your child to the world of reading and they go willingly  i dont see aprob... :)

Answer 4

Wow. Weird. Who is against it? Maybe they don't want to pressure the kid? Maybe that's it. I think if there's no pressure, it's a positive thing.

Answer 5

Parents nowadays spend so much money getting pregnant that they're overly protective of their children and think it'll upset them emotionally. It's ridiculous. You never see kids playing outside anymore either because parents are too protective.

Answer 6

You need to define your terms.  One case is a child who knows their alphabet, pretends to read books, and acts ready and eager to learn to read, and saying no, I won't.  And that may be the parent who buys into our society's idea that we just leave teaching our children to other people.  The other scenario is to say that I'm not going to make every effort to get my child ready, because they shouldn't be pushed into it.

Many children aren't ready at 3 or 4 due to visual development, mental development, etc, or they just may not be interested.  I don't start teaching my children to read until they show an interest.  That's been 4 or 4 1/2 with my older two that I started teaching letter sounds and such.  Studies have not found that earlier reading means reaching full potential as compared to later.  Children that learn to read at 6 versus 4 average about the same achievement several years down the road.  I think a lot of people today feel a need to rush their children.  Very few children were reading at 3 or 4 until recent years, and that's including very educated people of previous centuries.

Answer 7

Uhm. I thought that was the age a child began reading anyways? ALl the toddlers (3 1/2-4-5) that i know read...lol...and My son can a little hes 3 1/2

Answer 8

I dont really understand that either.  I believe that starting with learning these things as early as possible is always best.  Start reading to your child from day 1.  Let them see the book.  I always like to under line the words with my finger as I read them.  The more they are exposed to it, the quicker and more natural learning it will come.  Same things with letters, numbers, words, everything.

I think some people may be too lazy to do that.  And some people think that kids no longer have a chance to just play and be kids, that they will learn it on their own when they are ready.  In today's world and society, I just dont think that is feasable.  Yes, we are slowly going back to kids not being kids for 18 years, going back to making them learn, work and have responsibilities.  Some say its a bad thing.  I think its a good thing.

Answer 9

I think there's a big difference between pushing a child into something they are not ready for and teaching them. Most people assume that a very young child who is reading is being pushed - but it isn't necessarily the case. I tried to teach my daughter phonics before she went to school. She didn't get it. I didn't bother with my son...and then I caught him with magnetic letters going "c...a...t...cat" well before he was three. He was ready. He wanted to learn. So I taught him. He read Harry Potter at four and Lord of the Rings at six. I didn't push him into reading them, I didn't read them with him. I just made the books available. I haven't read to my son since he was four, and the worst punishment in my house is that we empty the bookcase in his bedroom. He'd happily spend all his free time reading except that I insist he goes out to play first.

You have to let your child lead. But if they are begging to be shown more and more, it's just as bad to hold them back as it is to push a child who isn't ready.

Edit\; and I don't see what this has to do with home schooling. These kids are too young for school of any sort. I'd go stark raving nuts if I tried to homeschool my kids - and so would they.

Answer 10

they want to teach them at the kids speed not someonelse speed.

there the parents for the reason.

Answer 11

I don't know, it doesn't sound like a bad idea to me.  I learned how to read when I was 2, how to print when I was a little over 3 and I wrote cursive and did basic math before I was in kindergarten.  

Some people told my parents that they were trying to make some kind of super genius or something by doing all that.  It did make a bit of sense what they were saying though, I spent the first three or four years in school bored out of my mind because I already knew how to do what they were doing plus a whole lot more.

But, despite being somewhat of a slacker, I was in the top 10 of my class, was accepted to over 50 universities including several Ivy League schools, and scored a 32 on my ACT and a 1530 on my SAT.  So it does have some benefits.