Two thirds of parents never read to their babies

[pinkteddy]

link to guardian article here according to research carried out by Booktrust. Leaving reading with children until later in their lives means they are "missing out on a crucial window for language development," says Booktrust, which is now working with health professionals to explore ways of reaching families at an even earlier age.

Gather govt. is cutting funding for Booktrust and other schemes, which is not only a shame but short-sighted.

Maybe some parents think you don't need to read to babies, and reading is something you do with toddlers or older? (I would disgree but trying to imagine why this might be.) Then you have all the adults who don't actually read very much, or can't read, so it just doesn't occur to them as something to do.

Thing is, reading fiction helps to develop empathy. You have to put yourself in someone else's shoes. A world where fewer children are able to enjoy stories, so fewer adults end up enjoying stories, would be world where people are likely to be more selfish and unkind, IMO.

That makes me feel better. I have only just started reading books to my DTs who will be 7 months next week, and was thinking I had left it a bit late but looks like I'm in the majority. Problem I have found is trying to fit a book in as part of bedtime, as they go straight from bath to screaming until they are fed, then generally one or both will fall asleep while feeding. So I have started it before the bath. Also talk and sing to them constantly so hope that will help. I haven't resorted to cbeebies yet either!

Hmm, also just read the comments about working class being anti-intellectual whereas middle class parents are just too busy. I was born to a very working class family (with a very busy mother, 4 kids under 5) but was able to read and write before I went to school.

Yes edam according to this article Booktrust's DfE funding runs out in March 2013 so they will really be struggling.

I think a lot of parents don't read to their children at all. Talking and singing is good as well ceeveebee. Twins bedtime needs bootcamp organisation at that age, I know from a close friend!

I didn't read to ds until he was toddlerish - I can't remember exactly. Does it really matter? It's not the fact that you're looking at a book that's important, it's the talking and listening and sharing that counts. And you can do that without a book.

I remember the Evening Standard campaign last year. There was a child of around 7 who said that the only book in his house was an Argos catalogue. So its not that surprising that the free Bookstart books are the first books that some babies "own". It is a valuable initiative and perhaps worthy of a MN campaign?

As an avid reader I find this statistic awful. I read to my dd (3 yo) everyday at least once, usually bedtime and most afternoons. The way I see it is yes, I am tired at bedtime especially when I have been at work but reading dd a story when I out her to bed doesn't take ages out of my day, she enjoys and its enjoyable for both of us. I think Bookstart is necessary and important and should not be cut. Its difficult though because how do you encourage people to read to their dc?? I do it because I have a passion for books, and love to read to dd and hopefully encourage her to be a bookworm!

Meh. I don't see a point in reading to babies. Toddlers-yes, of course.
As long as you interact with the baby, talk and play with him/her, it's all the same. It's not like a 5mo will be able to follow a story.Mine were only interested in chewing them at that age.

I can't remember how old DD1 was when I read to her. I remember telling her the story of the 3 bears sitting in our old house so she was less than 10 months.

DD2 has heard stories read since birth because I'd read to DD1 when I was BF.

CeeVee I nearly posted the exact same thing, and mine are 2 months older. It pains me as I am a COMPULSIVE reader, but they seem to go GO GO GO FEED GO MILK GO BATH GO MILK, and.. SLEEP. .

I think it is a shame that so many children miss out on sharing stories with their parents.

www.wordsforlife.org.uk/ is an excellent website with lots of ideas of improving children's literacy - and not just reading]].

Also, this week is Fathers Story Week encouraging dads to share stories with their children.

I remember an episode of Cold Feet where Karen (the posh blonde one) forced David to put their son to bed. He was reading him a report from work instead of a book 'and revenues in the first quarter were ahead of target etc etc.
Oh well, at least it will help with speech patterns!

(I don't have total recall of a TV program from 15 years ago by the way, I watched the entire box set when bored on maternity leave waiting for babies to arrive!)

I never read to DS1 until he was well over a year. I tried a couple of times but he wasn't interested - he didn't engage at all, just threw the book away if he got hold of it. But by the time he was 18mths or so I was reading to him a lot - it we went to the library, I could be there a good hour, reading books he bought to me. That was on top of reading every bedtime and several times during the day. He still loves reading.

DS2 was a bit different because he was listening from birth to me reading to DS1.

I agree with those who say that talking and singing are probably just as important, maybe more so and I definitely did a lot of that. I used to talk to my two non-stop and they both talked relatively early and read well now they are older.

I would like to know how 7 months has been chosen as the benchmark. It seems pretty arbitary to me.

That said, I don't think Bookstart should be axed but I do think it should be more focussed on those who need it, rather than a universal thing. I know, for example, that as a family we go to the library and own plenty of books and yet both my boys got the Bookstart packs and, unfortunately, we got duplicate copies of the same books. We could certainly have done without out it. The trick I suppose is knowing who can't.

I think it is fundamentally important to have books in the house, that your children see you read and that you read to them and with them from as soon as you both find it a useful and pleasurable activity. Very young babies love books and reading to your child is different from talking to them. Parents should do both.
I took dd1 to join the library when she was 6 weeks old. My mum thought that was slacking. She was propping up books in fron of me at the age of 1 week (pfb much?) I love to read, I've learnt a massive amount reading - it's very much part of who I am and I know I have derived that from the enthusiasm my mum imparted to me.

