>> By the time they were in kindergarten they could read on their own.

> We tried that with our first and it didn't work. Some children require more direct support. Knowing what works for those who need it is pretty huge.

Yeah, I think the GP is making the same error has the "whole language" approach people--making the faulty assumption that mere exposure is enough to educate. That works with some, but clearly fails a lot. And even for the kids it works with, I'd be afraid it would leave gaps that would be much better addressed with some explicit instruction.

My kid is tiny and loves to "read" (i.e. memorize and recite books). At this rate, he'll probably learn to read on his own, but I definitely want to make sure he has the tools to successfully tackle difficult and unfamiliar words, so he doesn't self-limit to the stuff he knows well.

My oldest was reading little books by 3. It was zero effort other than reading to him. Suddenly he just took over and didn't need mom and dad to read to him anymore.

He's 8 now and can plow through the Harry Potter series in a week. Some days I think he might read better than I do at 31.

My youngest is 5 and still struggling. He never really liked to be read to. As soon as he could get up and do something else, he did. He's getting there though, and we'll get him there.