Most young children are not read to on a daily basis. - Page 6 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#151 of 166 Old 02-02-2009, 11:52 AM
 
orangefoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Oxfordshire UK
Posts: 3,051
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
orangefoot is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#152 of 166 Old 02-02-2009, 02:42 PM
 
MusicianDad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tuponia
Posts: 8,928
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Most is more then half. Last time I checked 52 was more then half of 100 people. So yes, most is accurate.

malesling.GIFMutant Papa to DD (12)hippie.gif and DS (2)babyf.gif, married to DHribbonrainbow.gif
If it looks like I'm trying to pick a fight... I'm not, I'm rarely that obvious.hammer.gif
MusicianDad is offline  
#153 of 166 Old 02-02-2009, 05:35 PM
 
rightkindofme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 4,604
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Super Glue Mommy View Post
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.

My advice may not be appropriate for you. That's ok. You are just fine how you are and I am the right kind of me.

rightkindofme is offline  
#154 of 166 Old 02-02-2009, 05:51 PM
 
1xmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: MD
Posts: 1,774
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
1xmom is offline  
#155 of 166 Old 02-02-2009, 06:00 PM
 
Drummer's Wife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Land of Enchantment
Posts: 11,487
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1xmom View Post
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.

ribboncesarean.gif cesareans happen.
Drummer's Wife is offline  
#156 of 166 Old 02-02-2009, 09:59 PM
 
Storm Bride's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 25,597
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novella View Post
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?

Lisa, lucky mama of Kelly (3/93) ribboncesarean.gif, Emma (5/03) ribboncesarean.gif, Evan (7/05) ribboncesarean.gif, & Jenna (6/09) ribboncesarean.gif
Loving my amazing dh, James & forever missing ribbonpb.gif Aaron Ambrose ribboncesarean.gif (11/07) ribbonpb.gif

Storm Bride is offline  
#157 of 166 Old 02-02-2009, 11:15 PM
 
sunnmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: surrounded by love
Posts: 6,123
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Super Glue Mommy View Post
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.
sunnmama is offline  
#158 of 166 Old 02-03-2009, 03:30 AM
Banned
 
Super Glue Mommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,262
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
Super Glue Mommy is offline  
#159 of 166 Old 02-03-2009, 04:05 AM
 
LynnS6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Pacific NW longing for the Midwest
Posts: 12,446
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Super Glue Mommy View Post
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....

Lynnteapot2.GIF, academicreading.gif,geek.gif wife, WOHM  to T jog.gif(4/01) and M whistling.gif (5/04)
LynnS6 is offline  
#160 of 166 Old 02-03-2009, 04:08 AM
Banned
 
Super Glue Mommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,262
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
Super Glue Mommy is offline  
#161 of 166 Old 02-03-2009, 10:46 AM
 
K&JsMaMa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Utopia
Posts: 871
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
K&JsMaMa is offline  
#162 of 166 Old 02-03-2009, 06:40 PM
 
sunnmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: surrounded by love
Posts: 6,123
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Super Glue Mommy View Post
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).
sunnmama is offline  
#163 of 166 Old 02-03-2009, 06:57 PM
Banned
 
Super Glue Mommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,262
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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
Super Glue Mommy is offline  
#164 of 166 Old 02-03-2009, 07:17 PM
 
sunnmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: surrounded by love
Posts: 6,123
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
sunnmama is offline  
#165 of 166 Old 02-03-2009, 07:20 PM
Banned
 
Super Glue Mommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,262
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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 is offline  
#166 of 166 Old 02-03-2009, 07:22 PM
Banned
 
Super Glue Mommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,262
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
(but I will look into unschooling more)
Super Glue Mommy is offline  
Reply

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off