or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Childhood and Beyond › Education › Learning at Home and Beyond › Anyone else sick of the read read read to your child campaigns?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Anyone else sick of the read read read to your child campaigns? - Page 3

post #41 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by eilonwy
So how do you read to your kids if you've got more than one?
I have scheduled reading times: After breakfast, before lunch, before nap, after nap, and before bed (and sometimes before I make dinner, depending on how busy thing are). We all sit together on the couch and read. Reading time takes priority over everything except leaving the house for doctor's appointments. Right now Desta's limited English means she likes the picture books that Efram and Ramona like, but once she wants older books I will just alternate so everyone gets some of what they want.

Namaste!
post #42 of 184
I do read to them before bed, but in bed with them; they're 3.5, 2, and 2.5 months and they all still spend most nights in bed with us. But that's all I can ever squeeze in, and I'd love to be able to read with them more often...
post #43 of 184
I don't watch much tv so I'm only vaguely familiar with any reading campaign.
I've never seen any billboards or print ads for this.

I love reading to my children. They love me to read to them. Sometimes they loose interest in a book and I just stop. I would never pressure them to sit and listen. We just find another book or do something else.

We don't exactly have set times to read. I rotate books to keep them fresh. We read in the morning, before nap, after nap, and before bed everyday...that is just our routine. We visit the library once a week and get a bag full of books.
post #44 of 184
The VALUE of reading isn't overblown, but all the prompting and prodding, the rewards, the Book-it programs-- these do irritate me. Library reading programs don't annoy me at all though.

I guess I just find it discouraging that my community of parents need so much cajoling, and that the children also get treated to the whole "it doen't matter what they read, as long as they read" with all the rewards and treats and measured time and other tactics that send the message that suggest reading is so undesirable that it takes bending over backwards to make anyone actually want to do it.
post #45 of 184
I'm a linguist, so I think language is important. I think reading is important. I rarely read to my child (20 months). I guess I ascribe to more of a Waldorf mindset. I don't think it is neccessary for her to be learning about "symbols" before she learns about the concrete world itself. Although, due to a few learning toys we have, she can almost sing the ABCs. I will read to her if she's interested. I don't push it.

I don't think being read *to* is all that useful. What I feel is gained by sitting dd down with a book is teaching her "attention span" and having verbal interaction with mom. It has very little to do with "reading". And once she begins to learn to read, she will learn more by my helping *her* read - than my reading to her.

I participated in "Book It" as a kid, and I enjoyed it. But I would have read anyway. I was the kid who got in trouble for reading in school! So I guess it's just kind of hard for me to imagine the value of campaigns for reading, but I suppose there are those kids out there who need help. Problem is the people on this board discussing the value of reading are not the people who need the help! If you are a kid whose parent takes little interest in your academic life, then I bet it would make a world of a difference to sit down and read with your parents. Once again - not really about "reading."
post #46 of 184
I participated in a RIF (reading is fundamental) program one year in elementary school....and I ended up reading lots of short books way under my reading level just to read the "most" books and win a reward, lol. So the program reduced the quality of my reading, pretty much.
post #47 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2bluefish
I don't think being read *to* is all that useful. What I feel is gained by sitting dd down with a book is teaching her "attention span" and having verbal interaction with mom. It has very little to do with "reading". And once she begins to learn to read, she will learn more by my helping *her* read - than my reading to her.
Wow, that's such a different way to see it. I really feel like my kids know so much about the world directly as a result of being read to. They know about predators and prey and carnivores and omnivores and herbivores and coniferous trees and deciduous trees and the San Francisco Earthquake and chariot races and the difference between a jungle and a rainforest and that whales live in saltwater and that penguins only live in the Antarctic and polar bears only live in the Arctic and that the native people of Australia walked and boated there from Africa and that the earth has an invisible belt called the Equator and that volcanos happen because of hot magma under the crust and that Anansi is a West African folk tale and ...

