# Most young children are not read to on a daily basis.



## KBecks (Jan 3, 2007)

_*A recent study commissioned by Reach Out and Read revealed that the majority of young children - 52 percent - are not being read to on a daily basis. That's 13 million children under 6 years old who are going to bed every night without a bedtime story - without the undivided, loving attention that comes with sharing a favorite book with their parents*
Dr. Barry Zuckerman, Reach Out and Read_

One of my blogging friends is discussing this at her site - here is her post, with an active discussion taking place in the comments.
How can we encourage reading aloud?
http://jkrbooks.typepad.com/blog/200...ing-aloud.html

I'm not sure that link is working, here's another try
http://jkrbooks.typepad.com/blog/200...ing-aloud.html

http://jkrbooks.typepad.com/blog/ (about the third post down right now)

I thought it would be interesting to discuss as parents, and share thoughts on helping improve the numbers.

I'm a huge fan of Jim Trelease's book, _The Read Aloud Handbook_, which emphasizes the importance of reading with children, and the benefits and harms of reading or not reading to kids. It's one of the best books I've read as a parent.

Thanks! I love talking about reading and can't wait to hear your thoughts.


----------



## 1xmom (Dec 30, 2003)

Reading is something I am very passionate about as well. My dd is 8 and we still read together and out loud. Reading before bed is just a normal routine for us. Every now and then I'll throw in a British or a country twang, and try to get her to do the same and we just have a ball. I also tutor a child in reading at her school 1x/week.
Some excuses I've heard from parents as to why they don't read to their children - They learn better from someone else.
If they are having problems, I can hire a tutor.
We don't have time.

It is just endless. I feel so bad for children who don't have that opportunity and the parents just don't realize what they are missing out on.
At my dd's school they even run a campaign to get kids to sign up for library cards for the public library. The librarian was sad to see how many children do not have library cards or even step foot in a library.

My mom had told me that she offered to help a little girl at her church w/her reading and the mother's response was "I'll think about it".

I just don't understand parents today.


----------



## philomom (Sep 12, 2004)

My kids got read to every night and at the bus stop for years until they could be out there alone. We often share passages from the books we are reading with each other. Both my kids are gifted and both of them are avid readers.

I don't think folks realize how important this is.


----------



## Liquesce (Nov 4, 2006)

I'm a devoted bookworm. I read all the time. My kids are read to all the time. BUT ... in a way I really don't see the big deal, IF those kids are receiving parental attention and stimulation by other means. Do their parents get down on the floor and play with them? Encourage their imaginations? Involve them in their everyday activities? Storytell _without_ books? Read to them _sometimes_, if not every day? Give their children "undivided, loving attention" that has nothing to do with reading?

Like I said, I love books ... but I have a hard time with the notion that parents who don't are by definition deglecting a necessity. There are a lot of cultures in this world in which leisure reading is just not an element, in which children are still given rich, full upbringings.


----------



## cappuccinosmom (Dec 28, 2003)

I think it's sad, but, I do understand how it can happen. The modern/Western lifestyle is completely frenetic. I seriously don't know how most of my aquaintances have time to take a deep breath, let alone sit down for 1/2 hour and read to their kids every day.









We have regular, short reads for before bed, and i try to make that daily, but I'm ashamed to say that sometimes, the day before we return books to the library, I'll realize we've only read together one or two out of the 15 we brought home.









I must say, I'm sad that my children are missing out on what I and my siblings got from my dad--almost nightly reading of the true old children's classics. Everything from The Black Cauldron to The Pilgrim's Progress. I simply *can't* to that at this stage. Second best though is books on tape, and they got to bed every night listening to things like _Charlottes Web_ and _20,000 Leagues Under the Sea._


----------



## butterfly_mommy (Oct 22, 2007)

Every night (well most nights, sometimes things get too crazy) since I was pregnant with DS DH has read us a chapter of a book at bedtime. When I was pregnant we started reading the Narnia Chronicles and when we finished with those books we moved on to Philip Pullmans "His dark Materials" (where The Golden Compass is from) After DS was born DH would read as I nursed him to sleep.







We plan on doing this forever.

My parents were not always there for us and were pretty selfish people but some of my best memories are of my mom reading me a chapter from novels and series of books at bed time


----------



## choli (Jun 20, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *1xmom* 
Some excuses I've heard from parents as to why they don't read to their children - They learn better from someone else.
If they are having problems, I can hire a tutor.
We don't have time.

It is just endless. I feel so bad for children who don't have that opportunity and the parents just don't realize what they are missing out on.
At my dd's school they even run a campaign to get kids to sign up for library cards for the public library. The librarian was sad to see how many children do not have library cards or even step foot in a library.

My mom had told me that she offered to help a little girl at her church w/her reading and the mother's response was "I'll think about it".

I just don't understand parents today.

Parental functional illiteracy is one reason (not "excuse") that many children are not read to on a nightly basis. A parent may not feel like revealing that reason to you if they do not know you extremely well or trust you completely.

http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/628308

"In the US, 43% of the adult population is at the below or basic level for prose literacy"

So before you roll your eyes and judge the "bad parents" who don't read to their kids every night, remember that there can be reasons that are not apparent.


----------



## serenekitten (Nov 20, 2008)

I remember my mom reading with me when I was little. There was nothing better than spending hours at the library, scouring the shelves of the kids section. I also had some TV-time, but Mom didn't let me sit there and stare at the screen all day -- like some parents I know.









I'm going to make it a point to read to my little one as often as possible, and I know m'loves will back me up on it. We're all bookworms.


----------



## Murihiku (Oct 2, 2008)

The main reason I had children was so I could read to them.

(Okay, I'm joking. Mostly.)


----------



## Shannie77 (Jan 16, 2007)

Wow... I can't believe those numbers - it is really sad. My mom read to us every night. When we got older she would read books like Little Women. There was nothing I enjoyed more than snuggling up to my mom and listening to her read.

I read to my DD everyday - before bed and then throughout the day. She demands it when she is on the potty and will bring my books all the time.

We go to the library once a week for a "Toddler Time" and check out new books.

Even doing all that sometimes I feel like I should be reading even more!


----------



## Sk8ermaiden (Feb 13, 2008)

I regard the fact that both my mom and dad read to me nightly (they were divorced and my dad would even call me to read from Uncle Wiggly's Fairy Tales over the phone) as the very best thing my parents did for me - the thing I am most grateful for. I am sure my love of reading exacerbated my "giftedness" in school, and is largely responsible for the knowledge I posses now. I still love to read. It enriches my life.







:

I plan to do the same for my kids. From day one. Really I should get started now, because my mom even read to me in the womb.







:

I agree that many parents can barely read (or are just bad at reading out loud), and that probably an equal number just won't (or truly can't) make time. I think that's so sad for all involved.


----------



## greenmama (Feb 8, 2002)

I agree that it is important, and I did/do read to pre-readers daily and aloud with my reading dd 2-3/week, but I don't think that much is necessary for others. I remember reading somewhere that having parents that read for their own recreation has a greater impact on children's read ing than if the children are read to regularly. I think occassional reading to kids is necessary but as a pp said I think their are other equally important things parents can do with their kids.


----------



## ChetMC (Aug 27, 2005)

I've heard though, that reading to your kids doesn't really matter. I think this was in Freakanomics, although Freakanomics mostly cited numbers from other sources so I imagine that it's published elsewhere.

Basically though, you just need to have books in the house. Owning books is an indicator of a socio-economic status and value system that is likely to produce kids who succeed academically. It's like eating supper as a family. It's an indicator of a lifestyle and a value system. You can't beat your kids, and be an otherwise absentee parent, and then cancel the effects on your children by eating a home cooked meal together four times a week.

Our personal experience is anecdotal, but we had way more time to read to our first DD than our second. Our second was not really read to a lot as a baby or toddler... although she heard lots of language, songs, music, and we did lots of other things and went lots of places. Our second DD was a proficient reader before she turned three though, and is still a better reader now than her sister who is sixteen months older.

There's a really interesting book called "The Myth of the First Three Years" that talks about the lack of evidence supporting casual relationships for many things that supposed impact a child's early development.


----------



## ginadc (Jun 13, 2006)

Oh, reading *does* matter! I just finished reading Jim Trelease's wonderful "Read-Aloud Handbook" and wish I could just transcribe the whole thing here to explain why. For example, the National Commission on Reading's 1985 report, Becoming a Nation of Readers, concluded that "the single most important activity for building the knowledge required for eventual success in reading is reading aloud to children."

Trelease also notes that the DoE's 1999 Early Childhood Longitudinal Study found that children who were read to at least three times a week were al most twice as likely to score in the top 25% in reading.

The book is chock-full of great information about why reading aloud to your child is so essential--not just when they're too young to read to themselves. It also has great info on how to read aloud, how to nurture reading in your child, and a treasury of read-aloud books.

I also love How to Get Your Child to Love Reading by Esme Raji Codell. She and Trelease both include great ideas for encouraging read-aloud in schools and communities.

My mom read to me every night as a child, and those are some of my most cherished memories. We read aloud to Annika and Adrian every night, and our house is chock-full of books. Recently--thanks to Trelease and Esme--I've stocked a box in the kitchen full of books, and we read at the kids' dinner time as well. (They eat early as my DH doesn't get home until almost 8.) Annika now digs eagerly through the box for her dinnertime reads, and she usually wants at least 4 more at bedtime. (Adrian's too young to do anything but yell "Boo, boo!" (meaning book).


----------



## Miasmamma (Sep 20, 2006)

I read at least 4 books a week, but I don't read to DD everyday. We have a bedtime story book, but it's an occasional thing. We read to her if she brings us a book, and we read her magazines that come in the mail. Our house is covered in books though. She lately is liking to read the National Geographic with us. She likes the pictures!


----------



## Drummer's Wife (Jun 5, 2005)

that's a high percentage








I really do enjoy reading to my kids and between the four of them, for sure it happens at least once a day.

Now, my older two can read well by themselves but my 5 yo still enjoys laying in bed with me reading, actually my DD does as well and we are halfway thru Where the Sidewalk ends because we read a handful of poems most nights. If I'm not available, she reads to her dolls.

What I was going to say is I agree that the biggest influence might be having a lot of books in the house and the parents reading (to themselves). I love to read, always have at least one book I'm into at the moment, and I really think my kids love for reading is partly due to that. DD will grab a book and sit quietly reading it while I'm doing the same. If kids don't often see their parents enjoying a book, I think there's a lot more chance they won't see reading as a good, pleasurable thing; rather a chore (like DH tends to think, and only does so when he needs to for work or similar).


----------



## betsyj (Jan 8, 2009)

Hubby and read to our 8 mo old son every day. He may not always pay attention, but we like reading to him and interacting with him like that.


----------



## avent (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ginadc* 
Trelease also notes that the DoE's 1999 Early Childhood Longitudinal Study found that children who were read to at least three times a week were al most twice as likely to score in the top 25% in reading.

Let me start by saying we're avid readers in this house so I'm not against reading to children.

However, what you're citing above doesn't prove anything. Children who are read to at least 3x/week probably have a host of other household/familial factors in play. For example, if parents are reading to them 3x/day they probably are more likely to have books in the house, more time to spend with children, perhaps better nutrition and sleep patterns as a result of socio-economic status, etc.


----------



## suprgrl (Sep 27, 2005)

I do think reading to kids is important, but I also think that there are other influential factors involved as well. Homes where reading to children takes place may be more likely to engage in other activities, perhaps they:

Eat more meals together
Go on family outings more often
Play games
Have different toys than non-reading families

I doubt that reading by itself is the only factor involved with literacy. It is all so intertwined it would be hard to weed out all the extraneous variables.


----------



## ChetMC (Aug 27, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ginadc* 
"the single most important activity for building the knowledge required for eventual success in reading is reading aloud to children."

Hmmm. If my children learn more from reading than they do from real experience I would find that extremely depressing. Our kids learned and retained a lot more about volcanoes by visiting Mt Saint Helens than from any book we have. They learn a lot more about animals at the zoo from the books that we have too. They learn way more about stability and physics playing with blocks. Not that they don't learn from books, but I actually see hands on activities, experience and human interaction having much more impact.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ginadc* 
Trelease also notes that the DoE's 1999 Early Childhood Longitudinal Study found that children who were read to at least three times a week were al most twice as likely to score in the top 25% in reading.

Yes, it's probably true that children who come from families that read aloud do better on standardized tests. The school system and the tests are typically well suited to these children. Again though, I strongly suspect that the reading is an indicator, it's not purely causal.

I'm not opposed to reading to kids at all. I just think people consistently overestimate the causality of the relationship.

I also think we need to be prepared for the changing nature of literacy, owing mostly to technology. In 1985 and 1999 kids did not have access to multimedia resources like they do today for example. Kids considered in those reports were really from a different era.


----------



## momma4fun (Jan 23, 2007)

i think reading aloud to your child isn't any more important or influential than telling a story face to face or having conversations/little (spontaneous) lessons about daily events and happenings.

i think it's a great service to the kids to learn the attention span and imagination skills they get when they are looking into their parents' eyes and listening to a story and experiencing the pictures of the story as their mind hears it........


----------



## Masel (Apr 14, 2008)

I guess we are part of the 52% who don't read every night. Now, I live in a house full of books and I work in a library but some nights we tell stories instead of reading them and sometimes we sing songs. I love books but there were times in my life they got between me and learning to interact as a human being. (I'm a nerd. I miss social cues. At 38 I'm finally catching on to this.)


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Liquesce* 
I'm a devoted bookworm. I read all the time. My kids are read to all the time. BUT ... in a way I really don't see the big deal, IF those kids are receiving parental attention and stimulation by other means. Do their parents get down on the floor and play with them? Encourage their imaginations? Involve them in their everyday activities? Storytell _without_ books? Read to them _sometimes_, if not every day? Give their children "undivided, loving attention" that has nothing to do with reading?

Like I said, I love books ... but I have a hard time with the notion that parents who don't are by definition deglecting a necessity. There are a lot of cultures in this world in which leisure reading is just not an element, in which children are still given rich, full upbringings.

I feel very much the same way. I found the quote in the OP offensive, to be honest. I'm a chronic bookworm - the one thing I really don't like about being home with kids all day is that I no longer have the block of time - bus commute - where I used to be able to sit down and just suck up pages and pages and pages with no interruptions.

That said, I rarely read to my children at bedtime. I currently read to dd - ds2, as well, if he's not napping - for about an hour most days. She wanted me to read her the Harry Potter series, so that's what I'm doing. That only started a few months ago, though. Before that, our reading time was really hit or miss. Some days, we'd read several kids books throughout the day, and on other days, we wouldn't read anything.

What really bothers me about the quote in the OP is this:

Quote:

That's 13 million children under 6 years old who are going to bed every night without a bedtime story - without the undivided, loving attention that comes with sharing a favorite book with their parents
First of all, Dr. Zuckerman makes that sound as though the 52 percent who aren't read to every night are never read to. That's not what it says. Second...my kids get lots of undivided, loving attention at bedtime. We just happen to have a family tradition, going back to my mom with us, of _singing_ at bedtime, as opposed to reading. With ds1, I used to sing for anywhere from 15 to 30 minutes every night. With dd and ds2, it's usually about 10-15. We also have individual bedtime rituals (not baths and such - a routine sequence of hugs, kisses, "goodnight", "sweet dreams", etc.) that we go through every night. The implication that children who aren't being read to each and every single night are being somehow neglected is really condescending.


----------



## Drummer's Wife (Jun 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 

First of all, Dr. Zuckerman makes that sound as though the 52 percent who aren't read to every night are never read to. That's not what it says. .

thanks for pointing that out. I was taking it that 52 percent are never read to on a regular basis, which is wrong.


----------



## Megamus (Oct 14, 2008)

I try to read to my son every day -in French and English. I think it's important (obviously), but I agree that it's not the only thing -it's important to just plain interact with your kids, spend time with then, introduce them to new things, new ideas. Books are a great way to do that.

My mom read to me and my brother at bedtime all the way through elementary school -it's one of my favourite memories.

Nova Scotia has a wonderful program called "Read to Me" (http://readtome.ca/) which started in 2002 and gives the parents of _every_ baby born in-hospital a bag of childrens' books in either French or English (as a side-note I don't know about babies born at home -that would be interesting to find out). The bag has several books as well as pamphlets about the importance of reading to children. I thought it was a really wonderful gift and a sweet way to promote reading to children, especially in a province where 52% of the population has limited literacy.

I don't know if it would work as well in a country without free healthcare and hospital access, but that's the way it is here.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Having just skimmed over the whole thread, I'm a little disturbed at how many posters are talking about how sad they feel for these kids. I wasn't read to every day as a child. I actually don't remember being read to that much at all. Mom took us out every day, or close to it, for walks through the local parks and ravines. When we were home, we helped her bake or make root beer, or dill pickles or whatever. We had many family outings to the aquarium (my parents were members - their biggest non-necessary investment, as we were far from well-off). We spent hours in the yard and in the garden every spring and summer. As mentioned before, mom sang to us every night at bedtime. We had very full, active childhoods, with a _ton_ of attention from both our parents (odd as it sounds, one of our favourite outings as kids was when dad took us with him to the landfill). Reading out loud was seldom part of it.

For all that, I was already reading when I started kindergarten. I don't remember how or why I taught myself, but I assume I just wanted to know _why_ my mom, dad and older brother spent so much time with their noses buried in those silly books! Until I hit high school, and my emotional problems got the better of me, I was a star student in all the academic subjects, and considered anything less than 95% on a test to be just unacceptable. Throughout high school, despite being a "hood", I took a minimum of three novels a week out of the library and read them all - both librarians commented to me at one time or another that they wished they could read as fast as I do.

I really didn't suffer from the lack of out loud reading. Neither did either of my siblings. Books were a big deal in our house...just not in that particular way. (I actually wonder if mom was like me. I find it really frustrating to slow myself down enough to read out loud, and I don't enjoy books that much when I'm reading them out loud.) My mom and I are the major bookworms...but my dad, brother and sister all read for pleasure, as well. Actually, my brother is probably almost as much of a bookworm as mom and I, except that he's also driven to be more physically active (he was _very_ hyperactive when he was young, and it still shows) and he's not a natural speed reader.