Well, mine didn't love them as babies, Notherlurker. But DS could read by 3yo and loves reading now at 10yo, DD will be the same, I think. I've always read lots, there are thousands of books in the house, DC always saw me reading and we read at least 3 longish stories every night (plus a few during the day).

My point is that I don't think it's necessary for a baby to be read to in order for him to love reading later on.

I think it'll be the first time I've mentioned self-conscious and anxious middle class parenting on MN but I feel compelled to do it now

Lovely if your baby likes listening to stories being read but, seriously, it's not a big deal if he doesn't. Not reading to older children is criminal, though.

Do very young babies love books? Really? I'm not convinced.

I completely agree that books are important, ds(8) and I read everywhere, at dinner, in bed, on the loo, cooking, in the bath, in the tv ad breaks....and we have a house full of books. I'm a law and classics student, subjects I chose purely because I love reading and libraries (and because I want to be rich).

I just can't see the benefit of books to a baby. I mean a tiny baby, not a toddler. What are they getting from listening to a story from a book that they are not getting from a song or a parent chatting to them? If parents are not reading to kids at all, even when they are older, or are not spending time playing and talking to them, then that's a problem. Otherwise, I don't think it's a big deal.

Sorry, I've read 3 stories etc to DS when he was little and now do the same with DD, DS wanted to read by himself only from about 5yo.

Obviously I would not read a novel to a 7 mo baby; I am reading usbourne books and board books. They seem to engage with the pictures and the textiles/sounds and I think it must plant a seed in their minds that books are fun?

DH had read Ulysses to DS by the time he was 3 months old. DS was a wakeful baby and DH happened to be reading it at the time so he just read it out loud. ime all the babies learn to love stories and love the pictures. Just the actual process of understanding that marks on a page convey meaning, even pictures, is a big thing, and if they can get that young a lot of the hard work is done. Being read to is invaluable to babies- it's also a very good reason for snuggling up with them for half an hour.

Iam hesitant to write this but it may be of interest to parents who aren't sure about reading to babies.

There is scientific proof that supports babies at 6 months registering incorrect sentence structure ( eg if parent says " we go park?" instead of "to the park") they watched their brain waves while being spoken to.

This suggests reading subconsciously exposes babies to correct sentence structure even when it appears they aren't registering. I would use this as encouragement to read (expose to many different structures that wouldn't "come up") regularly while modeling how to handle a book, how to identify key info like title and author and reading left to right with finger and how to read emotively.

Begin as you wish to continue as they say.

I agree that having books in the house is really important. Both DH and I read a lot and our DCs have loads of books.

FWIW, DC1 loved being shown books and engaged well very early (a few months old) and DC2 has only just stopped trying to eat them (16 mths) despite seeing us read to DC1 since birth. He will now sit with a book upside down on his lap and pretend to read it though which creases me up.

Do very young babies love books? Really? I'm not convinced.

I can only speak for my own dd, but yes, by the age of 3 months, she liked her books more than anything else - and she had one particular favourite that would send her into an ecstasy of leg-kicking, arm-flapping, gurgling delight every time she saw the front cover.

I don't know what she liked exactly - clearly, she couldn't follow the story at that age, such as it was. I would guess it was something about the familiarity/predictability of the words being the same each time (and very rhythmic, repetitive etc). And perhaps she liked the pictures too? Who knows!

She also loved poetry and songs at that age, so I'm not sure if books are important, or if there is just some benefit in hearing familiar, predictable words. But dd certainly enjoyed her books as a tiny baby, and I enjoyed the positive reaction that they produced!

I have to agree with Winnybelle. I don't think babies have to be read to from birth at all and me and my two boys are a testament to that. They both love reading now they are older and we have a houseful of books because we all love to read, me and DH included. It wasn't useful or pleasurable to read to a young baby. DS1 at 7mths was actively trying to get away if I got a book out. That changed as he got older though. I don't think reading to him from birth would have influenced his love of books. He started to enjoy them when he was ready.

The comment in the article was about books being good for language development and pre literacy skills, not reading per se which I took to mean speaking and comprehension so I am not sure that there is a direct influence on literacy. I thought that statistically, literacy levels haven't improved in this country in many years and certainly over the time that the Booktrust have been handing out books. If that is the case then maybe something else is missing like talking to and playing with your children or simply telling stories, as opposed to reading them? I am not sure simply handing out books without the parenting skill (for want of a better word) of conversing and playing with children does much good.

I think it must be something about the patterns of speech that they love. For most people reading aloud will use a slightly different vocabulary and structure than you do when talking to your child. An awful lot of children's book have repeating patterns which are enjoyable and beneficial. For the sake of our own sanity we aren't going to do that whilst talking about what's for tea or the need to put your coat on.
I've had two book loving babies and one who wasn't bothered at a very young age but was a keen - not to say tyrannical - reader by a year old. Like other posters they've always seen me read and we have books in the house. That is not universal unfortunately and the book start scheme is a great 'nudge' for parents that might not otherwise prioritise reading. For me, encouraging literacy is a non-negotiable part of adequate parenting.

Ok - that sounds like I'm claiming my dd was reading at a year - obviously she wasn't (I'm not that crazed!) - what I mean is she was keen at looking at books and being read to.