... all from being read to. Do they need all that knowledge at that age? No, but it certainly enriches their lives to have such a vast tree on which to hang the new knowledge they encounter, to see how new pieces of information fit with what they already know, to have their curiousity sparked to find out something that they don't know, etc.

Yeah, they could have learned all that by talking to me, but I probably wouldn't have thought to bring up all those things.

And when they learn to read, I think they will still learn vast, unmeasurable amounts by being read to, at least in the early years, because as they *learn* to read there will still be so much stuff out there that thay can't yet read or that would be so much effort to read that the pleasure of soaking up the information would be lost. I also think that this huge store of knowledge will HELP them learn to read because they will have so many words and idea to draw from as they decode words. They won't have to focus so much on extracting the meaning of the words because they will already know them even if they are just now learning to read them. I already see that with my daughter, who can read bed and bat much better than Tom and fat just because she is more familiar with the words bed and bat than she is with Tom and fat. I see her eyes light up as she "gets" the words she knows as she reads them. With the words she's not so familiar with in her everyday world, she's just reading them. With the words she's familiar with, she's understanding them.

Not saying you are wrong, just that it's a completely different way of looking at it than I have.

Namaste!
post #48 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Butter
I haven't really noticed any sort of campaign like that. I mean there are posters in the library, but goodness, it's a library. I expect that. Of course I don't have a TV nor do we listen to the radio much (we only have one in the van and it's off almost all the time). I haven't noticed any billboards to that effect, however.

I do think it's a good thing to remind parents to read to kids. For many parents it's sadly not something they'd think of. (And I definitely am not a storyteller... my 6 year old is a better storyteller than I am. And, oh, man, I would die in a house without books.)
I haven't noticed a big campaign in our area either. Maybe it is concentrated in more populated areas?
I don't think it is a bad thing to encourage parents to read to their children. I think there are many parents who do need that nudge.
post #49 of 184
Pandora, don't give up hope yet and certainly don't feel guilty! Your DD sounds *exactly* the same way my daughter was.

My DD is now almost 4, and it wasn't until about 6 months ago really, that she actually got interested in us reading to her, before then she was the same way. Ripping books to shreds, not interested, not listening if we read to her no matter what, where or when.

I finally got her some chunky board books with simple pictures and stopped worrying about if there were little stories in them or whatnot. She couldn't shred them, and we kept them in her toy box, so she eventually got into actually looking at them and then we would just sit with her and let her turn the pages as often as she wanted and if we could point things out or talk to her about what was on those pages before she actually turned the page then we did, but if not we just let her play with them and check them out the way she wanted to. It was literally baby steps with her though and just slowwwwwwwwwwwwly getting her interested in the whole book idea in general and not focusing on the reading to her since the interest for that wasn't there at that point. But the chunky board books that she couldn't rip to pieces in less than a minute seemed to make a difference and then from there we just followed her cues on it. I'm with you, I think books are to be respected and it drove me nuts when she would wreck her other books.

Now she is a voracious reader, well, not "reader" yet, but loves, loves, loves her books and being read to! Out of all the things we do during the day, she would rather sit and have book time than anything else - a complete 360 from 6 or so months ago!

post #50 of 184
Quote:
I don't think being read *to* is all that useful. What I feel is gained by sitting dd down with a book is teaching her "attention span" and having verbal interaction with mom. It has very little to do with "reading".
Being read to is exactly how I learned to read. I could read very well before I ever started school, and it was due to my parents reading to me so much. In fact, it is a family joke that I requested certain books so many times that my dad recorded himself reading them and I would listen as I flipped through the book. I distinctly remember following the words while listening to his voice.