So...nobody really needs to feel sad for us, yk? We got lots and lots of undivided, loving attention, and we all love to read.

I hate the way this has evolved into some kind of ultimate litmus test for parents over the last few decades.


----------



## AngelBee (Sep 8, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *choli* 
Parental functional illiteracy is one reason (not "excuse") that many children are not read to on a nightly basis. A parent may not feel like revealing that reason to you if they do not know you extremely well or trust you completely.

http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/628308

"In the US, 43% of the adult population is at the below or basic level for prose literacy"

So before you roll your eyes and judge the "bad parents" who don't read to their kids every night, remember that there can be reasons that are not apparent.


----------



## AngelBee (Sep 8, 2004)

And as a homeschooler, my children are not read to daily.


----------



## Attached Mama (Dec 4, 2005)

I think the problem is that parents don't start when their baby is like 1 wk old, so then time just evolves and the kids don't develop much attn span for it and the parents just don't ever get around to it. The kid has lived thus long w/o it so why start now?

I'm a huge fan of starting as soon as possible after birth. DD loved looking at the pictures under 1 wk old. Just a few secs per page while I pointed out things to her. Now at 3 she's good for chapter books with little to no pictures - has a much longer attn span and much larger vocab than her peers.

Also it's important to know how to start - just spending 3-5 seconds per page pointing out something the child likes (animals, flowers etc for example "Here's a doggie. Doggie says woof woof, woof woof" and then on to the next page). Well before a year a child will sit thru board book stories and other short stories if one begins this way. It's also important to vary tone of voice and act dramatic and excited to keep little one's attention. "Oh wow! A cat! Cat says meow,meow"

I am not surprised so many kids are not read to. We are a media driven society not a print society anymore. It is appalling tho.


----------



## choli (Jun 20, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
I hate the way this has evolved into some kind of ultimate litmus test for parents over the last few decades.

Well, it's an easy test to pass - quality of the books and reading does not matter, all you have to do is read to your child every night and you've passed the "test". Not very difficult, and you can pat yourself on the back and call yourself a good parent. Not many parenting issues are so cut and dried


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *choli* 
Well, it's an easy test to pass - quality of the books and reading does not matter, all you have to do is read to your child every night and you've passed the "test". Not very difficult, and you can pat yourself on the back and call yourself a good parent. Not many parenting issues are so cut and dried









Fair enough. I can certainly see that at work in some cases.

It's not that easy for me to do, though. I find reading out loud _very_ difficult. That seems strange as I talk a lot and I read a lot. The two just don't go together for me very well. When I read Harry Potter to dd, the idea is at least a chapter a day. I was originally going to do only one, but she frequently talks me into two. Occasionally, she's even managed to convince me to read three. By the time I put the book down, I'm _done_. I find it so exhausting.


----------



## choli (Jun 20, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
Fair enough. I can certainly see that at work in some cases.

It's not that easy for me to do, though. I find reading out loud _very_ difficult. That seems strange as I talk a lot and I read a lot. The two just don't go together for me very well. When I read Harry Potter to dd, the idea is at least a chapter a day. I was originally going to do only one, but she frequently talks me into two. Occasionally, she's even managed to convince me to read three. By the time I put the book down, I'm _done_. I find it so exhausting.

I wasn't really serious, just riffing on how people like to be able to tick boxes that make them feel like a "good parent".


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Attached Mama* 
I am not surprised so many kids are not read to. We are a media driven society not a print society anymore. It is appalling tho.









The OP's quote doesn't say anything about how many children aren't being read to. It says that 52% aren't being read to _every night_. That's not the same thing at all.

Incidentally, I watched more tv as a kid than my children do ("prime" time - after dinner was done). My whole family watched it. We also all read books. I knew kids, even back in the "old days" (early to mid 70s) who didn't watch much tv _or_ read. They were into active games and/or board games and spent most of their time on those things.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *choli* 
I wasn't really serious, just riffing on how people like to be able to tick boxes that make them feel like a "good parent".

I know. I fight that one a lot. I'm totally into "free range" kids, but then I start thinking I need to get them to be a little less free range...and either way, I'm wanting to tick off a box ("I'm a good parent because my children have _lots_ of time to engage in independent play" vs. "I'm a good parent because I'm providing enriching activities"). Craziness.


----------



## kohlby (Dec 5, 2005)

There are some kids who aren't ready to be read to on a daily basis. My son was one of them. I'd try time and time again - even going to storytime at the library every single week since 4 months old - and he couldn't handle sitting through a single story until after 4 years old! He's now 5 and loves to be read the Goosebumps stories every night. So, his attention span wasn't enough for picture books and we just had to wait until it was enough for the books without pictures - since they were more interesting to him! The problem wasn't that we waited too long to start reading since we tried from day one. The "problem" was that he wasn't ready.

My daughter, on the other hand, has always been read to every single day multiple times. Some kids love books - but not all do right away!

I do think that you should try to read books to your kids from a very young age - but also recognize that all kids are different! And not all kids will be able to handle being read to - and that's okay!


----------



## mamarootoo (Sep 16, 2008)

when i read the first post i was in the "those parents suck" camp, but now i'm actually thinking about it.

my mom read to my brother and i every night through grade school. we had a family tradition at christmas time (reading a book called "a story a day till christmas") that continued till i left for college!









i do think reading to kids is very, very important, but not more important than having real world experiences.

i read to our 21mo DD every day, but not at bedtime. books don't calm her down.. they get her mind going 90mph and that is not something i want right before sleep.
we cosleep, and DH and i get in bed with DD, she nurses for a while then rolls to the middle where DH rubs her belly and i stroke her face. it is one of DH's and my favorite times of day. DD is very intense in everything she does, and this is the one time we can just relax and cuddle with her for longer than 3.2 seconds! hehee i would call this "undivided, loving attention" even though it doesn't involve books!


----------



## Mama2Rio (Oct 25, 2008)

:

i thought the numbers would be much worse....


----------



## Liquesce (Nov 4, 2006)

I'm curious what people who believe reading is an integral element to strong intellectual/creative development think of oral storytelling cultures, recitation traditions, etc?


----------



## AngelBee (Sep 8, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mama2Rio* 







:

i thought the numbers would be much worse....

Me too.


----------



## prothyraia (Feb 12, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
Second...my kids get lots of undivided, loving attention at bedtime. We just happen to have a family tradition, going back to my mom with us, of _singing_ at bedtime, as opposed to reading. .....







The implication that children who aren't being read to each and every single night are being somehow neglected is really condescending.











We don't read to our sons at bedtime

We curl up, turn off the lights, and then I usually end up reciting Good Night Moon, or the Very Hungry Caterpillar, or one of a dozen other books that I have memorized at this point.

Does that earn me my pat on the back or not?


----------



## sbgrace (Sep 22, 2004)

We read all the time. Because I have two kids with good attention spans who love books. So they were easy to read to. I find it much easier to read to them (and often more enjoyable) than to get on the floor and play honestly. We spend probably 1.5 hours or more reading a day on average. In early years it was even more time but they're a better at playing together now.

So I can check off the reading box..but I don't think my kids got a superior early start than any child who wasn't read to every day. In fact, if that parent spent a lot of time playing on the floor or involving their kiddo in life activities (my nephew cooks with his mom and dad every night and has since he was an extremely young toddler. He builds things with his dad, washes windows, helps mommy clean (genuinely does it), etc.), or exploring nature, whatever it is they very well may have had experiences more helpful developmentally than reading.

I feel like a lot better of a parent when we look out the window together and imagine what we would do if we were a bird. Or when we figure out how to fix a chair together. Or when we discover ants and follow them to their home. Reading doesn't seem superior to those things...in fact less so to me.

I think two things--the stats on being read to and outcomes probably are very connected to the social/economic factors at play. And second I do think that exposure to reading and great books can indeed influence a child's love of reading and expand their world. I love books and we have memories built around reading together here. Both my boys would say it's their favorite thing to do. But it doesn't mean I gave them something superior to what another less reading parent did or my kids are that my kids going to be more successful or anything else.


----------



## Teenytoona (Jun 13, 2005)

It almost seems like the study is equating being read to every night with quality one on one time with their parents. I don't read to DD every night. I'm not one for doing the same thing every day. But I do spend time with her every night. Many times it's playing music (which could mean anything from playing glasses of water to drumming on anything with a good tone), sometimes it's reading, sometimes it's sort of conversational (as much as you can with an 11 mo). I think it's the time dedicated in one on one interaction that's important, not so much as the reading. But I reckon a PP or few said that already.


----------



## savannah smiles (May 4, 2004)

I was an English major in college and remain an avid reader *but* I don't make it a point to read to my kids every single day. Sometimes I'm just not in the mood and skip the bedtime story with no guilt at all. I don't know if my mom read to us every night but I do know that she was never without her nose in a book as were all of my female relatives so my sister and I grew up in a book loving family which had a big influence on us. I figure it will be the same for my girls but, if it's not, I'm ok with them not being huge into books. They may end up like me dh who does all of his reading online. As long as they can comprehend what they read, then I call it good. They don't need to love reading although I think it would be great if they did.


----------



## ema-adama (Dec 3, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Liquesce* 
I'm curious what people who believe reading is an integral element to strong intellectual/creative development think of oral storytelling cultures, recitation traditions, etc?

I loved my fathers stories growing up and would beg him again and again to retell them. A story read at bedtime was a less than equal substitute.

This is a fascinating discussion.


----------



## Contrariety (Jul 16, 2007)

I can count on one finger how many times I remember being read to as a child... but I was an avid, rabid reader as soon as I learned how. I remember my older sis coming home from kindegarten and begging her to teach me letters so I could read.

I don't think it's the end of the world for children not to be read to *every* night. My parents didn't read to me, but they did read themselves. I saw them reading in bed every night growing up. It's very sad to me that children grow up in households where no one is reading.

I read to DS every day before nap time and before bed. I love it. It's a great way to wind down and let him know it's time to sleep. I can't imagine *not* reading, but I can see how some parents overlook it.


----------



## aprons_and_acorns (Sep 28, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Murihiku* 
The main reason I had children was so I could read to them.

(Okay, I'm joking. Mostly.)









I like that! I am a huge library nerd and I love reading to DS. I admit I'm surprised about the statistic in the OP.


----------



## Ruthla (Jun 2, 2004)

Quote:

That's 13 million children under 6 years old who are going to bed every night without a bedtime story - without the undivided, loving attention that comes with sharing a favorite book with their parents
You know, with multiple children in the house, "reading a book out loud" and "undivided parental attention" are NOT mutually exclusive! Plenty of times, when my kids were little, reading a book out loud meant having both/all the kids climbing all over me, while my attention was trying to focus on the BOOK, not any of the kids in particular. I was much more likely to give a child individual attention when there wasn't a book (and another sibling who wanted to listen) involved.

Plus, when DS was little, having a book read to him meant "attention from a big sister" as often as it meant "attention from a parent"!

Even when my daughters were preschoolers, I don't think we ever read out loud *daily.* There were days when we'd literally spend hours reading together, and other days when we'd completely skip it. They were certainly read to every week, just not necessarily every DAY. And reading was rarely part of the bedtime routine- often I found that books were just too stimulating for bedtime, and turning off the lights and telling a story (often while nursing) or just talking together was a better way to wind down.


----------



## Collinsky (Jul 7, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
What really bothers me about the quote in the OP is this:

First of all, Dr. Zuckerman makes that sound as though the 52 percent who aren't read to every night are never read to. That's not what it says. Second...my kids get lots of undivided, loving attention at bedtime. We just happen to have a family tradition, going back to my mom with us, of _singing_ at bedtime, as opposed to reading. With ds1, I used to sing for anywhere from 15 to 30 minutes every night. With dd and ds2, it's usually about 10-15. We also have individual bedtime rituals (not baths and such - a routine sequence of hugs, kisses, "goodnight", "sweet dreams", etc.) that we go through every night. The implication that children who aren't being read to each and every single night are being somehow neglected is really condescending.









:

I read every day, every single day. I don't think there has been a day of my life since I was four that I didn't read SOMETHING. My mother hardly ever read to me, and she was an awesome homeschooling mom.

I sometimes read to my kids at night. I sometimes read to myself while they look at their books. Sometiems we talk, we tell stories, we make up things, we ask questions, we give answers. My Dh is the king of oral storytelling, I'm actually envious because I don't have that skill. The idea that someone is a less-than adequate parent because they don't read Chicka Chicka Boom Boom every single night misses the mark.

I personally think that _seeing parents read daily_, for information and for pleasure, does as much or more to promote childhood literacy than reading Good Night, Moon every night. That seems pretty straightforward to me. (We did read Good Night, Moon. In English and Spanish.







I don't think that it's helped my kids be intrigued by the idea more than having books and reading simply be a daily part of the lives of the people around them.


----------



## CarrieMF (Mar 7, 2004)

My kids are 6, 7 & 10. I used to read to them, roughly once a week. Sometimes not for a couple of weeks.

The 7yo is reading at a Grade 5 level. The 10yo reading at a Grade 7 level. I'm not sure on my 6yo as they just started reading this year, plus they have a new teacher since after christmas.

My Dad used to read stories to us at night. i stopped when I was around 13, my sister I think had Dad stop when she moved out at 18.

I am an avid reader, I read all the time. Dh never reads unless he's in the bathroom.

All 3 of them LOVE books & love to read. Not reading certainly hasn't hurt them at all.


----------



## aprons_and_acorns (Sep 28, 2004)

I just got through reading all of the replies and it was really a lot of food for thought. In fact, I think we might be part of that 52%. We value reading a lot, but for example if we spend the day with friends and DS falls asleep in the car on the way home I don't wake him up to read to him. Also, I am a SAHM with a partner and one child, so I imagine that if I had two children and perhaps no partner and a different working circumstance it might not be as easy to devote time to reading every single day. It wouldn't mean that I value literacy or my kids any less though, or that they would be worse off.


----------



## GuildJenn (Jan 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamarootoo* 
i read to our 21mo DD every day, but not at bedtime. books don't calm her down.. they get her mind going 90mph and that is not something i want right before sleep.

Yup, that's my son. I had this plan to read to him every night. Turns out if you read him a book he'll mull it over, recite parts of it, and make up new bits of the story for 1-2 hours.

We read together in the mornings, mostly.







I'm relaxed about it - way more than I ever thought I would be - at this age (3.5). We all love books, but we also love signs, cereal boxes, etc. It naturally comes.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ema-adama* 
I loved my fathers stories growing up and would beg him again and again to retell them. A story read at bedtime was a less than equal substitute.

See, I'm totally jealous of people with the storytelling gift. My kids are often shortchanged by a bedtime story, or even a song. They want me to make something up - to _tell_ them a story or make up a song about a bear or a butterfly or a train or a frog or a kite or...just about anything. I'm not good at that, especially on the spur of the moment. I can sometimes come up with a lame four-line rhyme or something, but that's about it. When I'm particularly tired, I can't even manage that. Even reading out loud is comparatively easy for me. Singing is the easiest.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ruthla* 
You know, with multiple children in the house, "reading a book out loud" and "undivided parental attention" are NOT mutually exclusive! Plenty of times, when my kids were little, reading a book out loud meant having both/all the kids climbing all over me, while my attention was trying to focus on the BOOK, not any of the kids in particular.

Since ds2 stopped taking daily naps (it's been about a month), reading to dd has become incredibly difficult. We don't do it daily, anymore...probably manage 3-4 days during the week, and maybe once on the weekend. DS2 just won't settle down, and he interrupts and climbs on me, and tries to tell us about a bunch of other stuff. It's definitely not "undivided parental attention" for dd - not even close. We used to have a cup of herbal tea each (no more - ds2 is the King of Spills) and snuggle up to read for an hour(ish) of mama/daughter time. No more. We still snuggle up, but that's about it.


----------



## alexzanders_mama (May 18, 2006)

I read atleast one story a day to my kiddo's. Sometimes I do forget but generally we read atleast once a day.

I got a treasury of children's poetry at Christmas and they love it!!


----------



## Liquesce (Nov 4, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
Even reading out loud is comparatively easy for me.

And that's kind of the thing ... reading is, in the grand scheme of things, a really easy, quick, no-planning-necessary, cheap (free with access to a halfway decent library), non-strenuous, non-stressful, easily repeated activity ... in short, one of the easiest ways to promote for families to regularly come together and do something together. Rather like the "family dinner" campaign. Just with reading, maybe somewhere along the way the means has gotten a little conflated with the effect.


----------



## felix23 (Nov 7, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Attached Mama* 
I think the problem is that parents don't start when their baby is like 1 wk old, so then time just evolves and the kids don't develop much attn span for it and the parents just don't ever get around to it. The kid has lived thus long w/o it so why start now?

I'm a huge fan of starting as soon as possible after birth. DD loved looking at the pictures under 1 wk old. Just a few secs per page while I pointed out things to her. Now at 3 she's good for chapter books with little to no pictures - has a much longer attn span and much larger vocab than her peers.

Also it's important to know how to start - just spending 3-5 seconds per page pointing out something the child likes (animals, flowers etc for example "Here's a doggie. Doggie says woof woof, woof woof" and then on to the next page). Well before a year a child will sit thru board book stories and other short stories if one begins this way. It's also important to vary tone of voice and act dramatic and excited to keep little one's attention. "Oh wow! A cat! Cat says meow,meow"

I am not surprised so many kids are not read to. We are a media driven society not a print society anymore. It is appalling tho.










I've never read to my babies. I didn't really start reading to dd1 till she was over a year old. And guess what, she is three and can also sit through chapter books and will spend an hour just sitting and looking at books. So I don't really think starting birth is necessary to have a good reader.


