Little reason to push children to read at an early age

With all the current hoopla over stuff like the "teach your baby to read" programs and the like, I find it refreshing to find a post like this one, which I've copied from here.  This is reassuring for me because I've been mainly working with the boys when they show an interest in a subject, and when they ask to do "schoolwork."  I haven't done a whole lot with reading because I don't think they're really ready yet.  It's very hard to do this though, because it's one of the first things people ask us about and because you worry about how they will do around peers who can already read. 

Copied from the post:
Research Finds No Advantage In Learning To Read From Age Five reports:
----------
A University of Otago researcher has uncovered for the first time quantitative evidence that teaching children to read from age five is not likely to make that child any more successful at reading than a child who learns reading later, from age seven.
The ground-breaking Psychology PhD research, conducted by Dr Sebastian Suggate, has been placed on the University's "distinguished list" of doctoral theses for 2009. Dr Suggate has also been awarded a prestigious Postdoctoral Research Fellowship from the Humboldt Association in Germany to the University of Wuerzburg in Bavaria to further his studies into childhood education.
----------
Moore's wrote in Better Late Than Early that it is better for young children, especially boys, to wait on academics until they are eight to ten years old. Part of this has to do with brain development. While much of the body is basically formed at birth, like your fingers and toes, the brain keeps undergoing major changes until people are eighteen and twenty. In trying to force young children to read before their brains are ready, it is like trying to make them walk before they even have their legs.

I'm so relating to this one!

A quote from a blog on what to expect.com called There is NO cookie  cutter for motherhood:

'This isn't the first time I have seen the severe looks people give when they see a big family.  I was talking to my husband after last week and how I think some people automatically think that large families have naturally more wild children than the "average" person and that they will cause more trouble.  I would have to disagree with this train of thought.  Sure the noise level is going to go up a few decibels but I don't think that a boy that comes from a family of five or six is more apt to get into mischief than a boy who is an only child.  It just "appears" that way because there are more of them running around.  

 

I also think that in general, our world is becoming more and more impatient with children.  You don't want them looking through your stuff at a garage sale?  A.) Ask them politely if they wouldn't mind finding something else to do, B.) Find the heart to bear with their curious nature, or C.) Don't have a garage sale.

 

Don't get me wrong there is a need for boundaries to be set and rules to be obeyed but you wouldn't expect an only child to sit in the house all day twiddling his thumbs and not saying a peep.  Kids need to be allowed to run around and perhaps a little whooping and hollering while they're at it.  They need to be allowed to explore and get their energy out.  Maybe even to learning to deal with the barking of afamily pet is something we can all work on.  After all sometimes a dog is the perfect friend for a child. If a child happens to get into something they are not suppose to or try something you don't approve of, be a little forgiving, they're not perfect yet.  Having said this, there are times for punishment but not with a condemning lecture telling them what bad children they are.  Having a big family isn't always easy, if you notice a child doing something they probably shouldn't, politely inform the parents of your concerns but don't condemn the parents they are trying their best.  Raising a large family isn't an easy task.'

Tom and his boys