To comment on some pp re the "quality" of books: I don't think that all books need to be classics to be considered legitimate. I believe that anything a child is interested in reading is valuable. Yes, I am a bit dismayed that ds2 consistently chooses the few Thomas the Train books we have as the ones he wants me to read, often rejecting any others that I pick out, but he listens and enjoys them while I do read. And now his repertoire is starting to expand. I think that if I had only read him things that interested me, ignoring his interests, that he would probably have been turned off to reading in general. So whether it's the side of a cereal box or War and Peace (which I as an avid reader have actually never read), it's all good in my book!
post #51 of 184
Yes I am sick of it! My dd loves to read and to be read to, but my ds will only sometimes sit still long enough for a reading session. And that's okay--he's still learning! And, I confess, I really don't read to babies. Baby books annoy me, and I don't see the point. At that age, it's mostly about their hearing your voice and interacting; they aren't learning to read. So I think it's just as good to talk to babies, tell them what's going on, tell them what you think of this or that, whatever. I do understand that being read to can help a child learn to read earlier, but I also think a lot of the benefits are just from interaction, not reading per se.
post #52 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by oceanbaby

So whether it's the side of a cereal box or War and Peace (which I as an avid reader have actually never read), it's all good in my book!
That's ok, babe. It's boring!!!!
That and Moby Dick. I just can't seem to get into that one either, even though a book based upon Ahab's wife is one of my 100 favorites.
post #53 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by eilonwy
I do read to them before bed, but in bed with them; they're 3.5, 2, and 2.5 months and they all still spend most nights in bed with us. But that's all I can ever squeeze in, and I'd love to be able to read with them more often...
I have three kids, but they aren't as close in age as yours are. When my youngest was 2 months, the others were 5 and almost 3. Now they are 6.5, 4.5, and getting close to 2. We read in the morning to start off our "school time". We read after lunch. Most of the time I manage to sit down for 15-20 mins of quiet time after lunch when I read to myself and the kids look at books or play quietly (my youngest would often nurse to sleep -- not so much now), then I would read to the kids. We read at bedtime. We stay up late if we don't start on time. Dh recently has been reading to the kids after work, too.

And I don't think that reading to them is the only thing that matters. Do they have free access to books they can look at, play with, etc.? Do they see adults reading regularly? Do you answer their questions when they ask what those letters on the STOP sign are or on the grocery store sign, or when they ask what sound "b" makes?

Are you finding there isn't enough time in the day, or they just aren't interested yet? When my youngest was a newborn, I was depressed and we were living in a teeny bit of our basement because dh decided to tear out and rebuild our kitchen a couple of weeks before the baby was born (as I'm sure I've complained about before ). He signed up for a cable promo thing and my kids spent many hours watching cartoons. Many, many hours. I probably managed to read at bedtime most nights, but not every night. But the work eventually was done and the baby grew older, so that she slept more soundly and didn't nurse constantly, and we started reading again. It wasn't ideal, but it hasn't kept my oldest from learning to read, and dk#2 is on his way as well. They love books. Just because reading isn't happening as much as you want it to today doesn't mean it will always be this way. Keep doing what you're doing and add more as you can.
post #54 of 184
i've actually heard someone say "I don't have the patience to read to my child." lol! That's SO sad. Not that she doesn't have the time, she just doesn't have the patience. My child can't even hear yet and I read aloud, just for practice for when he/she can hear! And I totally agree with the poster who said "not that Junie B Jones crap" (although she CRACKS ME UP! ... and in one of the books she compared cribs to cages, so there is hope for the next generation, lol!) I plan on reading Dubliners (one of my favorites, and it's all short stories) a lot. I just don't see how a child will ever learn proper grammar if you don't use it around them. If you say "Aw, Mikey need go potty?" then little Mikey will say "Mikey need go potty!" I think the more proper english they hear, the faster they will pick up on it, and Junie, while cute as a button, does not do that.
post #55 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jennifer3141
That's ok, babe. It's boring!!!!
That and Moby Dick. I just can't seem to get into that one either, even though a book based upon Ahab's wife is one of my 100 favorites.
I never could get into Billy Budd. For a short book it seemed awefully drawn out. On the other hand, I read War and Peace in the third grade, because my teacher told me I couldn't. I did a book report on it and everything! (My dad had the book, I have it now) later found out I had a 12th grade reading level! (Could it have had something to do with the fact i was read to a LOT as a child?) I'm a big lit. buff though. I'm 19, no college, but I've probably read more of the American canon of literature than many college grads!