----------



## MaterPrimaePuellae (Oct 30, 2007)

I haven't read the whole thread, but:
Reading is one of the most important parts of my life. I am always reading at least two books and also listening to one on CD. My DD has probably heard over 1000 hours of classic literature on CD since she was born just from being in the car/house with me (and she's 22 mos). However, I have heard--
and don't have time to look up sources-- but I heard this on NPR --- that the _greatest_ predictor of how much a child will read is how much they see their parents reading. She sees me reading every day and knows it is very important to me.
Honestly, though, I don't read _to her_ *every single day*. 75% of the days, at least, and then it's generally 3 or 4 books at a time. But if she is having a meltdown at bedtime, would rather play legos, whatever-- I don't push it. When she's older, I expect I will be more vigilant, though.


----------



## becoming (Apr 11, 2003)

We're part of the 52%. I hug, kiss, and talk to my kids at bedtime, but we hardly ever read a bedtime story. My kids don't really like being read to, especially my 7-year-old who reads as well as many adults I know.


----------



## oceanbaby (Nov 19, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Liquesce* 
And that's kind of the thing ... reading is, in the grand scheme of things, a really easy, quick, no-planning-necessary, cheap (free with access to a halfway decent library), non-strenuous, non-stressful, easily repeated activity ... in short, one of the easiest ways to promote for families to regularly come together and do something together. Rather like the "family dinner" campaign. Just with reading, maybe somewhere along the way the means has gotten a little conflated with the effect.

We are avid readers, and my kids would riot if I didn't read to them at bedtime, but I certainly hope you're right about the family dinner thing, because we are a little lacking in that area.


----------



## meemee (Mar 30, 2005)

reading in my opinion is over-rated. it is one of the things a parent does. i feel it has nothing to do with literacy.

in the realm of parenting reading is just one part. this huge thing about HAVE to is brainwashing. to feed our factories and offices with communicative adults.

reading was part of my parenting. it just happens to be what i love doing. and it is a habit my dd enjoys too.

i wish people would instead pay attention to the oral tradition that is so dying. the art of story telling is dying. it is those kinds of stories i found my dd enjoyed the most. to me story telling which is many times history about her ancestors are equally important if not more.

this whole emphasis on knowing colours, shapes and the amount of shame associated with the children who do not know them is just plain ridiculous.

the concept 'in their own time' is being lost and i mourn that.

nothing needs to be taught to children. in time they pick it up on their own. like swinging. one day it clicks with no lessons and the child can swing.

books are taking away imagination and creative thinking from kids. when was the last time your child made up a story. and stayed with it and developed sub plots to it.

i have not read the links the OP posted.


----------



## KBecks (Jan 3, 2007)

This is a very interesting conversation, it has been fascinating to read all the replies and perspectives. I love hearing about all the great reading and non-reading experiences that families are having together.

Here is the Web site for Reach out and Read and their FAQ, the organization whose founder made the quote I shared in the original post. I'm just digging into this myself. I'm curious to know more about the organization as well as know more about whether the research really is about bedtime reading, or overall reading.... as so many have pointed out, it's not about the time of day, and it's not that reading aloud is the only way to nurture children.

I've only read a little about Reach out and Read so far, but the basic idea is enlisting the help of pediatricians to distribute children's books and spread the message about nurturing reading together.

And here is the entire article that contained the quote. I'm just about to read it myself, I was anxious to talk about reading in general.

I look forward to more conversation!


----------



## Sk8ermaiden (Feb 13, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ChetMC* 
Hmmm. If my children learn more from reading than they do from real experience I would find that extremely depressing. Our kids learned and retained a lot more about volcanoes by visiting Mt Saint Helens than from any book we have. They learn a lot more about animals at the zoo from the books that we have too. They learn way more about stability and physics playing with blocks. Not that they don't learn from books, but I actually see hands on activities, experience and human interaction having much more impact.

As someone who read a book a day until I hit college, I can say with surety that more than half of my general knowledge comes from books. I certainly don't find that depressing. I find it thrilling. We had museum memberships, and field trips, and all the "enrichment" activities, and while I loved them and they certainly taught me things, I amassed nowhere near the amount of knowledge from them as from books. You just can't. With a book I can be in any country, in any time, in any class level. I can learn anything about anything. There aren't enough real life experiences in the world to cover what I have learned from books.

I also find this discussion interesting and thought provoking. While she was certainly regularly read to, my sister was not read to near as much as me. She didn't have the attention span or interest. She always demanded a bedtime story from her dad or myself, and never wanted a bedtime book. She learned to read 2 years later than I did, and never developed a love of books. Her vocabulary is not particularly good and her grammar is atrocious. She complains every time she has to read anything. I wonder if she was expressing her dislike of reading from toddlerhood. In that case I think no amount of reading to her would have changed things.


----------



## ginadc (Jun 13, 2006)

Quote:

the stats on being read to and outcomes probably are very connected to the social/economic factors at play.
Actually, that's not so. I wish I could just type in the whole text of the daggone Trelease book here, because the guy is just so great on this subject. It's really a book worth having, as is Esme's. Anyway, he points out in a number of places that even considering social and economic factors, being read to (and then in turn learning to love reading) is a huge boost to children's ability to learn. It's not just that the kids who are being read to also have all these other advantages. Even if you have few other advantages, if you have parents who read to you, you're apt to do better.

Quote:

books are taking away imagination and creative thinking from kids.
Okay, maybe this is just the English major in me talking, but whaaaa-at? I've heard that TV is taking away imagination and creative thinking, but BOOKS? What in the world? I can think of nothing else I did in my childhood that fostered my imagination and creative thinking *more* than reading. The books I read sparked all kinds of wild imaginings, desires to learn more about worlds and people I had never encountered, and the eagerness to make up my own stories. (I penned "Life is Hard," dictated to my mother, at four. "Diary of a Dog" remains one of my favorites.)

My kids are too young to make up stories that have subplots--DD is just turning 3 and DS is not yet one. But DD definitely makes up stories all the time. (Lately lots of them involve dragons.) And I love hearing them and asking questions about them. A lot of her stories are sparked by the books we read--she gets an idea about a character or creature and then goes wild with it.

Quote:

this whole emphasis on knowing colours, shapes and the amount of shame associated with the children who do not know them is just plain ridiculous.
I think perhaps you may be confusing people talking about the importance of reading to a child with the dictatorial idea that kids must learn rote things like letters, numbers, etc. very early on and must be reading to themselves far sooner than is developmentally appropriate. Trelease's book, for example, is very critical of "Baby Einstein" and the push to drill this stuff into kids at an early age, particularly in the section "Can You Recommend Something That Will Teach My Child to Read Before Kindergarten?" The point is to read to and with children for fun, pleasure and joy, and they will learn without even realizing it because they're enjoying it so much.

I know that's what happened to me. I remember my mom's reading one chapter of the original Peter Pan to me every night before bed when I was about four. One chapter only, no matter how much I begged for more. Smart woman--I was insanely hooked and couldn't *wait* for the next night to hear what happened next.

Quote:

nothing needs to be taught to children. in time they pick it up on their own.
But reading to your child, and eventually reading with them, *isn't* "teaching" them to read, not in the traditional way of lecturing or making someone study a skill. Reading aloud to kids is not, or shouldn't be, about "teaching" them to read. It will absolutely help them learn to read--there is virtually no doubt about that. But it's not a "lesson." It's learning at its best--learning when you don't realize you're doing it because you're having so much fun.

I don't think my daughter realized that she was learning to read tonight when she asked me to read "eelya deelya" (Amelia Bedelia) again. She just loved hearing about how "Amelia Bedelia sat right down and she drew those drapes." But she was learning, in a lovely combination of "picking it up on her own" and sharing it with me.

In general, you will find that the advocates of read-aloud like Trelease and Esme are much in agreement with David Elkind, author of "The Hurried Child," and other child development experts, who are rather appalled that the whole body of research and knowledge about the importance of the first three years was turned into a giant industry of playing Mozart in utero and teaching Mandarin to your nine-month-old. I really think it's a major misunderstanding to lump the issue of reading aloud to your child in with the whole hyper-enrichment Parenting Olympics thing.


----------



## Delta (Oct 22, 2002)

My parents NEVER read out loud to me. I don't understand how that has any bearing on how much a child will read when he/she gets older or how smart they are or anything like that. I was an honor student and a total bookworm up until I had kids. (Now I can only do magazines and the internet.







)

We read to our kids occasionally but certainly not everyday. In fact I'm surprise that 48% of parents read to their kids daily. I think those numbers might be a little fishy.


----------



## SpiderMum (Sep 13, 2008)

I have a hard time reading to my DD daily....she's only 4-months-old so she doesn't always have the patience with it that I would like. She lunges at the book and attempts to eat it...I still try though.


----------



## LynnS6 (Mar 30, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ChetMC* 
Hmmm. If my children learn more from reading than they do from real experience I would find that extremely depressing.

I would argue that almost everyone learns more from the real experience. But how much more powerful is the real experience then followed by books about it? Books can help you understand things you didn't understand the first time around

Also, the studies that are being cited note that being read to is important for learning to READ, they didn't say that being read to was important for learning physics. (Though I would argue that you can't become a physicist without reading!)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Attached Mama* 
I think the problem is that parents don't start when their baby is like 1 wk old, so then time just evolves and the kids don't develop much attn span for it and the parents just don't ever get around to it. The kid has lived thus long w/o it so why start now?

No, I think the real problem is that parents don't listen to their children's cues and they don't keep trying. I read to ds until he became mobile. He then became a whirling movement machine for about a year, and wouldn't sit still for books. I think we probably went 3-4 months without reading a single book. Short of pinning him down, he wasn't going to do it.

Then he gradually became interested in books. But, they had to be books with REAL pictures. We read "my first truck book" until the cover fell off.

He LOVES to be read to now. But, he wasn't ready for stories. I think we read every book ever written about garbage trucks and fire trucks. He wasn't ready for chapter books until he was 6. He now prefers fiction, but it took a LONG time.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Liquesce* 
I'm curious what people who believe reading is an integral element to strong intellectual/creative development think of oral storytelling cultures, recitation traditions, etc?

Reading is important for literacy. Reading is also very important for a decent vocabulary. I can tell you stories that would astound you about misunderstandings my college students have had because they simply didn't have the vocabulary they needed. Much of my excellent vocabulary comes from reading "worthless" novels.

So, if you want a child who is literate and able to function in a society that's highly dependent on the written word for a livable wage, then it's important to read.

Oral storytelling and recitation is important for oral skills and can aid vocabulary development, but it's a different kind of vocabulary and skill. It's important to be exposed to those skills too.

The two are not mutually exclusive either. I come from a family who places a relatively high value on oral storytelling -- family gatherings are always filled with stories. But my family also placed a high value on the written word as well. My mom is a writer. She's also one of the major story tellers in the family. Coincidence? I think not.

I don't think that reading and creativity are causally linked, any more than playing outside and creativity are causally linked. You can read and be uninspired, or be inspired. You can play outside creatively or you can stand around beating trees with sticks.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Contrariety* 
I don't think it's the end of the world for children not to be read to *every* night. *My parents didn't read to me, but they did read themselves.* I saw them reading in bed every night growing up. It's very sad to me that children grow up in households where no one is reading.

From what I know, the most important thing is being in a household where literacy is valued. If the adults never read, why would the kids, even if you have lots of kids books? That makes reading something for 'kids'.

So, in a sense, it really is all about culture, as well as socioeconomics. Kids who see parents reading and using the written word will want to read and use the written word.


----------



## LynnS6 (Mar 30, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *meemee* 
reading in my opinion is over-rated. it is one of the things a parent does. i feel it has nothing to do with literacy.

I'm astounded by this statement. I'm not sure how you're defining literacy. Certainly reading is just one of the things a parent does. My kids have good literacy (or pre-literacy in the case of dd) skills because we read to them, we talk to them, we tell stories to them, we take them places, and we eat dinner together. But if our house wasn't filled with books and literacy materials, talking to them, eating with them and taking them places wouldn't teach them to read.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *meemee* 
this whole emphasis on knowing colours, shapes and the amount of shame associated with the children who do not know them is just plain ridiculous.

There's a pretty big leap here in logic from reading to your child to shaming a child who doesn't know their colors or shapes.

You can read to your child daily and still not push them. Our dd has been on the cusp of reading for about 6 months now. If I sat down with a reading 'program', I would guarantee you that she'd be reading in a month. She'd probably enjoy the whole experience. I've chosen not to do this.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *meemee* 
i wish people would instead pay attention to the oral tradition that is so dying. the art of story telling is dying. it is those kinds of stories i found my dd enjoyed the most. to me story telling which is many times history about her ancestors are equally important if not more.

I'm not sure how story-telling and reading need be exclusive.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *meemee* 
books are taking away imagination and creative thinking from kids. when was the last time your child made up a story. and stayed with it and developed sub plots to it.

Umm... daily. I strongly disagree with this. I think the lack of ability to make a creative story with subplots has much more to do with media exposure and lack of experience with stories with any depth. How can you do a subplot if you've never heard one?


----------



## straighthaircurly (Dec 17, 2005)

I am finding this to be such a strange discussion. There seems to be so much arguing about what is better, reading, real life experience, story telling, singing, etc. Why are people considering these things to be mutually exclusive? Or trying to justify that it is or isn't okay to ignore one or the other?

Certainly different families might have a different emphasis because they might be particularly skilled in singing or story telling but frankly all of the things people are talking about are important in developing literacy in kids.

I am especially confused by people who think real life experience is somehow better than book experiences. One is not "better" than the other, they are just different from each other. My DS has had many more real life experiences than the average 5 yo due to my and DH's varied interests. We always include him in these experiences and he loves it. But he also loves the world of books because they feed his hunger for knowledge about things we can't experience. We travel a lot with him but I can't afford to globe trot the world to see every castle or battlefield (his latest fascinations). Books give him the window into those places that he craves. It would also be a bit tough for him to visit Narnia in real life, but reading the books together he is absolutely enthralled by the tales and then incorporates elements into his imaginary play.

DS is in K now and his "homework" every night is to read a book with someone. He can either be read to or have someone read to him and then we record it on a sheet for his teacher. The kids bring home a book from school. There are about 5 kids in the class who show up everyday with a blank sheet. The reasons noone reads with them could be many (whether due to lack of time, interest, skill, or organization to remember), but the end result is that these kids are also the kids struggling with literacy at school. They came into school not knowing how to rhyme, how to tell a story, how to recognize letters, how to sit and listen to a story at school. The school is giving extra support to these kids but in reality they will probably continue to fall behind kids who have literacy support at home. What else may or may not be going on in their family, I have no way of knowing, but they are not having reading time at home.


----------



## Ruthla (Jun 2, 2004)

Ugh. I HATED it when my kids had "reading logs" for school! The teachers always insisted on reading a certain number of books (or later, a certain number of minutes) every single night. None of them were ever satisifed with "an hour a week" it had to be "20 minutes a night" (or whatever daily reading limit they wanted that year.)

My daughters NEVER enjoyed reading one chapter and putting the book down. We've always been "devour the book" kinds of readers. Either we sit and read the whole book, or we don't read that day. We'd rather read 2-3 hours on a weekend afternoon than add a short burst of unsatisfying reading to an already busy weeknight.

We had after school activities some days, plus written homework, family meals, chores, and they needed time for free play. To squeeze in an extra 20 minutes every single night was just rediculous! Trying to follow the school's reading requirements turned reading into a chore, when before it had been fully enjoyable. I finally started filling out the reading log the way the teacher wanted it filled out- I'd put down the 20 or 30 minutes of reading each night, even if the reading had all been done in one burst on Saturday.


----------



## chirp (Feb 9, 2008)

my mother never read to us.

as a single mom, she picked us up from the sitter...cooked dinner...plopped us in front of the tv or with toys while SHE read and relaxed.

both my brother and i are total bookworms.

and i've read somewhere that it's not reading to your kids. or having books in the house...but your kids SEEING YOU read.

now...if you read to your kids often, they are seeing you read so I guess it counts in some sense...but kids have to learn that reading is part of life and day-to-day entertainment/routine/enjoyment. if they don't get that, they're not going to be readers.

from my experience as a mother i know that my son (9 months) likes his books. but he likes them a lot more when mommy and daddy are unwinding on the couch, each with their own book. then he looks around for his books (or tries to turn the pages of mine) and wants to sit with us on the couch.


----------



## MusicianDad (Jun 24, 2008)

Lets see. When I was little I wasn't that fond of being read to. I had more important things to do, like figure out how to turn those books into a catapult of some sort and send things flying across the room. Now, I love reading.

DD chose 75% of the time a song instead of a book. Occasionally she'd ask me to sing her a book (let me tell you I was definatly put on the spot when she asked me to "sing green eggs and ham", reading it and singing something else wouldn't cut it). And some night she didn't want anything but hugs, kisses and a "good night". She loves to read too.

DH was read to every night, loved it and he loves reading now.

My point? Reading everynight is not nessicary. DD loves books because DH and I love books. DH and I love books because our parents did.

I really don't think reading to one's child is as important as so many people want to make them. Honestly I can't see how "reading everynight" = "Bookloving, intelligent, creative child." Of my friends who like to read (and there are a lot of them) the ones read to every day were the ones who wanted to be read to everyday.

*LynnS6:*

Quote:

Reading is important for literacy. Reading is also very important for a decent vocabulary. I can tell you stories that would astound you about misunderstandings my college students have had because they simply didn't have the vocabulary they needed. Much of my excellent vocabulary comes from reading "worthless" novels.
Much of my excellent vocabulary comes from everyday life. There is more then one way to pick up new words.

My vocabulary comes from the following places:
My parents never dumbing down their language when talking to me, and me asking "what does *word* mean?"
Music.
TV (yes I've learned new words from TV).
In a lecture classroom setting.
General conversations with other people.

I rarely came across new words in a book. I simply came across uncommon words that I'd only heard once or twice before.

