I would love a follow up from the author on whether or not it made any actual difference. My bet is that it probably didn't, but I can't think that the article wouldn't be biased since he obviously thinks that his son is gifted.
UPDATE 2 (Oct. 3, 2011): my son is now five years old. He is now reading daily on his own, and has read himself a couple dozen chapter books, including The Story of the World, Vol. 1: The Ancient World (314 pgs.).
UPDATE 3 (Dec. 16, 2012): at six, my son switches between “serious” literature which he reads with a dictionary app, including Treasure Island, Tom Sawyer, and The Secret Garden, and easier literature including Beverly Cleary books, the Hardy Boys, and Encyclopedia Brown. If his answers to regular comprehension questions are any indication, he’s understanding what he reads pretty well.
UPDATE 4 (Mar. 26, 2013): I’m delighted to report that my second son, following methods similar to those I used with my first, is now 2.5 years old and reading at a first grade level.
UPDATE 5 (Aug. 25, 2014): my second is following in his brother’s footsteps, reading a version of the Odyssey (he’s crazy about Greek mythology—go figure) at age 3.5:
"
Eh? Where do you get that idea? He repeats over and over again that this should not be taken as a sign that his kid is overly gifted, that it didn't work just because his kid is gifted, and that he is pretty sure most kids could accomplish the same thing if their parents tried.
Read the comment in this thread from Luc. It's likely that it will make a difference simply because the author's son will be labelled as "smart" from his first day in school.
This might have as much bearing on the outcome as his innate "giftedness"
