Aotearoa / New Zealand

Thanks this is an interesting paper.

Some caveats to my claim. The thing (book? podcast? can't remember, so take with a grain of salt) was saying kids that read early (ages 3-4) aren't more likely to have a degree at age 35 when controlling for other factors.

The study you've linked is looking at reading ability at age 6, which may change things. I also couldn't find anything in the paper stating they had controlled for other factors. If a child with a parent at home reads earlier, and one that doesn't reads later, the difference in life success is unlikely to be related to the reading, but more likely to be related to them growing up in a household wealthy enough to have a stay at home parent. This wouldn't be effective data for changing a school system to focus on reading earlier.

To put this in context with what I was saying, if reading is pushed hard from age 4 and some kids do well and for some who aren't quite ready this causes a detrimental impact that causes them to be poor learners for life - well this would show in your study as reading ability at 6 years old being strongly predictive of reading ability at 42. Basically, I don't believe the study you've linked helps us narrow down anything because they don't seem to have controlled for anything.

I did try to find a study to back up my claims, or even disprove my claims, but I couldn't find a study that looked further than 10 years or so, and even then they weren't controlling for other factors.

Maybe our school system is failing because of a lack of data on how to do things better?

So in another reply I've caveat-ed what I said. Firstly, I read/heard it in a book/podcast, I didn't see the study myself.

Second is that the did not relate early reading ability to late reading ability, they related it to 'life success' - which was judged based on whether they had a degree at age 35, which as someone who feels pretty successful, and didn't have a degree at age 35 (and still don't), isn't necessarily a good way to judge, but it's at least a clear yes/no which makes things easier.

A kid could be an early reader that grows up to be a fantastic reader, but doesn't do well in society.

I saw an interesting study by some linguists once who found that chanting “shame” at each other for achieving is not universal.

I'm not sure if I just can't remember but I don't recall people chanting "shame" at people for achieving. It sounds like a high school thing, but definitely after the underachievers left school at 15 or 16 people were celebrated for achievement, mostly in sports but I don't remember anyone being mocked for academic achievement. Our dux and runner up dux (can't remember word) were both at least moderately popular.

While reading, writing, maths doesn't change, their need in an ever changing world does change.

As an example, people lament the inability of younger generations to read cursive. But in a world where almost everything was printed by (or viewed on) a computer, the ability to read cursive just isn't that important.

I think currently basic facts are still important. But if the world doesn't reenforce this (by requiring them to actually use them), then the knowledge won't stay long term.

Perhaps the lagging skills of younger generations represent a world that no longer asks for them. But the younger generations are sure to have better skills in other ways, ways that this new world demands of them.

Did he look like a supervillain? Might be intentional 😆