Anecdote: Babymomma took Japanese in college for one semester. One day the instruct stood at the front and started giving directions in Japanese. These were actions like stand up, sit down, jump, turn left, turn right, etc. Without even cracking the text, she taught the entire class what these words meant the same way a three year old learns new words. But using them to direct the class, and indicating what she wanted with her hands.

The next week she stood in front of the class and started the same thing, without the hand indications. Everyone remembered each and every one of those words.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy (Jan 4, 2009)

I read to my children multiple times a day, especially at bedtime that is a special one on one time between us.

My 2 year old also reads to me. (the words she knows)


----------



## DivineMrsM (Dec 19, 2008)

my husband and i read to our son every night. well we try to! lol mostly, he likes to look at the pictures. but we spend about 20 minutes in his room with a book, every night.


----------



## AllisonR (May 5, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *straighthaircurly* 
I am finding this to be such a strange discussion. There seems to be so much arguing about what is better, reading, real life experience, story telling, singing, etc. Why are people considering these things to be mutually exclusive? Or trying to justify that it is or isn't okay to ignore one or the other?

Certainly different families might have a different emphasis because they might be particularly skilled in singing or story telling but frankly all of the things people are talking about are important in developing literacy in kids.









:
Reading your children bedtime stories, having books your children can easily access (to read or just look at the pictures), you telling an imaginary story, you reading a book while your child is building with blocks, your child reading a story online, taking a walk in town and noticing the street signs and bus numbers, ect. ... all of these are different types of reading experiences. All of them have value.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chirp* 
and i've read somewhere that it's not reading to your kids. or having books in the house...but your kids SEEING YOU read.

They are seeing me read, right now, this post. My 4 yo DS learned his letters, numbers, words... right here, on the computer. Not from all the hard bound books we read with him.


----------



## kewb (May 13, 2005)

I think that modeling reading has a larger impact on if your kids will be bookworms.
That said. I read to my kids every night at bedtime. My 10 year old (soon to be 11) loves story time and I will read to them as long as they allow me to. I find it is a time when my children and I can unwind from the day, relax, and listen and talk to one another

None of my neices and nephews on dh's side read for enjoyment and none of their parents do either. Dh never sits down with a book. Although-that has more to do with the hours he works.


----------



## Attached Mama (Dec 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *meemee* 

books are taking away imagination and creative thinking from kids. when was the last time your child made up a story. and stayed with it and developed sub plots to it.


What????? My 3 yr old has ongoing stories that she develops that have nothing to do with any story we have read and have subplots going in them as well - and has been doing this since 2 yrs old. We read to her a ton. While I'm sure some kids can do this w/o being read to on a consistent basis, I contribute her love of literature to be part of the reason for her creativity.

Either way, there is just no way that books take away imagination and creativity. You'd be hard pressed to find any study that said that and could easily find many studies proving otherwise. Because of the static or even non existent illustrations, hearing books read is an exercise in imagination and creativity.

I think the type of books read does affect how much creativity tho - reading books associated with oft viewed cartoons is going to require a lot less imagination than reading books where the child has to imagine the action and all themselves.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

I guess I'm one of those crummy parents whose child some of you are feeling sorry for!

My older dd loved books and stories early on. I can't claim to have started reading to her at *4 days* after birth -- or whatever age a previous poster said was optimal. But by a year of age she was getting read to, usually several times a day, because *she* was the one bringing me books or wanting a story.

Enter dd2. She turns 4 in March, and has only recently started enjoying having books and stories read to her. From an early age, she's enjoyed looking through books and babbling to herself while studying the pictures. But if I tried to read a book, she'd grab it out of my hand and take over "reading" it to herself. If I started telling her a story or singing to her, she'd cry for me to stop.

She's been somewhat tolerant of me reading and telling stories to her sister, though. And lately I've noticed that her interest has been sparked.

I simply see no reason to force books -- or any other experience -- on a child. Part of being a responsive parent is connecting with our children where they're at, not pushing our agendas on them.


----------



## dex_millie (Oct 19, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Liquesce* 
I'm a devoted bookworm. I read all the time. My kids are read to all the time. BUT ... in a way I really don't see the big deal, IF those kids are receiving parental attention and stimulation by other means. Do their parents get down on the floor and play with them? Encourage their imaginations? Involve them in their everyday activities? Storytell _without_ books? Read to them _sometimes_, if not every day? Give their children "undivided, loving attention" that has nothing to do with reading?

Like I said, I love books ... but I have a hard time with the notion that parents who don't are by definition deglecting a necessity. There are a lot of cultures in this world in which leisure reading is just not an element, in which children are still given rich, full upbringings.

I agree with the above. My parents are not what you would call readers. I use to feel bad for my father when he read something aloud (the words just don't flow smoothly). I maybe got a few stories for bedtime, especially by my grandmother house but nothing like what they say children need. But we had books in the house and I had a book and cassette player for the book which I loved.

I became very interested in reading books, most of my school years I would be reading in my bedroom some book, anytype of book - animals books, mystery books to those sweet valley high books. My sister was the same, but my brother wasn't like us he more played outside.

Our parents was attentive I would believe and my mom was a SAHM also with all of us, so like someone said there was some other factors there. But I would say if a parent can I see no harm in it. I try to do it as I can see my son is more interested in reading the more I read to him.

The thing is also even though I read alot my grammer and vocabolary are VERY BAD and it still is. My parents didn't care about proper grammer and the school I went wasn't the best in English, I have and still struggle with English and grammer.


----------



## Harmon-knee (Jan 31, 2009)

I don't think my parents ever read to me, and I love reading! My kids love to look at books on their own, and sometimes they ask me to read to them, which I'm very happy to do. I think modration in all things.


----------



## 4evermom (Feb 3, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
I simply see no reason to force books -- or any other experience -- on a child. Part of being a responsive parent is connecting with our children where they're at, not pushing our agendas on them.

ITA. My ds hardly wanted to be read to until he was 5ish. Now he wants me to read to him every night before bed. He didn't need to have his attention span encouraged by some regiment of nightly reading. He just needed to get older and get interested. He always had plenty of access to books and book reading parents.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Attached Mama* 
I think the problem is that parents don't start when their baby is like 1 wk old, so then time just evolves and the kids don't develop much attn span for it and the parents just don't ever get around to it. The kid has lived thus long w/o it so why start now?

Okay, I went back and checked and you said 1 week not 4 days.

Still, I'm rather appalled that anyone would see it as _a problem_ that people aren't reading to their _1 week old babies_. While I don't see it as a problem for someone to read to a newborn, so long as it doesn't upset the newborn -- why would this be seen as essential???


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Also, for those of you who "feel sorry for" kids like my almost 4yo -- who don't enjoy being read to frequently, and have parents who respect their preferences -- do you really think parents in pre-literate societies are disconnected from their children?

The printed word is a pretty recent development, when you consider the whole of human history.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *4evermom* 
He didn't need to have his attention span encouraged by some regiment of nightly reading. He just needed to get older and get interested.

Exactly!


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *straighthaircurly* 
DS is in K now and his "homework" every night is to read a book with someone. He can either be read to or have someone read to him and then we record it on a sheet for his teacher. The kids bring home a book from school. There are about 5 kids in the class who show up everyday with a blank sheet. The reasons noone reads with them could be many (whether due to lack of time, interest, skill, or organization to remember), but the end result is that these kids are also the kids struggling with literacy at school. They came into school not knowing how to rhyme, how to tell a story, how to recognize letters, how to sit and listen to a story at school. The school is giving extra support to these kids but in reality they will probably continue to fall behind kids who have literacy support at home. What else may or may not be going on in their family, I have no way of knowing, but they are not having reading time at home.

Interesting, except...ds1 came into kindergarten knowing how to rhyme, how to tell a story, all of his letters (both upper and lower case), and how to sit still and listen to a story. However, if he'd had a reading log (that didn't start until grade 3), it would have been blank almost every day, unless I simply filled it in even though we hadn't read that day. There were certainly many reasons why I didn't read to him, but...he never, ever fell behind. His language skills have always been in the upper range of his class, and his last report card came home with 100% for the term in English.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ruthla* 
Ugh. I HATED it when my kids had "reading logs" for school! The teachers always insisted on reading a certain number of books (or later, a certain number of minutes) every single night. None of them were ever satisifed with "an hour a week" it had to be "20 minutes a night" (or whatever daily reading limit they wanted that year.)

My daughters NEVER enjoyed reading one chapter and putting the book down. We've always been "devour the book" kinds of readers. Either we sit and read the whole book, or we don't read that day. We'd rather read 2-3 hours on a weekend afternoon than add a short burst of unsatisfying reading to an already busy weeknight.

We had after school activities some days, plus written homework, family meals, chores, and they needed time for free play. To squeeze in an extra 20 minutes every single night was just rediculous! Trying to follow the school's reading requirements turned reading into a chore, when before it had been fully enjoyable. I finally started filling out the reading log the way the teacher wanted it filled out- I'd put down the 20 or 30 minutes of reading each night, even if the reading had all been done in one burst on Saturday.

Yup. I know a family where the kids (3 out of 4 - the other is some kind of prodigy) are all struggling with literacy. I can guarantee you that they've never gone to school with any kind of reading log that reflects the fact that they spend their after school time parked in front of the tv, trashing the house, or both.

I hate reading logs. I hate the physical activity log that ds1 now has to fill out every day. These things are tedious and annoying...and lots of people just lie.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

From what I can gather after a brief browsing of a study on illiteracy, not being read to is listed as one factor among a list of factors -- some other factors were not seeing parents reading, and having at least one parent who doesn't read.

I'm guessing that parents being illiterate has a greater impact on literacy than whether or not the parents read to the child every night. And, of course, if parents are illiterate, it stands to reason that they're not going to be reading bedtime stories.

And then the "not reading bedtime stories" gets touted as the main cause of illiteracy, and parents get scared that if they're not reading to their 1 week old babies, their attention-spans will never get developed and they'll never enjoy books ...


----------



## Attached Mama (Dec 4, 2005)

wow mammal mama - I guess i got you really upset. I'm sorry...

I seriously can't comprehend a kid that doesn't like books. I've seriously never met one unless there were also other issues like hyper activity due to watching too much tv, eating sugar etc. Not to say they don't exist, just sharing my experiences with working with many children over the years.

While I do think following a child's lead is good in some ways - we lean toward unschooling around here - I also think parents know what is best for a child in many ways too. I suggested introducing reading at 1 wk old or so because if it's introduced early enough then kids develop that attn span as they develop. They aren't suddenly introduced to books and not intersted because books have been a part of their lives from almost day 1. I don't suggest it because I'm afraid my child won't be literate if she's not read to. Like other pp's have said - literacy is due to more than just one factor.

In our home, books are like treasures. We love them. We have a lot of them. We are very choosy about them and we are always collecting more. They are a huge part of our lives. In addition to unschooling I'm also very into Charlotte Mason whose educational premise was learning (in addition to from real life exper etc) largely from what she called "real" books - not textbooks. Part of what we do with our 3 yr old for her homeschool preschool is she picks a topic of her choice and then we get out books from the library on it. So far we have done squirrels and beavers. Many of the books are fictionalized stories. Some are informational. All help you learn about that animal. She loves animals.

In fairness, dd was a *very* aware newborn who would be awake for hours at a time and then sleep longer than normal stretches. She always wanted to be seeing things - so showing her books and talking about them was great for her even very young. Others might want to wait til their baby is past that sleepy newborn age and more alert.

We also sing songs, tell stories, learn from real life a lot - but books hold a very special place in our home. When I read the original article, I think I read it wrong in a hurry - thinking of all the kids whose parents NEVER read to them. Reading a few hrs on weekends as opposed to a few minutes per day seems fine to me as well. And yes, studies do show that seeing a parent read is even more important than reading to a child. I just can't imagine not reading to my child. Her vocab is astounding for her age and often I have to try and think where she learned a word and it dawns on me that she heard it once or twice in a book and that's it. Yes one can learn vocab in other places - obviously - but reading is a big aid too.

And of course older kids who can read to themselves may not have parents reading to them at all. I don't think my mom read to us much past when we could read ourselves.

To me, I don't see early reading as "Oh oh - the kid is going to be dumb if I don't read to them". I see it as book are such a huge precious treasure and thus something I want to be a part of my child's life. She can learn thru them; her imagination is stimulated; there are whole other magical places to be explored - some real and some not; vocabulary is formed; critical thinking is developed; but beyond all that they are just this fun, treasure; all other things being ancillary. I love getting lost in a book, in the photos, in the beautiful prose, in the poetry, in the story, in the colorful development of characters, the mystery, the romance. I love books. I want to share that love with my child - and yes, it's sad to me that some children don't get that.

As for the educational benefit - kids who can read well definitely do better in school and often even in many jobs because so many jobs require the ability to work well with written communication. My husband holds a high management position and it's torture and slow for him to wade thru all of the stuff he has to read. College is so much easier if one can read well also. But at a young age, the benefits are not so important as the fact that reading is just plain fun!!

Here is what we did for that stage when babies grab books and put them in the mouth. If we were reading, we just moved the book over and said no even if she objected. She realized after once or twice that she couldn't have it when we were reading (she didn't cry -just sort of verbally object for a second "ah... ah" sort of thing). When she played with the books herself, she learned really fast "books are for looking at see the doggie. woof woof" as we took the book from her mouth. Then we'd tell her as it went back to the mouth







"books in the mouth go bye bye. look at the doggie" and redirect her again. If she put it in her mouth we gently took it and put it up higher bye bye. It was so funny! She'd put it in her mouth - look at me and hand it to me. Then she'd try another book almost like a game. After a min or so she'd tire of it and go on and look at some other books w/o putting them in the mouth.

Anyway, these are ideas for people who really love books and thus want to intro them to their kids - not for making people paranoid that if they don't intro them at 1 wk old their kid will be dumb. I think the most important thing is that children learn to love books sooner or later whether by seeing parents read all the time or by being read to til they can read themselves. I do think books are important educationally tho as kids grow older. Certainly tho I see no harm in introducing them younger and I think seriously that some kids never learn to like books because they aren't read to and don't see parents reading. I think why wait to intro them? They are such a fun thing to share!!


----------



## KBecks (Jan 3, 2007)

Part of my question in starting this thread isn't so much a parenting topic as much as it is an activism topic -- what do you think would be helpful for families that are not bookish to encourage literacy? The Reach Out and Read organization is working to get books into the hands of families that may not otherwise have them. Perhaps it's not a big deal to parents who are already very active and engaged with their children in a variety of ways.... but what about families where children may not be getting as much nurturing of any of the kinds suggested? Is promoting reading a good way of helping families with something that is relatively easy to start? Like the family dinner suggestion as well?


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Attached Mama* 
As for the educational benefit - kids who can read well definitely do better in school and often even in many jobs because so many jobs require the ability to work well with written communication.

Let's add "in general" to this. My reading comprehension (to the degree that it can be tested) was always well above average. I usually got perfect marks on tests in that area. I was also the fastest reader in my grade every year that I can remember. I tested out as having an "exceptional" adult vocabulary at age 16, and was reading at a college level in 7th grade. I definitely read well.

I barely graduated from high school. I was capable of excellent marks, and occasionally got them, when I was interested enough to bother. I mostly didn't bother. One of the many reasons that I rarely bothered was that schoolwork cut into my reading time, and I resented it. If measured in terms of abilities vs. achievement, I was probably one of the bottom 5% of students in my school (ie. there were others who did much worse than I did...but they didn't have the brainpower or potential for achievement that I had in the first place).

As for the workplace, ime, there are many good-paying jobs that carry high prestige and don't require the ability to work well with written communication. They require a secretary or assistant who works well with written communication.


----------



## NiteNicole (May 19, 2003)

Attached Mama, I think you happen to have a very laidback,easygoing kid and maybe you just don't know it.


----------



## MusicianDad (Jun 24, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NiteNicole* 
Attached Mama, I think you happen to have a very laidback,easygoing kid and maybe you just don't know it.

I'm thinking that too. DD never would have just accepted it after a couple of "no's". She would have instead gotten bored, and cranky and probably thrown a fit. My dad remembers the one time he tried to make me sit for a book, not even a long one. I just got more and more wiggly and when he asked if I was paying attention... "No!"

I still learned to love books and had a decent attention span otherwise.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

With respect to kids sitting still for reading....dd loves it when I read Harry Potter to her. She asks for more chapters. If I ask her a question about what's going on (to check in whether she's really paying attention), she _always_ knows. But, you know...there are times when she snuggles up to me for the whole reading session, and there are times when she's all over the living room - rearranging her dollhouse, pretending to fetch me tea, etc. - the whole time.

For that matter, I don't generally like listening to people read out loud. I hate reading out loud. I'm still a bookworm.


----------



## Alison's Mom (May 3, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Liquesce* 
I'm a devoted bookworm. I read all the time. My kids are read to all the time. BUT ... in a way I really don't see the big deal, IF those kids are receiving parental attention and stimulation by other means. Do their parents get down on the floor and play with them? Encourage their imaginations? Involve them in their everyday activities? Storytell _without_ books? Read to them _sometimes_, if not every day? Give their children "undivided, loving attention" that has nothing to do with reading?

ITA

We read a lot to our kids because 1-they can't read for themselves yet, although DD has memorized many books and sometimes 'reads' them to her brother, and 2-both kids insist that we read to them several times a day.

We started reading to DD at about 5 months, and she would sort of sit still and pay attention. For whatever reason, she loves being read to, and from about age 18mo, would sit still for hours if someone would read to her for that long.

It took DS a little longer to be able to sit still for books, but now at 2.5, he loves being read to as well, but still not as much as his sister.

I remember a grandma I knew once congratulated me for instilling a love of reading in my DD, because her grandson couldn't care less about books at the time, and I was surprised by her compliment because I didn't think I had anything to do with it.


----------



## LynnS6 (Mar 30, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
do you really think parents in pre-literate societies are disconnected from their children?

The printed word is a pretty recent development, when you consider the whole of human history.

I think it's important to separate out attachment/connection to kids from LITERACY. Reading promotes literacy.