READ READ READ!!!
post #56 of 184
Personally I would rather see people read to their kids than put them down for *what* they are reading. Yes there are many wonderful books out there but both my kiddos like a combination of "crap" and "quality". While I don't necessarily think that a diet of Junie B is the way to go its one heck of a lot better than reading nothing IMO!

I try to think of books the way I do of eating....as long as he has variety we are likely to get all of his needs met along the way (at bedtime for example he choses 2 books and I chose 1....then we are both happy!)

Steph
post #57 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by oceanbaby
I believe that anything a child is interested in reading is valuable.
:

I'm another one who thinks whatever you read is good. I've read Jane Austen and I've read V.C. Andrews. I don't know if it's considered a classic or just good melodrama but I greatly enjoyed reading Nicholas Nickleby around the same time that I was devouring Mad Magazine. One type of literature does not preclude the other I also read (past and present) cereal boxes, toothpaste inserts, my husband's woodworking magazines, the writing on the shaving cream can, etc. As far as I'm concerned *all* reading is good. The more you read the better you get at it, the better you get at it the more you enjoy it, the more you enjoy it the more you read So yeah, I read a lot of Scooby Doo books to Owen with the occasional Batman thrown in for good measure (classic Batman and Batman Beyond ). I've also read Junie B. Jones. I think she's funny And it sure leads to some good discussions on behavior
post #58 of 184
I read aloud to my firstborn each day of my pregnancy. I read to him as a newborn. As he grew into a toddler he was SO resistant to being read to. I just couldn't understand. I tried and tried but at best he was just tolerant of it. He loved books and would look at books for more than an hour each day but only came to me if he had a question about a book ("What's that?") One day, just after he turned four, I checked on him and he was reading Dick and Jane aloud to himself!! I was speechless. He could read! and he could read very well!!

I again tried reading "chapter" books aloud to him thinking that he might be craving a more complex storyline. Nope. He hated it and would constantly interrupt with,"How much longer?" "Are you almost finished?" "Can I just go to bed?" "Can this be the last page? Please?" After he hid Charlotte's Web for the second time so that I wouldn't be able to read it...I gave up. It was obvious that he loved books and loved reading and I guess instilling that love in him was one of the main goals of reading aloud so I just let it go.

We homeschool, so I felt really guilty about not reading to him. It was my dirty little secret.

Fast forward to last Friday. I had him tested using the Woodcock-Johnson one year early. In North Carolina, homeschooled children have to be tested using a Nationally normed test once a year beginning at age 7. Jake is six. During the consult after the test, I learned that his reading ability was phenomenal. He tested at 4th grade 6th month! but his ability to process auditory information was "significantly deficient" THAT'S why he doesn't like to be read to!!! He has to work so hard to get meaning out of auditory information that he just tunes it out. His learning style is definitely visual and when he has to get information only by hearing it, he struggles. The tester gave me several ideas for building his skills in deriving meaning from auditory information but I was just SO HAPPY to have a reason for his resistance to hearing me read aloud.
post #59 of 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlyzombiecat
I haven't noticed a big campaign in our area either. Maybe it is concentrated in more populated areas?
Well, I definitely live in a VERY populated area. I'm just a few miles outside of Washington DC in a city in the middle of a a string of cities.
post #60 of 184
We read constantly around here too. But I use the term "read" loosely. It mostly consists of her pointing at what interests her on the page, occasionally naming objects, and turning the page when she bores of whatever is on it. The storyline just doesn't happen for us yet.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Learning at Home and Beyond
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Childhood and Beyond › Education › Learning at Home and Beyond › Anyone else sick of the read read read to your child campaigns?