Many parents use reading as a way to connect too, but not all. That's OK. I'd rather see a parent who has a good connection and gives their child a good solid foundation of oral language and lots of experience than one who forced a squirmy 20 month old to sit on a couch and be read to.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MusicianDad* 
I rarely came across new words in a book. I simply came across uncommon words that I'd only heard once or twice before.

Ah, but it was reinforced by reading. I'm not saying reading is the ONLY way, but reading certainly enhances the chances that you'll run across less common words, or more nuanced words.


----------



## MusicianDad (Jun 24, 2008)

I find that hearing a word used makes it stick more then seeing it used.


----------



## orangefoot (Oct 8, 2004)

My parents were big readers and my mum still is. I spent my nocturnal youth reading books and can still do a book an evening if I want or neeeeeed to but if I do other things don't get done. My eldest two are 15 and 12 and you can't get their heads out of books once they are in. We cleared ds2's bunk last week and he had more than a dozen books in there along with a lot of of other stuff.

I read to both of them when they were small and it made me tired! Once I start reading aloud I can't stop yawning and I'd really rather read in my head. It was such a relief when the boys realised they could read in their heads and not read aloud - especially on car journeys









Dd1 and dd2 like books and read to themselves and I read to them but not always every day. Dd is learning to read all y herself and it is a joy to see.

When our kids are little I think we can get really fixated on doing everything 'right' and be scandalised by those who are doing it 'wrong'. Not everyone is like you or us though.

I work with people who want to improve their literacy skills and to many of them , sitting reading aloud to their toddler would be one of the most painful ways they could spend a couple of minutes of their day. It pains me that they don't have access to that wonder and escape that books provide but it just isn't their thing at the moment and to be honest it may never be. That does not make them bad people and it doesn't make them bad parents either. It is not my job to judge; I am there to help them on their journey and open doors to see if they want to go through them, not shove them kicking and screaming. That's what school did and look a the result.


----------



## Attached Mama (Dec 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NiteNicole* 
Attached Mama, I think you happen to have a very laidback,easygoing kid and maybe you just don't know it.

Nope! She's pretty determined. She's very very curious tho and can't resist seeing what's in that book and hearing about it. She has been very very curios from birth. What other 6 wk old do you know who won't ever sleep except in the car or at home because she has to be up and seeing everything?









Still, she learned early on that if we said she couldn't have something, then she couldn't have it. It was either read the book before bed, or turn off the light and nurse to sleep. She understood her choices early on - she was very verbal very young and understood things long before she started signing at 4 months or so.


----------



## 4evermom (Feb 3, 2005)

My not-interested-in-books-until-5 ds was also very alert as a baby, highly verbal, etc. He just wasn't interested in things that weren't very dynamic. Machines, things with moving parts, stuff he could work were more interesting. He did like lift the flap books and ones with moving parts. Kids are just different. He was also one to not sit still, just a busy bright kid. I did occasionally read to him as he played but then he felt he didn't have my attention and would take away the book.


----------



## Attached Mama (Dec 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *KBecks* 
Part of my question in starting this thread isn't so much a parenting topic as much as it is an activism topic -- what do you think would be helpful for families that are not bookish to encourage literacy? The Reach Out and Read organization is working to get books into the hands of families that may not otherwise have them. Perhaps it's not a big deal to parents who are already very active and engaged with their children in a variety of ways.... but what about families where children may not be getting as much nurturing of any of the kinds suggested? Is promoting reading a good way of helping families with something that is relatively easy to start? Like the family dinner suggestion as well?

Honestly, like I stated before, I think knowing how to introduce books is helpful. If you try to read to a little one just reciting the text any kid will get bored and grab the book to chew on or run around. Attention span really is an issue. It is suggested by literary proponents that one not actually *read* the book to a baby or young child who is just being intro to books. Instead, look at the pictures and spend about 5 seconds per page pointing things out excitedly.

In this way, a board book takes about 20 to 30 seconds to read. Most any baby has a 20 second attn span - espec if the reader acts excited enough about the book.

To simply listen to a parent droning on and on and spending more than a few seconds on a page is going to turn off any baby to books and will turn off most toddlers who have ever watched much media.

As the child progresses in attn span, then the amt of time spent on each page and the amt of text read can increase.

Of course, one can wait til later to introduce books at the time of the child's own choosing. However, you are speaking in the context of families who aren't readers, so it's doubtful that their children ever would become interested at a later age. That's what happened to my husband (and to the pp -yes my dh does have a secretary. Still, most upper management jobs do require a lot of reading at least initially). His family never read to him or to themselves - books were decorations.

So in cases like you mention, intro books early and making it a fun thing is important I think.


----------



## octobermom (Aug 31, 2005)

We did start reading at birth I found it calming and so did my DD I could actually read to her a loooong time I read while she nursed. However it didn't do anything to prepare her for reading latter







We have gone through seasons where we were lucky if she'd sit still 1 mintute for a quick poem other times where she wants 47 back to back novels sometimes where we added puppets and actions to the stories to keep her involved others where shes just wanted to cuddle and fall asleep to the sounds of our voices time where she want to "read herself" others where she jsut wants me to tell her stories. SEasons where we read every night without fail and 15 times during the day seasons where we put the nightly reading asside in place of songs or board games even movie nights. Yet she still loves boos today is doing well in her reading has a great attention span...

Deanna


----------



## 4evermom (Feb 3, 2005)

My favorite way to help a child develop attention span is to not distract him by showing him things when he is already doing something.









For a baby, this would mean letting him gaze at something until he was done before walking away with him. Frequently, adults get so excited to show young kids things that they don't pay attention to when the child is involved in something, like looking at the ceiling fan. They dangle new toys in front of the child, turn the page before the child is done looking, try to keep things fast paced and exciting to keep the child's interest, swoop over and pick up the child without asking the child (they respond to the hands out gesture of "pick up" very young if you give them a moment to respond).

Interestingly, the fast paced kids shows like Sesame St which people always claim encourage short attention spans always lost rather than kept my child's attention because they frequently changed to a new skit at which point he'd wander off.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Attached Mama* 
wow mammal mama - I guess i got you really upset. I'm sorry...

That's okay. As I've read more of your posts, it's occurred to me that, had dd1 remained an only child, I'd probably still be thinking a lot like you.









Quote:

I seriously can't comprehend a kid that doesn't like books.
Actually, I never meant to imply that dd2 doesn't like books -- as I think I've already mentioned, from an early age she's been looking at them herself, intently studying the pictures and talking about what she sees. She just hasn't wanted to be read to -- though that has been changing of late.

Quote:

I've seriously never met one unless there were also other issues like hyper activity due to watching too much tv, eating sugar etc. Not to say they don't exist, just sharing my experiences with working with many children over the years.
Reading this makes me very glad that my second child is so different from my first in some ways; I think she's pulled me out of that judgmental mode, and opened me up to so much more appreciation for the whole of life, and for the different ways different people relate to the world.

Quote:

While I do think following a child's lead is good in some ways - we lean toward unschooling around here - I also think parents know what is best for a child in many ways too. I suggested introducing reading at 1 wk old or so because if it's introduced early enough then kids develop that attn span as they develop.
I really like what 4evermom just said --

"My favorite way to help a child develop attention span is to not distract him by showing him things when he is already doing something."

I used to think I knew more than my kids did, about what were the most valuable ways for them to spend their time. I'm glad that I started learning to see things through their eyes, instead of imposing my vision on them.

Quote:

I think why wait to intro them? They are such a fun thing to share!!
I love books myself, and agree that they're very fun to share -- when the child is enjoying the sharing.

Why wait to intro them? Since we have books all over our house, my younger child who didn't like being read to has been introducing books to herself, in her own way, for quite some time now. As well as hearing me read to her sister, and seeing me read to myself.

As far as the activism-aspect that KBecks mentioned, I think the best way to foster a love for reading in the future generation of parents, is for schools to stop having "assigned reading." Just take the kids to the library and turn them loose, let them check out whatever they want and spend all the time they want reading it.

*Never* penalize a child for being too busy reading to do homework (and, if you *really* want them to love reading, quit assigning homework at all and encourage them to spend their evenings exploring what interests them).

And let them spend lots of their classtime reading whatever catches their fancy -- whether it's a novel or a comic book. And don't penalize them for writing notes to each other during class -- since, as one librarian told me, "Writing is reading the other way around."

And if a child wants to spend her recess-time reading, let her, and don't worry that you have to make her "well-rounded." I was in second grade when I discovered how reading could take me into another world. I was miserable in school, so I tried to lose myself in a book as much as I could. But my teacher started taking my book from me as I headed out the door for recess.

Then my only outlet was to lose myself in an imaginary world, and I'd walk around among the trees at the edge of our playground, gesturing and talking to myself. Which made the kids think I was crazy, so the teachers put a stop to that by telling me I had to keep busy on the equipment, or else they'd force me into a competitive game ...

Of course, all this didn't kill my love for reading and imagining. But it did make me feel guilty whenever I enjoyed myself "too much" in these ways. It's hard to shake off that guilt, even today.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

I thought I'd add that my love for books (as well as my love for my kids) is what holds me back from insisting on reading to them when they'd rather be doing something else.

It's kind of like, if you think your child's girlfriend/boyfriend will be the perfect mate, if you're wise you'll still take a step back and allow them space to fall in love and experience the romance for themselves.

You know if you're too pushy, there's a risk of turning your child off to a good thing, simply because s/he is feeling rushed or feeling pressured to do what makes you happy.

Love affairs (whether with people or books) are highly personal, individualized things -- no 2 are the same. I want my kids to feel the freedom to encounter books and love in their own way, and in their own good time.


----------



## Megamus (Oct 14, 2008)

Perhaps the best thing would be to agree that children of any age should have the _opportunity_ to be read to daily _if it's something that they enjoy_? I mean, I got a bag of books at the hospital when Xander was born, but no one's checking up on me to make sure I'm reading them to my baby (honestly, the books I got weren't that wonderful -I prefer the ones I've bought myself). I think that parents and children should have access to reading resources/support and should have it in mind as an activity that could be a fun way to spend time together. It shouldn't be solely a fear-based thing or an effort to one-up other moms/babies, because then it's _work_ and not _fun._


----------



## 4evermom (Feb 3, 2005)

Sorry about that teacher/reading experience!








My aunt grew up thinking reading was bad because her two older sisters were bookworms and their mother had to raise her voice to get their attention to do tasks like setting the table.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
I really like what 4evermom just said --

"My favorite way to help a child develop attention span is to not distract him by showing him things when he is already doing something."

And think about how often people try to redirect behavior in young children by distraction. Often, one can just facilitate the child's exploration so they can satisfy their curiosity safely. Not that I think there is no place in parenting for distracting children but perhaps it shouldn't always be the first tool out of the toolbox.


----------



## Devaya (Sep 23, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
T
And if a child wants to spend her recess-time reading, let her, and don't worry that you have to make her "well-rounded." I was in second grade when I discovered how reading could take me into another world. I was miserable in school, so I tried to lose myself in a book as much as I could. But my teacher started taking my book from me as I headed out the door for recess.

Then my only outlet was to lose myself in an imaginary world, and I'd walk around among the trees at the edge of our playground, gesturing and talking to myself. Which made the kids think I was crazy, so the teachers put a stop to that by telling me I had to keep busy on the equipment, or else they'd force me into a competitive game ...

Of course, all this didn't kill my love for reading and imagining. But it did make me feel guilty whenever I enjoyed myself "too much" in these ways. It's hard to shake off that guilt, even today.

I just wanted to say thank you for this post - I've been wondering why I never let myself just relax and read, and when I do, I feel ridiculously guilty- and reading your post all these memories flooded back of having my reading urges suppressed in school and by friends' parents ('go play outside', etc)...somehow reading was good, but not actually 'enjoying' reading... So reading your post really clicked a few things in place for me. I too used to tell stories to myself and create imaginary worlds









I've enjoyed reading this thread - there's a lot in here to think about. I was read to a lot from an early age, saw my parents read, and grew up loving books. My sister grew up the same but resisted reading and although she has a good vocabulary and writing skills, she's never been as voracious a reader as me...I think that is down to personality though. I read to my son and he loves it (he's 16 months), seems to have the attention span for it, and I've noticed has a much better vocabulary (such as it is) than the other same-aged kids I know (but that could be for other reasons too of course)...but I also know toddlers who won't sit still, and I think it would be terrible to force them to read...so it was interesting to read what you said about your different children, Mammal_mama. j

I think that rather than forcing books on children - and the reading logs do sound awful - just having books around, normalising them and reading to your children when this seems to be something they are happy with, would go a long way to developing literacy, imagination and language skills.


----------



## Greenmama2AJ (Jan 10, 2008)

I just wanted to respond to the op - who restated her question on the last page - asking how we can be activists to encourage reading to children.

I think the main thing about reading to children is that they are participating in oral story telling.

There are many developmental theorists who believe it is actually _talking_ to our children that increases their literacy - and reading to children is just one way of meaningfully talking to our children. Children who are regularly read to are having their parents sit down and dedicate 15-20 minutes a night in one-on-one storytelling.

As Mom's we can all understand how if we dont dedicate this reading time its really easy to get through the day with just short conversations. But that doesn't mean that reading is the only form of valuable communication. As children progress they develop a love for their _own_ story telling and they the develop a love for reading others stories.

I agree that to encourage parents to read to their kids we should start by encouraging parents to read for enjoyment. Give parents free books and magazines, encourage any type of reading through engaging parents in whats meaningful for them and their community. Its not just about setting goals, its about encouraging that love for talking to each other.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Devaya* 
I just wanted to say thank you for this post - I've been wondering why I never let myself just relax and read, and when I do, I feel ridiculously guilty- and reading your post all these memories flooded back of having my reading urges suppressed in school and by friends' parents ('go play outside', etc)...somehow reading was good, but not actually 'enjoying' reading... So reading your post really clicked a few things in place for me. I too used to tell stories to myself and create imaginary worlds









Your post really brings it home to me: It seems like the same institution that *says* it wants to promote love for reading, is the one actively sabatoging it.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Greenmama2AJ* 
I agree that to encourage parents to read to their kids we should start by encouraging parents to read for enjoyment. Give parents free books and magazines, encourage any type of reading through engaging parents in whats meaningful for them and their community. Its not just about setting goals, *its about encouraging that love for talking to each other*.

Bolding mine. Very well said!


----------



## crazydiamond (May 31, 2005)

This has been a very interesting discussion.

I think reading to children is important, but the parent really needs to respect their child. If they aren't ready (like my 10 mos old DS who won't sit still for nothin'), don't push them. I think if they have access to books and see other people reading, they _will_ get interested in them eventually.

My DD is 3.5 and we read to her every night. She picks the book, we read. Some times she "reads" to us (from memorization). Now, I don't think being read to at night is any more important than being read to _some time_. Bedtime just happens to be a good time for us because our days are so busy (I'm a full-time student so I'm gone a lot). If I stayed home all day and we happened to read earlier in the day, that would be good enough for me. And, I don't think reading _every single day_ is all that important either -- just as long as the child gets read to on a somewhat regular basis. In other words, I think it's beneficial to make sure the child is read to, at occasionally, so that it would benefit the child during each developmental period. I mean, reading to DD now at nearly 4 is a much different experience than it was a year ago. As she grows and learns more and develops, her involvement in the reading changes. Books play different roles during different periods in a child life and I just want to make sure I touch upon all of them.

Interestingly, I do not consider myself a bookworm. I do like to read and I do it well, but I'm not the type to pick up a book and read it from cover to cover in one sitting. Part of it is that I'm a slow reader and it takes me a long time, and another part is that reading novels just doesn't capture my interest for long periods of time. There tends to be other things I'd rather be doing (like baking).

In addition, I'm not one to enjoy fiction. I don't get "lost" in a fantasy world like my bookworm friends do. I just don't enjoy that kind of thing. (This is true of movies, too. Give me a documentary over fantasy, any day.) When I do read for pleasure, I read historical accounts or biographies or mathematical/scientific theories. If DD grows up and wants us to read fictional chapter books to her at bedtime, I think I'll have DH start doing the reading because I find the thought of having to do that really unappealing. He loves fantasy and fiction, so he's more suited to those stories anyway.

That being said, I do not read for pleasure much anymore. It's been a couple of years since I've had the chance. Nonetheless, I still read at least 2-3 hrs a day. I just happen to be in school, in a very challenging program that requires a ton of reading. I don't mind it, thankfully, but I owe that to my desire to read non-fiction. Between my text books and newspapers, I think I'm doing alright anyway.

My goal is two raise children who are able to read well and don't mind doing so. I'll be honest and say I'm not really concerned with whether they are bookworms or not. . .it's just not something that I find to be a positive or a negative. But I absolutely _do_ want them to be able to read at a high level and develop a strong vocabulary and excellent comprehension. Likewise, I want them to be able to express well themselves through writing, a skill that is aided by reading. In the end, though, I'm not going to fret if books just aren't they're passion.


----------



## Ceinwen (Jul 1, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
And if a child wants to spend her recess-time reading, let her, and don't worry that you have to make her "well-rounded." I was in second grade when I discovered how reading could take me into another world. I was miserable in school, so I tried to lose myself in a book as much as I could. But my teacher started taking my book from me as I headed out the door for recess.

Then my only outlet was to lose myself in an imaginary world, and I'd walk around among the trees at the edge of our playground, gesturing and talking to myself. Which made the kids think I was crazy, so the teachers put a stop to that by telling me I had to keep busy on the equipment, or else they'd force me into a competitive game ...

Of course, all this didn't kill my love for reading and imagining. But it did make me feel guilty whenever I enjoyed myself "too much" in these ways. It's hard to shake off that guilt, even today.

You just described my childhood down to the detail about the teacher's reigning you in and forcing you to participate. Absolutely unbelievable...

Anyway, I am an extremely avid reader. Taught myself to read at age three, my parents read to me pretty much every day growing up, and in turn I read to my four younger siblings. I almost always have three or four books on the go (fiction and non) and always have university texts laying around.

Dh reads, but very slowly. A book or magazine lasts him weeks, if not months. He much prefers television or the internet; he was not read to as a child - but more so, grew up in a home without books. Neither of my ILs read.

Dd1 has been read to since she was about a year and could bring me board books to look through together. Since then her interest in reading has slowly declined. She (at age six) currently has little interest in reading or being read to. She has a very short attention span, and although we literally have two huge bookcases of both children's and YA's books & novels - she's not interested.

I'm not currently forcing it. She sees me reading in bed every night. She usually watches TV or plays beside me. I've tried forbidding TV, but that backfired and made her even more resistant to reading. She's smart enough to realize that when I say 'No TV, let's read instead' to recognize it as me exerting my control over her.

I believe it'll come back around as she begins to read more independantly.

Dd2 (who just turned a year) loves books. We have stacks and stacks of board books, and she'll spend hours looking at them or dragging them to me and crying 'Boo! Boo!' until I sit on the floor with her. I'm not sure how her interest will hold, or how long she'll enjoy being actively read to.

I'm pretty sure I convinced my mum to read out loud to me right up until I was around twelve. At that age, I was reading pretty much whatever my parents were, but there was something about the act of being read to that was special.

Anyway, I guess I'm saying that even starting reading with a baby - they will go through periods of interest and disinterest, just like any other activity. And like a pp mentioned, I too believe there's way too much importance placed on the 'OMGZ the first five critical years of development'... do whatever makes you and your kids happy and healthy.

We all need to let go of the stats.


----------



## NiteNicole (May 19, 2003)

Quote:

What other 6 wk old do you know who won't ever sleep except in the car or at home because she has to be up and seeing everything?

Still, she learned early on that if we said she couldn't have something, then she couldn't have it. It was either read the book before bed, or turn off the light and nurse to sleep. She understood her choices early on - she was very verbal very young and understood things long before she started signing at 4 months or so.
All this reinforces what I said: you have a very easy going kid, you just don't know it. I suspect it's because until you have one that ISN'T laid back, you won't know really get it.


----------



## glorified_rice (Jun 5, 2005)

I suppose I'll chime in here. DS is almost four and wasn't interested in being read to until this year. I tried. I did read to him semi-frequently as a baby, but as he became more independent he had no time or inclination for reading as he was so busy absorbing the world around him, Honestly, I felt like a bad parent for a while because it had been programmed into me from a very young age that it is so important to read to your child on a daily basis. I learned to let that go pretty quickly as I realized that he has his own ideas about things







All of a sudden this year he became super-interested in reading. We read every night and have progressed to "chapter books" with few pictures and I know that the love of reading has been cultivated within him. IMO, this study would have been more effective if they had taken into account how many of the children actually wished that they were being read to. There's a big difference. For some reason we equate reading to our kids with some kind of intangible bonding experience (if that makes any sense) and if we fail to do so as directed, well.... we're just not doing our jobs. I don't buy into that at all.


----------



## ema-adama (Dec 3, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
I really like what 4evermom just said --

"My favorite way to help a child develop attention span is to not distract him by showing him things when he is already doing something."

I used to think I knew more than my kids did, about what were the most valuable ways for them to spend their time. I'm glad that I started learning to see things through their eyes, instead of imposing my vision on them.


This really stood out for me. I would love for this to guide me through parenting my child. It makes so much sense.


----------



## sunnmama (Jul 3, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *KBecks* 
_*A recent study commissioned by Reach Out and Read revealed that the majority of young children - 52 percent - are not being read to on a daily basis. That's 13 million children under 6 years old who are going to bed every night without a bedtime story - without the undivided, loving attention that comes with sharing a favorite book with their parents*
Dr. Barry Zuckerman, Reach Out and Read_
.


I think reading is important, and reading to our kids is important--esp as they seek being read to (in addition to having books for them to explore on their own, and modeling reading ourselves). What I do _not_ think is important is

1. reading _every day_
2. reading _at bedtime_
3. reading _to babies_

The quoted paragraph, in the op, says nothing meaningful to me. It certainly does not convince me that those 13 million dc aren't being read to an adequate amt (maybe they aren't, but that quote doesn't convince me), or that they don't have undivided, loving attn from their parents at bedtime (or otherwise).

If people want to read every day, at bedtime, to their babies (lol), go for it. But I do not believe that is necessarily superior to singing to a baby, or simply talking to a baby.

I think there is a lot of unnecessary worry, guilt, and superiority in the "reading dogma".


----------



## kittykat2481 (Nov 7, 2008)

I read to my 13 month old EVERY.SINGLE.DAY. He loves loves loves books! I've been reading to him since he was very little though. I think it is important. I want him to develop a love for books and a love for learning.

The Read Aloud Handbook was suggested to me before as well, but I haven't had a chance to get to it. (I'm a full time nursing student as well, and most of my reading time is full with medical text!)


----------



## MusicianDad (Jun 24, 2008)

This was in the paper and made me think of this thread.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy (Jan 4, 2009)

why lol to reading to babies? sometimes, when I read to my babies I read books that don't have a lot of words and underline the words as I read them. babies can learn to read before they can talk. sometimes I read stories just for the bonding experience because they like it. My daughter is 2 and is constantly asking for "stories" she just started reading 2 weeks ago, only some words (27 in total, but more with each day)


----------



## sunnmama (Jul 3, 2003)

My (lol) was in regard to doing all 3 things I think are not so very important, not just reading to babies.

I read to my babies. I don't think there is anything wrong with it, and I enjoyed it. One of my babies LOVED it, and one baby really didn't get into it. But, imo, even my baby who LOVED books wouldn't have been deprived if she never *saw* a book until she was 12 months old (or older). I just find the idea that reading to babies is important absurd and annoying (more yardsticks for new parents to come up short).


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Greenmama2AJ* 
I just wanted to respond to the op - who restated her question on the last page - asking how we can be activists to encourage reading to children.

I think that we need to start by encouraging literacy and reading, in general. I know a lot of adults who almost never read anything...no books, no magazines, no newspapers...nothing. Our culture, imo, doesn't value reading very much.

Quote:

I think the main thing about reading to children is that they are participating in oral story telling.

There are many developmental theorists who believe it is actually _talking_ to our children that increases their literacy - and reading to children is just one way of meaningfully talking to our children.
That would explain why ds1 loves to read and dd shows signs of following in his footsteps. I talk to my kids all the time. We're a very verbal family. DD isn't reading yet, but she had a bigger vocabulary at 2 than most 5 year olds I've met. She just absorbed it, in typical small child "sponge" fashion.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy (Jan 4, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnmama* 
My (lol) was in regard to doing all 3 things I think are not so very important, not just reading to babies.

I read to my babies. I don't think there is anything wrong with it, and I enjoyed it. One of my babies LOVED it, and one baby really didn't get into it. But, imo, even my baby who LOVED books wouldn't have been deprived if she never *saw* a book until she was 12 months old (or older). I just find the idea that reading to babies is important absurd and annoying (more yardsticks for new parents to come up short).

Basing what I know about brain development in infants, I DO agree that if a child isn't interested it's no big deal, but I DON'T agree that it's not beneficial (not saying you don't think it is either). Your child wouldn't have been deprived, but because she enjoyed it and you made use of that enjoyment, she was fulfilled. Like, you don't lose points for not reading, but you certainly get some if your child is interested and you foster that interest (and that goes for anything they are interested in learning about).

Personally, if my child is interested in learning about reading or being read to then it IS very important. I guess thats why I don't understand the "lol" that those things are "not important" In the sense that you can be a good parent if you don't read to your child I agree, but overall importance, well my children think its important and therefor to me it is important. For my daughter, I feel I would be depriving her not to read to her since its her favorite thing ever and we have "reading" time probably 15 minutes of each hour she is awake, and 1/2 an hour before bed. its a big part of the day, and its how she "gets her cup filled".

So, I think it depends on the child. Maybe for most children it wouldn't deprive them, I think for *my* daughter it would. I don't think parents who don't read to their children are bad. I do think some parents don't realize how much children learn and love to learn long before they can talk, and how beneficial it is to their happiness (when learning happens in a relaxed, unforced way) whether that is reading, or something else. For some children, it may be art, nature, or music, or exploring the way the world works.

for some babies, it is important. maybe not for all. but to generalize and say the idea of reading to babies being important is absurd, that I cannot agree. I see a middle ground. Its not important for some, it is important for others. And if there is some kind of metaphorical yard stick, I think it varies for different children what they need from their parents. Being in tune with your child is important - whether that means reading to them is important, or whether reading to them would make no difference.

For my daughter it would be a great disservice to her for me not to foster her love of reading. She loves language - english, spanish, sign language, and written. fostering these things helps her developing brain, and gives her self confidence. I think that IS important. I think I would be depriving HER if I didn't encourage these things and do them with her.

I think reading is important in general too, and there are a lot of children who are reading way below their age level because learning to read is harder after the age of 4, and most don't start learning to read until at least the age of 5. It's something MOST people need to know how to do. The reason why this comes up in debate so often is because we have too many children who are 7, 8, 9, 10 etc who CAN'T read, and don't want to learn. They sometimes get low self esteem from not being able to read.

that being said, I dont think reading to a child is the best way to teach them to read. It holds other benefits, but there are too many words in winnie the pooh stories to teach about the written word. Maybe some children do learn this way, but I think starting off with children's stories with just a few words on each page is the best method. We also focus more on the sounds that letters make then the alphabet itself - though I think both are important to learn as well.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
For my daughter, I feel I would be depriving her not to read to her since its her favorite thing ever and we have "reading" time probably 15 minutes of each hour she is awake, and 1/2 an hour before bed. its a big part of the day, and its how she "gets her cup filled".

OMG - I'm glad none of my children have loved being read to _that_ much. Spending that much time reading out loud would absolutely drain me. I'd probably end up spending more than half my time dreading the next bout of reading. I'm glad your dd is matched up with a mama who doesn't mind it.

Quote:

I think reading is important in general too, and there are a lot of children who are reading way below their age level because learning to read is harder after the age of 4, and most don't start learning to read until at least the age of 5.
That seems a bit off to me. Most of my grad class were reading at grade level, and I highly doubt that many of them learned to read before 4. I've only ever known a handful of kids who show _any_ interest in learning before that age. DD is one of 11 grandchildren in our family, and she's the only one who showed any interest in reading or writing before age 4. (Three of the others are reading _way_ above grade level, though.) DS2 will be 4 in July, and he's incredibly disinterested...makes me wonder sometimes if he's really mine! (He enjoys being read to, if the story is _short_, but likes made-up stories and songs just as much.)

It seems very strange that it's harder after age 4. I know I've come across references to data suggesting that many children aren't even ready to learn to read when they start school. I've just never heard that the optimal time to learn to read is before age 4...


----------



## sunnmama (Jul 3, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
I think reading is important in general too, and there are a lot of children who are reading way below their age level because learning to read is harder after the age of 4, and most don't start learning to read until at least the age of 5. It's something MOST people need to know how to do. The reason why this comes up in debate so often is because we have too many children who are 7, 8, 9, 10 etc who CAN'T read, and don't want to learn. They sometimes get low self esteem from not being able to read.

We disagree about this, too. I've watched too many dc learn to read in huge leaps--seemingly overnight, in many cases--after age 4 to believe it is more difficult after age 4. I believe that most dc will learn to read naturally when their brain is ready, and for some dc it _is_ 7 or later. I do agree that low self esteem can become a problem with later readers, but the problem there lies with the label of being "behind" imo, rather than with the actual age of learning to read.


----------



## sunnmama (Jul 3, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
OMG - I'm glad none of my children have loved being read to _that_ much. Spending that much time reading out loud would absolutely drain me. I'd probably end up spending more than half my time dreading the next bout of reading. I'm glad your dd is matched up with a mama who doesn't mind it...

When my dd was a preschool-age (only dc, not in preschool), we spent 4 hours a day reading aloud. It was tiring, but, she loved it and and I willing, and we were reading relatively interesting things. And, when we stopped reading, she would immediately pop in a book on tape


----------



## Super Glue Mommy (Jan 4, 2009)

it is easiest for them to learn then, before the age of 4 the brain is developing much quicker then it does after the age of 4. I learned to read in school too, and was an excellent reader and read above grade level too. I am not saying children can't learn because they learn at school. You are also faced with the fact there ARE a lot of parents who rely to heavily on school to teach their children. 1 adults to 20+ students trying to teach READING and the parents dont read to them at home or teach them? thats why some children fall behind... not all.

one teacher writes:
"I have about 45 out of 150 students reading on a 1st - 3rd grade reading level. I teach 7th grade science and am struggling with teaching the content to these students. I would appreciate any advice that someone has so that I can better teach my content to these students."

I dont mind reading at all, she makes it more into a game. I revel in anything my children love. to see her so in love with an activity even if I didnt like it I would enjoy it simply because they enjoy it and I love to see my children filled with joy. I am sure a loving mother like yourself would love reading aloud too if you child was bursting at the seems with happiness when you shared that time doing that activity with her.

Surely you know, the most natural time to learn any aspect of language is during the infant and toddler years. This includes written language.

baby's brain thrives on stimulation and develops at a phenomenal pace&#8230;nearly 90% during the first five years of life! The best and easiest time to learn a language is during the infant and toddler years, when the brain is creating thousands of synapses every second - allowing a child to learn both the written word and spoken word simultaneously, and with much more ease.

Studies prove that the earlier a child learns to read, the better they perform in school and later in life. Early readers have more self-esteem and are more likely to stay in school. Meanwhile, a national panel of reading specialists and educators determined that most of the nation's reading problems could be eliminated if children began reading earlier.

children who learn to read in toddler years, average reading on a 6th grade level by age 6, where as children who learn at age 5, average reading on a 5th grade level by age 10, and children who learn between the ages of 6 and 7 average on a 4th grade reading level by age 10.

the later in learn any form of language, the harder it is to learn. not impossible. for some its still very easy. but statistically, as a whole, its best to learn different languages (including written) in the infant and toddler years. I dont see how this is a hard concept to grasp, but I think you just like arguing with me LOL


----------



## sunnmama (Jul 3, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
children who learn to read in toddler years, average reading on a 6th grade level by age 6, where as children who learn at age 5, average reading on a 5th grade level by age 10, and children who learn between the ages of 6 and 7 average on a 4th grade reading level by age 10.

the later in learn any form of language, the harder it is to learn. not impossible. for some its still very easy. but statistically, as a whole, its best to learn different languages (including written) in the infant and toddler years. I dont see how this is a hard concept to grasp, but I think you just like arguing with me LOL 

It is difficult for me to grasp because it has not been my experience. IME, children who are taught to read before they are ready to read improve in small steps but grow frustrated and possibly experience the low self esteem previously mentioned (if they are not getting it and get the impression that the "should" be). IME, children who are taught to read when they are ready catch on quicky and advance rapidly. "when they are ready" is a big variable, of course, and can range from toddlerhood to late childhood.

Do you have a link for that research?


----------



## Super Glue Mommy (Jan 4, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnmama* 
We disagree about this, too. I've watched too many dc learn to read in huge leaps--seemingly overnight, in many cases--after age 4 to believe it is more difficult after age 4. I believe that most dc will learn to read naturally when their brain is ready, and for some dc it _is_ 7 or later. I do agree that low self esteem can become a problem with later readers, but the problem there lies *with the label of being "behind"* imo, rather than with the actual age of learning to read.

I agree with this. and even if not labeled behind, children tend to pick up on what their peers are doing that they are unable to do. even my infant does this. he sees his sister and brother can run around and he cannot. he gets upset by it. Even without outside sources comparing them, children compare themselves to eachother. its natural. all we can do is our best to foster self confidence and teach them to embrace what they ARE good at and understand the beauty in individuality.

My husband is one of the smartest people I know. Which sometimes I hate about him, lol, because he is the only person who can out debate me even when he is wrong! His brain is like a sponge, and he was a late reader and dyslexic and severely delayed until he was about 10-12 years old. some children just learn later then others. but perhaps, have he gotten more assistance at a younger age he would be even smarter then he is now... then I'd really be going crazy lol - but there really is no way to know that, that might not be the case at all. can't say for sure one way or the other. Probably not likely that him learning to read at a younger age would have done harm though









My DS1 isnt interested in reading as much as he is in letters and writing them and the sounds they make - something he got into on his own. I think my children are wonderful and I want reading to be fun for them, not forced at a certain age, or frustrating because they can't keep up. its really one of the things I like about the idea of homeschooling.

I don't totally disagree, but I don't totally agree either. I only think that for some children, it IS important. for my son, stacking as many blocks on tower as he can is important. if its important to them, its important to me. *I dont think its detrimental for them to learn early or to learn later. I think it is beneficial to learn earlier though (as long as not forced and its fun for them)*


----------



## Super Glue Mommy (Jan 4, 2009)

http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/apr97/nichd-03.htm
http://infantlearning.com/research.html


----------



## Super Glue Mommy (Jan 4, 2009)

babies who cannot yet speak can learn to read. the range of toddlers to late childhood I would say is inaccurate.


----------



## sunnmama (Jul 3, 2003)

The first link addresses the importance of vocal interaction with babies. I agree that it is incredibly important to speak to, and interact with, babies.

The second link is a site promoting a reading program for babies (I am familiar with it). This linkwithin is summarized in a misleading way, imo, because it actually demonstrates that school kids without dyslexia, and not from disadvantaged homes where reading is absent, learn to read just fine, rather than that reading pathways need to be established earlier than schoolage.

I'd love to read the classic Durkin study cited within, and any studies based on that research, but I couldn't find any full text on google (only on for-fee sites).


----------



## GuildJenn (Jan 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
I think reading is important in general too, and there are a lot of children who are reading way below their age level because learning to read is harder after the age of 4, and most don't start learning to read until at least the age of 5. It's something MOST people need to know how to do. The reason why this comes up in debate so often is because we have too many children who are 7, 8, 9, 10 etc who CAN'T read, and don't want to learn. They sometimes get low self esteem from not being able to read.

that being said, I dont think reading to a child is the best way to teach them to read. It holds other benefits, but there are too many words in winnie the pooh stories to teach about the written word. Maybe some children do learn this way, but I think starting off with children's stories with just a few words on each page is the best method. We also focus more on the sounds that letters make then the alphabet itself - though I think both are important to learn as well.

I have worked in reading education and I have never, ever heard that there's a window for reading that closes at FOUR.

My god, what a society we have become pushing kids like that. (And I'm a big fan of reading, but seriously.)


----------



## Super Glue Mommy (Jan 4, 2009)

I think its just common sense really. spoken language, sign language... I think its not only totally plausible, but most likely written language be included in that as well. not to mention learning in general is so beneficial when all those connections are being made in the brain. It would surprise me if the ONLY language that wasn't wasn't easier to learn early in life is written language. Babies as young as 4 months can tell the differences between some colors (if taught about colors). children can learn who mommy is, who daddy is, what a cat is, etc - all before they can talk. why would reading be the exception?

yes I know about the program, that is how my interest in all this was first sparked. though, you can do just as well on your own without the program in teaching these things - the program only provides tools and information on why learning language (spoken AND written) is important. To me, knowing what I know about langauge development (since my DD is brought up bilingual, and all my kids use sign language) it really seems like common sense. The guy who created that program is smart to market it, especially since its an idea that is new to people, but really only common sense that it works that way. The program came about by accident. Either way, I understand since its a new idea some people are skeptical. I tend to just use common sense though. ALL other language development skills, and all learning in general, is beneficial when learned in the infant and toddler years - why should written language be different?

as I said I dont think its detrimental for them to learn early or to learn later, buy I do think it is beneficial to learn earlier (as long as it's not forced and its fun for them)

for _my_ daughter, for reasons I've already stated, it would be me depriving her not to join her in something she is so fascinated by.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy (Jan 4, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GuildJenn* 
I have worked in reading education and I have never, ever heard that there's a window for reading that closes at FOUR.

My god, what a society we have become pushing kids like that. (And I'm a big fan of reading, but seriously.)

i didnt say the window to learn to read closes at age 4. that the window of which it is EASIEST for a child to learn to read starts to close at age 4. and the same is true for second languages and sign languages. its harder to learn as a child or adult then it is to learn as an infant or toddler. this isn't new, it's been known for a long time. I'm surprised by anyone who doesn't already know this about language development.

And how is it pushing kids? I am pushing my child because I RESPOND to HER interested and ENCOURAGE her in something SHE loves?

really I have THREE children, and though they are all welcome to join in on this activity, my daughter is the one who shows interest. I don't force it on them, which is why my daughter is the only one who participates in in 95% of the time... I am also able to recognize that sometimes my son joins in for a minute and then withdrawals because its boring to him, and he just wanted some attention - so then I will give him some undivided attention doing something he loves, and I let him know if he needs me he just has to ask. I sense a bit of jealousy in some of these posts really to accuse parents who teach their _willing_ *interested* children to learn to read as being pushy. Or that my daughter is "lucky" to be matched up to a mama who doesn't mind... I think for most people if it were something (healthy) their child loved and brought joy to them, you wouldn't mind either. Did I like reading out loud before? no, actually I felt like a dork. it also used to make my throat get dry which I found highly annoying. I got past that though because my daughter loved stories. now she is interested in words. and now, it's not about getting past it.. I enjoy it because I enjoy sharing her happiness.

My daughter has a very serious personality since birth, yet find joy in something you would THINK would be serious. to her, it's not. I just follow her happiness. I do the same for all my children. Call it pushy if it makes you feel better, but I would say my daughter certainly does not agree.


----------



## dearmama22 (Oct 20, 2008)

Storm Bride said:


> OMG - I'm glad none of my children have loved being read to _that_ much. Spending that much time reading out loud would absolutely drain me. I'd probably end up spending more than half my time dreading the next bout of reading. I'm glad your dd is matched up with a mama who doesn't mind it.
> 
> gosh, I don't think it sounds like _that_much. I think reading is so, so important! r


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnmama* 
When my dd was a preschool-age (only dc, not in preschool), we spent 4 hours a day reading aloud. It was tiring, but, she loved it and and I willing, and we were reading relatively interesting things. And, when we stopped reading, she would immediately pop in a book on tape









I'd go mad. I love to read. I could easily spend an entire day reading from the time I get out of bed until I crawled back in. I read in the bathtub. I read while I'm cooking. I read while I'm washing dishes. I used to read while getting on and off the bus. I just hate, hate, hate reading out loud. I do an hour with dd most days (this is fairly recent) and I'm _done_. I just feel wiped out by the time I'm done. Reading that slowly is really stressful.

Super Glue Mommy: I'm sorry. I'm really not following what you're saying. To me, it sounds like you're saying that kids do better when they learn to read before age 4, but also that it doesn't really matter. I can't follow that very well.

I'm not sure I agree with what you're saying about learning written language, either. I think communicating verbally is totally natural and inborn for people. We're wired to attempt to communicate verbally with our children right from birth. As written language is a completely man made, artificial construct, I don't see any reason to assume it would work the same way. I don't think it necessarily follows that our brains are hardwired to learn to read at a very early age, just because they're hardwired to learn to speak at a very early age. Mind you, I'm not sure I disagree, either.

I really think it's most beneficial to children to learn when they're ready, not at a particular age. DD has been working at reading for a few years now. DS2 is just barely beginning to show signs of some interest in letters and words. DS1 was uninterested until he was...8? He could read - he even read at above grade level - but he wasn't even a little bit interested in it.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dearmama22* 
gosh, I don't think it sounds like _that_much. I think reading is so, so important!

I think reading is important, too. What's that got to do with it? I _hate_ reading out loud. I always have. Different strokes for different folks.


----------



## sunnmama (Jul 3, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
i I sense a bit of jealousy in some of these posts really to accuse parents who teach their _willing_ *interested* children to learn to read as being pushy.

No jealously here. I am honestly worried about more pressures being put on parents and children. I don't think that you are pushing your dd, but I am not supportive of the "your baby can REEEEEEAD!" infomercials, or the push to push reading and academics on younger and younger children. I was a young reader, so I don't have anything against young readers....just the expectation that all dc should be young readers.
.


----------



## sunnmama (Jul 3, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
i I think for most people if it were something (healthy) their child loved and brought joy to them, you wouldn't mind either. .

I did read to dd 4+ hours a day, but I _refused_ to play make believe after a certain age. It just drove me crazy, and there were so many other things I was willing to do with her, so I just said "no"







So I sort of understand where people may be coming from on that one. I think my dd was darn lucky that I was home and had the time and willingness to read all those hours a day.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy (Jan 4, 2009)

I am saying

if a child learns to read early (or learns a second language early, or learns their colors early, or learns their numbers early, etc) that its a GOOD thing.

but that I DONT think its a BAD thing if they don't.

ie: just because something is good, doesnt mean not doing it that way is bad. Good, Better, Best.

AND every child is different

AND it _shouldnt_ be forced and it should be fun.

our brains are wired to LEARN at a very young age. not just language. my daughter learns sign language because she SEES something that is associated with something else (a word or object) same as learning to read. she sees a word that is associated with something else. same as my son learns letters - he sees a letter that is associated with a sound.

when we read its a lot more interative. we dont just drone on about words. we look at pictures, make animal sounds, incorporate sign language, etc. but if just reading without all that was fun to DD too, then I would do that too. It's not just that she likes it, she LOVES it. If your daughter said "read! read! read!" and was trying to climb to get a book for you to read to her would you say no? I mean, sometimes I have to say "not right now, but soon" but I'm not going to deny her even if I DID think it was boring. she points to words on everything and wants to know what they say. sometimes when im not reading or teaching her to read she will just sit around PRETENDING to read. we often don't have to read slowly either. its just natural and fun. I DO think it wouldn't be as fun or easy for her if she was older. Perhaps if some people had started younger with their kids and made it into a fun game they loved then they would all enjoy reading more, and it would take less time for them to learn... there is no way to know this since every child is different - but when they compare large groups of children they find this to be the case. I doubt my kids are interested because I made it boring!


----------



## Super Glue Mommy (Jan 4, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnmama* 
No jealously here. I am honestly worried about more pressures being put on parents and children. I don't think that you are pushing your dd, but I am not supportive of the "your baby can REEEEEEAD!" infomercials, or the push to push reading and academics on younger and younger children. I was a young reader, so I don't have anything against young readers....just the expectation that all dc should be young readers.
.

Well I am with you on the not pushing it







I see how the your baby can read infomercials could give that vibe to some people. I found it educational, but I am also not the kind of person who would stress over it - I see how the information could stress other parents though. So I'm not sure how I feel about it. I think parents should know more. Unfortunately some parents get overwhelmed or pressured by information and some parents gain confidence and feel empowered by having more knowledge on these kinds of things. So, I'm not against the information being out there - I just think there should also be support out there and reminders that it would be worse to push it then to not do it at all.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy (Jan 4, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnmama* 
I did read to dd 4+ hours a day, but I _refused_ to play make believe after a certain age. It just drove me crazy, and there were so many other things I was willing to do with her, so I just said "no"







So I sort of understand where people may be coming from on that one. I think my dd was darn lucky that I was home and had the time and willingness to read all those hours a day.

maybe I just haven't gotten there yet. I'm a big kid at heart though so I totally revel in their joy, and when it comes to playtime and fun I have no desire to say no. maybe its because my own childhood was so lonely, boring, and without interaction... in a way sometimes I feel like I am getting a chance to be a kids for the first time. Of course, I have to be mommy too, its a fine balancing act lol, I'm always Mommy first, but I'm definitely down to enjoy the things they enjoy.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
maybe I just haven't gotten there yet. I'm a big kid at heart though so I totally revel in their joy, and when it comes to playtime and fun I have no desire to say no. maybe its because my own childhood was so lonely, boring, and without interaction... in a way sometimes I feel like I am getting a chance to be a kids for the first time. Of course, I have to be mommy too, its a fine balancing act lol, I'm always Mommy first, but I'm definitely down to enjoy the things they enjoy.

I envy you. I don't do well at make believe and stuff, either. My kids (at least dd and ds1...ds2 is still mostly following his sister's lead) are/were very dictatorial about playing make believe and pretend exactly the way they wanted me to. I could only stand that for a very brief period of time.

I like spending time with my kids, just...hanging out. I like taking them for walks and answering their questions, and if I don't have a million other things to do (not often, I'll admit), I like having them bake with me and such. I love taking them to the park and being their audience and/or climbing around with them. I enjoy playing board games and card games with them (as long as they're not getting too upset over them). I just don't like having my brain pushed into reading at the right speed to speak out loud, or having my creativity and imagination put into the box they want it in. I actually thought, before I had kids, that I'd enjoy the being a kid part of it...but it just hasn't worked out that way on many fronts. I don't feel like I'm being a kid when I'm getting yelled at for saying the wrong lines or whatever.

I always wished I was more like you, especially when ds1 was an only child. I wasn't very good at playing with him. Fortunately, dd and ds2 like to play with each other, so it's not as big a problem for them that I'm not usually into it.


----------



## applejuice (Oct 8, 2002)

I read to all of my children all of the time.

My fondest memories of my childhood were when my Father read ghost stories at bedtime to me. He always complained that I would go to sleep before the end of the story...









Anyway, that is probably why I love to listen to www.coasttocoastam.com every night on the radio now.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy (Jan 4, 2009)

my kids love to play AND fight with eachother lol

I think you do plenty with your kids. Sounds like you have a good dynamic with them. My husband thinks I should let the kids entertain themselves more. They do have independent playtime and I feel like I am not overbearing with the amount of time I spend with them. I include them in what I'm doing if they are intersted (cleaning - my son loves, cooking - my daughter loves) they love to go outside, and I love to just snuggle up with them and YES we own a TV and watch movies on it! Which I know some poeple view as the worst thing ever... before I had kids I said they would never watch TV but sometimes I need a break. Sometimes, we're all sick and I just want to lay in bed all day. Often we pause the movie and I add my own commentary LOL. I guess I got over being so against that when my I realized the little bit of TV my son was watching was actually helping him to talk (despite all the hands on play and speech therapy he wasn't responding to!)

Have you read playful parenting? I just read it, and a lot of it is what I already do so I guess its easy for me, though it changed the way I think about some things... but a LOT of what you just said, I really think you could benefit from reading from that book - learning WHY its important to play the things they want to _sometimes_, even if you dont like it. And I think it would help you understand why when you "play" you were getting yelled at for saying the wrong lines, and why (aside from the obvious) it isn't fun for you.

I am also a fast talker lol, I can read almost as fast as I can think (when I am thinking clearly anyway lol) and DD doesn't need me to read slow to learn. It's not a forced thing, for me, but I understand how it could be for some people. I don't think its the end all though, I just don't think its fair for the benefits of early reading to be denied.. or shamed. (nor do I think those who DONT read, but interact in other ways, should be shamed or led to feel inadequate in any way)


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
Have you read playful parenting? I just read it, and a lot of it is what I already do so I guess its easy for me, though it changed the way I think about some things... but a LOT of what you just said, I really think you could benefit from reading from that book - learning WHY its important to play the things they want to _sometimes_, even if you dont like it. And I think it would help you understand why when you "play" you were getting yelled at for saying the wrong lines, and why (aside from the obvious) it isn't fun for you.

I've been meaning to read it for a long time, but haven't got around to it. Maybe I'll do that. I don't mind the "wrong lines" thing on its own, but it's very frustrating when they tell me to be whomever, and don't tell me what I'm supposed to say...but everything I _do_ say is wrong!

re: TV. We only use it for movies. However, we watch too many movies. We didn't watch them that often for a long time, but after we lost our little Aaron in '07, dh and I both found we were resorting to sticking in a DVD a lot more often than we had done previously. It's proving to be a hard habit to break, especially as the kids ask for movies a lot more often now.

Quote:

I am also a fast talker lol, I can read almost as fast as I can think (when I am thinking clearly anyway lol) and DD doesn't need me to read slow to learn. It's not a forced thing, for me, but I understand how it could be for some people. I don't think its the end all though, I just don't think its fair for the benefits of early reading to be denied.. or shamed. (nor do I think those who DONT read, but interact in other ways, should be shamed or led to feel inadequate in any way)
I'm a fast talker, and a very fast reader. I just don't do well reading out loud. I guess I read a little faster than I talk, and I end up getting tongue-tied unless I slow it down quite a bit. Once I've slowed it way down, I just get frustrated.

I think it's _great_ when people read to their kids. I think it's even better if they do it a lot, and their kids love it. I just don't like the way it's become a big parenting test in our society. Mind you, a lot of things seem to go that way these days.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy (Jan 4, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
I've been meaning to read it for a long time, but haven't got around to it. Maybe I'll do that. I don't mind the "wrong lines" thing on its own, but it's very frustrating when they tell me to be whomever, and don't tell me what I'm supposed to say...but everything I _do_ say is wrong!

that might BE the game though. the game may be everything you say is wrong, no matter what you say. you;d have to find a way to play into that and make it fun for you and more fun for her. read the book, it will give you a new insight! (okay not trying to command you lol, but I just think it would help you understand that, and make you feel better about it... before i read that book I think my feelings would have been hurt on some level by that)

Quote:

re: TV. We only use it for movies. However, we watch too many movies. We didn't watch them that often for a long time, but after we lost our little Aaron in '07, dh and I both found we were resorting to sticking in a DVD a lot more often than we had done previously. It's proving to be a hard habit to break, especially as the kids ask for movies a lot more often now.
i found this to be true when I was pregnant with DS2. I think the TV issue could be another thing entirely. we dont have cable. dh and I watch a few movies together each week. I watch a movie with the kids every day. I notice the more I let them watch the more they want to watch, which is why we limit it - except when we are sick - which probably is no excuse to some, but its my saving grace!

Quote:

I'm a fast talker, and a very fast reader. I just don't do well reading out loud. I guess I read a little faster than I talk, and I end up getting tongue-tied unless I slow it down quite a bit. Once I've slowed it way down, I just get frustrated.
I can understand that. I think we all have our "things". My son has sensory issues which effect his speech. not the same thing as what you experience, but kind of the same in theory. I also can't stand washing the dishes because they are dirty and water and dirt irk me. messes irk me. So it takes a lot for me to join them in their world when they are being messing.

Quote:

I think it's _great_ when people read to their kids. I think it's even better if they do it a lot, and their kids love it. I just don't like the way it's become a big parenting test in our society. Mind you, a lot of things seem to go that way these days.
THIS I totally agree with. I think there needs to be a balance between parents understanding just how much a baby can learn, how important it is to talk to them, and to teach them even if they can't show you they understand - the things they are interested in. it needs to be done in a supportive way though. parents shouldnt be made to feel bad because they dont do everything perfect. or because their child doesnt like something society says they "have" to do.


----------



## GuildJenn (Jan 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
i didnt say the window to learn to read closes at age 4. that the window of which it is EASIEST for a child to learn to read starts to close at age 4. and the same is true for second languages and sign languages. its harder to learn as a child or adult then it is to learn as an infant or toddler. this isn't new, it's been known for a long time. I'm surprised by anyone who doesn't already know this about language development.

And how is it pushing kids? I am pushing my child because I RESPOND to HER interested and ENCOURAGE her in something SHE loves?

I was referring to the link you posted, not your practices.

I think people (read: companies) really misuse the research on reading in order to promote their products to parents who are so eager to do everything right.

It has been a few years since I was involved in teaching, but I don't remember any of the professionals being concerned about a "window closing" at age *4*. It becomes an issue around grade two or three.

You have to understand the background of a lot of the research; it comes from the 'war' between presenting whole-word recognition and using a phonetic approach. So people went out and proved that kids could be taught phonetic units early, and that knowing the phonetic units was helpful in learning to read fluently. That's true. And certainly pre-reading activities are helpful and important.

(Those of us who learned to read spontaneously at age 3 without phonetic instruction, like me, didn't read this study before doing so.







)

But most studies showed that if you are _teaching_ reading the optimal instruction period is around age 5 for most kids, where the basic phonetic units can be absorbed by most kids in about 16 weeks. Actual reading fluency comes later than that.

The best predictor of literacy is even later, like age 8 or 9. There was a fairly extensive Canadian study done where they found if they remediated reading before age 9, but even as late as 10 or 12 years old. the differences almost disappeared.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quoti...61205a-eng.htm

I can bet where this idea of the 4 year old window comes from though; the baby-genius machinery. They use "early reading" as vaguely as they want.

And I think that's kind of criminal. People need to be careful about what the agenda is when research is presented.

As far as your comment goes about jealousy, nope. My son is starting to read at 3.5; he had about the same sight vocab as your daughter does at 2, but he got into other things.

So no, not jealous and also not worried about the "window." Hey, knock yourself out, but I hate to see parents pressured about some specific age, especially when it's not actually that well supported (as far as I know).


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GuildJenn* 
(Those of us who learned to read spontaneously at age 3 without phonetic instruction, like me, didn't read this study before doing so.







)

I was thinking during this whole thread that dh and I were probably both 5 when I self-taught reading. But...I was probably 4 and dh must have been. We were both already reading when we started kindergarten, and dh's birthday is in September. Mine is June, so it's possible I learned in the couple months before kindergarten, but...

And, that was OT, but it's interesting how it suddenly clicked, at age _40_ that I was probably reading at an earlier age than I've always assumed. DD, otoh, will be 6 in May, and she's not quite reading yet. I'm sure she's been read to more than I was, too. She just gets too frustrated (low tolerance for frustration seems to be in our genes) to take it all in, even though she is interested.

*Super Glue Mommy* - With respect to this:

Quote:

i found this to be true when I was pregnant with DS2. I think the TV issue could be another thing entirely. we dont have cable. dh and I watch a few movies together each week. I watch a movie with the kids every day. I notice the more I let them watch the more they want to watch, which is why we limit it - except when we are sick - which probably is no excuse to some, but its my saving grace!
I know exactly what you mean. I'm so glad we don't do commercial tv, as the ads drive me nuts, and feed a desire for a bunch of junk that my kids barely know exists as it stands. OTOH...I've been pregnant, breastfeeding, post-op, or grieving (or some combination of 2 or 3 of these) constantly since '02. I think I'm just too tired to parent at quite the level I'd like. We'll see how things go once baby-under-construction arrives. I'm really hoping for an easy-going one like ds2 this time!


----------



## GuildJenn (Jan 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
I was thinking during this whole thread that dh and I were probably both 5 when I self-taught reading. But...I was probably 4 and dh must have been. We were both already reading when we started kindergarten, and dh's birthday is in September. Mine is June, so it's possible I learned in the couple months before kindergarten, but...

And, that was OT, but it's interesting how it suddenly clicked, at age _40_ that I was probably reading at an earlier age than I've always assumed. DD, otoh, will be 6 in May, and she's not quite reading yet. I'm sure she's been read to more than I was, too. She just gets too frustrated (low tolerance for frustration seems to be in our genes) to take it all in, even though she is interested.

My parents noted these things. They also used to bring me out as a party trick.









I really think a lot of it is personality, growth, and also learning style.

It kind of stands to reason that a child with a great visual memory may learn to read without formal phonetic instruction whereas a child with big auditory skills may just need phonics to take off, and all kinds of other combinations, and different skills kick in at different ages with different kids. My husband learned to read relatively late but he is a much more careful reader than I am; I had to train myself to slow down.

I do think reading at home is important, but it needs to suit the family.


----------



## Novella (Nov 8, 2006)

Interesting thread (as I drag my feet about reading a story to my 6-year-old!)







: I'm pretty sure that many parents aren't reading to their kids regularly because *they. just. don't. like. doing. it*. Count me in that camp and I LURV reading!

I agree with a lot of the critiques on the picking apart of the actual statement (ie. the relevance of being read to *every* night, etc).

Thank you to those posters who commented on other markers of significance, such as whether the parents read and whether books/reading/learning is valued in the household.

Schools could do more to encourage reading. There seems to be a trivialized/hollow encouragement of reading - just like the statement at the start of the thread provides an over-simplified "tick box" to good parenting. One previous poster mentioned outright discouragement of reading by teacher as it related to recess. But beyond this, many teachers discourage kids from reading materials they do not feel are "worthy" (magazines, comic books, etc.). Despite calls for differentiated instruction, a lot of what my daughter reads in school is banal and boring compared to what she chooses at home. Good thing it's not dulling her enthusiasm! I see way too much homework in the early grades that is boring, BORING repetitive formulaic worksheet after worksheet. . . all. year. long. Perhaps the enthusiasm for learning demonstrated by Ms. Frizzle (who I hate, BTW) could be adopted by more elementary teachers.

BTW, Storm Bride, I still think I







you. As usual - great posts!


----------



## Super Glue Mommy (Jan 4, 2009)

i think the idea comes from knowing the way the brain develops during the first few years of life, and knowing that information its more naturally obsorbed during that time, especially in consideration to langues (spoken, signed, and now they believe written - and I do to)

My standpoint is, I don't think the information is wrong, I don't think they are saying the wondow closes at 4, I think they are saying the window for when it is _easiest_ to learn naturally STARTS to close at age 4. Not that its not easy to learn at other ages,, or that it wont happen at other ages, or that its an indicator of having a baby genious, or anything like that.

The only aspect I agree with is that it shouldnt be forced on the child, and that if a parent simply doesn't want to do it, and their child has no interest anyway, that doesn't mean they are falling short as parents. Some parents are too sensitve though. I'm not saying thats a bad thing, I'm just saying not ALL parents find this information to be pressuring or judgemental. Some of us just find it interesting. I dont think I'm less of a parent to my son because I don't work with him on reading. No early reading program promoters have left me feeling that way. Yet, perhaps they leave other parents feeling that way. I know people who feel like failures just because they didnt breastfeed for example. (and no one in any way made them feel bad about their decision) Should breastfeeding advocates not share the benefits of breastfeeding because someone might feel bad? should the facts not be known? many children are formula fed and they have wonderful loving parents who don't fall short. Of course, I dont agree with people "bashing" women who formula feed, or parents who don't read every night to their child, but I am not against sharing information about the benefits of those things either.

I can agree to disagree though, because we could probably just keep going back and forth about how wrong this is and not get anywhere. I agree on some points, but not others. I would be really sad if they stopped providing information on the benefits of things to parents, because some of us like that information. I understand some don't. or some are negatively effected. What about the parents and children who are positively effected by it though? I vote for a middle ground - where the information can be presented and not stigmas or pressure attached. I doubt that will happen, since people want to sell things and make money - but this is life, unfortunately. I think what parents need more is support, not reading material. Some parents are confident though, and aren't adversely effected to hear about the benefits of doing some things, and are comfortable in choosing to do some of those things but not others. I am not willing to sacarafice my right to knowledge just because someone else is going to be hard on themselves. I wish they wouldnt be - but like I said what those parents need is support, not less information.


----------



## orangefoot (Oct 8, 2004)

Can the OP go back and change the title of this post please?

52% is no way 'MOST' children. If you had 100 people in a room and 52 raised their hands you wouldn't call that most people would you? Half is much less dramatic isn't it?

Can I raise the issue of parental lack of skills again? This kind of research is just another guilt trip for middle class educated parents who already have so much to feel guilty about. What is needed is more acceptance and non-judgemental help for those who want to be able to read comfortably and can't. Where is the encouragement for story telling? The focus is always on books and lots of people perceive that books are expensive or that you have to be special to go into a library.

School is not the answer either. The things that support reading are things that happen at home and within our communities. If you look around our towns and cities you see more people texting, gaming or talking on mobile phones that you do reading newspapers or books or even talking to other people. People are driving cars and not reading as well.

I don't know if this is so in the US but over here audio books are very popular and lots of children we know (admittedly home schoolers) listen to books that they wouldn't be able to read themselves for stamina or vocab reasons or just because they want to play with lego while they listen.

Literacy is much more than just reading as other posters have said and if we get hung up on the developmental skill for decoding words then I think we miss a whole lot of the picture.


----------



## MusicianDad (Jun 24, 2008)

Most is more then half. Last time I checked 52 was more then half of 100 people. So yes, most is accurate.


----------



## rightkindofme (Apr 14, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
I sense a bit of jealousy in some of these posts really to accuse parents who teach their _willing_ *interested* children to learn to read as being pushy.

*blink* What? Wow. Ok.


----------



## 1xmom (Dec 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy*
I can agree to disagree though, because we could probably just keep going back and forth about how wrong this is and not get anywhere. I agree on some points, but not others. I would be really sad if they stopped providing information on the benefits of things to parents, because some of us like that information. I understand some don't. or some are negatively effected. What about the parents and children who are positively effected by it though? I vote for a middle ground - where the information can be presented and not stigmas or pressure attached. I doubt that will happen, since people want to sell things and make money - but this is life, unfortunately. I think what parents need more is support, not reading material. Some parents are confident though, and aren't adversely effected to hear about the benefits of doing some things, and are comfortable in choosing to do some of those things but not others. I am not willing to sacarafice my right to knowledge just because someone else is going to be hard on themselves. I wish they wouldnt be - but like I said what those parents need is support, not less information.

Very well said. I believe in the benefits of reading, but only if the parent and child enjoy it. Once something becomes a chore, it is not enjoyed. I did read some posts about reading logs and as much as my dd and I like to read I CAN'T STAND reading logs. However, a friend of mine likes them b/c she said it helps keep her on track w/her kids







: We all have different ways of helping our children succeed and bottom line is we can only do what fits our own families. Reading all the posts was really food for thought.


----------



## Drummer's Wife (Jun 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *1xmom* 
I did read some posts about reading logs and as much as my dd and I like to read I CAN'T STAND reading logs.

yeah, this.

I love to read, my kids love to read, and it's a rare day when I don't read to at least one child.... but then I have four so I can see how smaller families could easily not read daily, and I don't think that's a negative thing.

All that said, I am all of a sudden annoyed by DS's reading log for kindergarten. We totally forgot this last week to list any books and I got a note from the teacher saying we needed to be reading every day, and writing down the titles. It just made me hate listing all the books we read this weekend, because I know we read daily, and felt defensive that the teacher seemed to be implying that we didn't read for a whole week and (maybe) that the reason I do read to my son is because it's part of his homework. huh?

I do agree that 52% is MOST, because it is more. Whether or not that is an accurate account, who knows.

I said earlier that *I* first mis-interpretted the title of this thread as to mean that most children are not read to on a regular basis, which is not what the claim is. THAT would make me sad, skipping days here and there, is not a big deal. And I get that other's weren't read to as children and now love books or what-have-you so it's clearly not the only influence. I also agree that what is most important is that your children see YOU reading for enjoyment. DH rarely does this and I think the fact that my kids know how much I get out of reading, helps keep their interest in books alive.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Novella* 
Schools could do more to encourage reading. There seems to be a trivialized/hollow encouragement of reading - just like the statement at the start of the thread provides an over-simplified "tick box" to good parenting. One previous poster mentioned outright discouragement of reading by teacher as it related to recess. But beyond this, many teachers discourage kids from reading materials they do not feel are "worthy" (magazines, comic books, etc.). Despite calls for differentiated instruction, a lot of what my daughter reads in school is banal and boring compared to what she chooses at home.









:
I'm so glad I already loved to read before we started doing regular reading in school. In all of school, I think we read _one_ book that I really enjoyed, and maybe two or three short stories. The rest of it was just soooo boring. A lot of it was also kind of creepy. DS1 read The Veldt (think it's by Ray Bradbury, but maybe not) last year, and I vaguely remember reading it in school, as well. I don't like the way it's written and it's really unpleasant. IMO, it's not a piece of writing that's calculated to foster interest in reading.

I was also a major comic book junkie when I was younger (I still have about a thousand of them around here). I got negative comments on that, but those comics also provided me with the vocabulary that enabled me to beat my teacher in a spelling bee in seventh grade. If they (schools, for example) want people to love to read, maybe letting them read what they love would be a good place to start?


----------



## sunnmama (Jul 3, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
I think they are saying the window for when it is _easiest_ to learn naturally STARTS to close at age 4.


I did a little googling about teaching babies to read, and I think I understand better what "window" you are talking about. This is comparable to EC (elimination communication) in my mind. There is a window when the child is passively learning, and EC or introducing words are mostly in the parent's control. That window closes early, yes.

But, after that window closes, another opens. For most dc, between the age of 2-3 (for potty learning) or 4-7 (for reading) there is another window where they understand what they are learning, are independently motivated, and it just "clicks". This second window is when their brains are primed to learn the skill, and it can happen with extremely little effort. The reading and potty learning may happen later than in the baby-learning version, but the process may happen in a much shorter time period (go from sounding out words to reading chapter books in a couple months, or go from 100% diapers to 100% potty in one day, for example).

Whether one method or the other is easier is subjective, imo. For me, it is easier to wait until the dc is ready to take on these skills on their own, and it happens with very little effort for child or parent. For others, it is easier to consciously work on these skills when the dc are babies so that it just becomes a way of life.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy (Jan 4, 2009)

I really admire mothers who EC. I think its one of the most ultimate acts of being in tune and respectful towards a child.

Some may see this as pushing a child, but if the baby likes it I don't see it that way. The age of potty training gets later and later. Admittedly, my eldest are 3 1/2 and 2 and neither are potty trained. I feel like I missed my window with DD at 15m-18m. she was soooo ready then and sometimes going independently. But I was pregnant and decided to put it off. now she seems unconcerned with the concept. not unwilling, but her interest in it is lost.

I dont think its really a matter of which is easier, but when its easiest to learn naturally. and the benefits are undeniable. not that a child wont be successful without learning things like using a potty, reading, or second languages early in life, but that learning them early in life is more natural to them, and does have great benefit.

The way a child learns to read, or use a potty, or learn a language, is very different in baby.toddler years then in child.adult years. I think thats where they come up with the term naturally. its not really something they have to be "taught" so much as it is something they "figure out". The understanding of these things is on a much more basic level. I think if done correctly, these things would be less stressful to a child.


----------



## LynnS6 (Mar 30, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
My standpoint is, I don't think the information is wrong, I don't think they are saying the wondow closes at 4, I think they are saying the window for when it is _easiest_ to learn naturally STARTS to close at age 4. Not that its not easy to learn at other ages,, or that it wont happen at other ages, or that its an indicator of having a baby genious, or anything like that.

I'm puzzled by this. I just finished writing my lecture for the development of reading that I'm going to give on Wednesday, and no where did I come across information that age FOUR was a 'window of opportunity' for reading. As a matter of fact, knowing what I do about child language (it's considerable), I'd say that this is unlikely.

5-6-7 is more likely to be the optimal 'window', based on the necessary language skills (solid oral language skills, a vocab of 5000-6000 words, metalinguistic skills to be able to recognize parts of words, patterns in words, and enough attention to be able to take it all in).

The next leap is about 3rd- 4th grade where school become less about reading to gain fluency and more about reading to get content. This isn't so much a window of opportunity as it is a need to be able to keep up with the increasing language demands, the increasing complexity of text, and a variety of genres.

OK, back to your regularly scheduled debate....


----------



## Super Glue Mommy (Jan 4, 2009)

up to age 4 is a window for natural learning - not just reading. This is not the same as school taught learning, or adult led learning. this is when "submersion" learning works very naturally and easily.


----------



## K&JsMaMa (May 26, 2002)

I didn't get read to as a child. I remember begging my dad to read to me.

We read to our ds2 every night. ds1 is 14 and prefers to read to himself these days.


----------



## sunnmama (Jul 3, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Super Glue Mommy* 
up to age 4 is a window for natural learning - not just reading. This is not the same as school taught learning, or adult led learning. this is when "submersion" learning works very naturally and easily.


I wonder if you are familiar with unschooling?

My dd was unschooling when she learned to read. A lot of the language you are using to describe teaching infants to read applies well to an unschooler learning to read: submersion, not "taught" but "figuring it out", and definitely not adult led learning (child led), learning naturally and easily. It really isn't difficult for most kids to learn to read. In fact, on of the studies you linked says essentially that (attributes problems learning to read to home environment or dyslexia).


----------



## Super Glue Mommy (Jan 4, 2009)

ivve heard of unschooling, but don't know too much about it. I just don't think children should be pressured. I think learning should be fun, I think a lot should be taught to children when their brains are developing so rapidly (up to age 5) and that this should be done via submersion. I say expose them to as much as possible during this time, in a fun and relaxed way, while they are able to learn it naturally. if that is unschooling, then maybe I should look more into it and see if there are other ideas that I might agree with using in my home









sunnmama you are a pleasure to have discussions with


----------



## sunnmama (Jul 3, 2003)

Aw, thanks SGM!

Unschooling would differ a bit, but would not differ in the fun, relaxed, natural learning style. Look into it, for sure. Unschooling, at core, involves trust in a child's natural curiosity and ability to learn. An unschooling family will typically enjoy books with their dc and be available to help the child learn to read (if necessary) as the child guides. Typically, unschooled children will learn to read as naturally as they learned to walk and talk, but between the ages of 4-9 or so. From an unschooling perspective, it seems very unlikely that a child in a literate home would *not* learn to read, just as it would be unlikely for a child not to learn to speak or talk.


----------



## Super Glue Mommy (Jan 4, 2009)

I understand. so same beliefs, different age group









It's just nice to not 100% agree with someone, but not have them make it into a mission to 100% disagree with them. I appreciate that quality in a person. Reminds me a of a good friend of mine. We have awesome debates, and are able to trust the intent of the conversation enough to remain open minded throughout, sometimes changing eachother's views or impacting them in other ways


----------



## Super Glue Mommy (Jan 4, 2009)

(but I will look into unschooling more)


----------

