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.

I have no memory at all of when I began to read to DD! But she certainly wasn't a baby when I did.

She is now 7.7 and reads fluently in both her languages and has a great vocabulary.

I read from DS from a young age, at 2.5 he loves books and is already starting to memorise some of them (he has hundreds but we have to read the same few over and over)

That said, with young children there are plenty of ways to have good levels of interaction with the child without that being a book. Reading with children is much better for everyone than reading to them and they have to be that bit older to start reading with them.

I would be interested to see the statistics for children aged 2 or 3 which is when IMO books become really important

My mum read Miffy to my DS when he was 8 weeks - I was so surprised to see him captivated!
Guess it depends on the baby but he's 4mths now and loves having books read to him - not really interested in picture-only books yet-maybe when we can discuss thrm he will be?
I would never have thought of reading to him so young though!

ceevee I didn't read to my dts until much later than my ds1, despite having an enormous number of baby books in the house. it's just hard to fit it in when caring for two, and then you struggle to hold two babies and a book... much easier after 6 months when they can sit (or crawl) while you read. mine loved anything peekaboo. they are 20 months now, but the cutest thing is seeing ds1 (4) "read" a book to ds2 - he can't really read, but he recites them from memory, and ds2 is captivated. all my dcs love books, so I don't think I left it too late with the dts. don't worry!

I guess not all babies do like being read stories but DS certainly did - I don't know how else I would have filled the days! By 6 months he knew where all the flaps were in 'Animal Hide and Seek' so he definitely was engaging and learning something. I'm glad we read lots when he was a baby as now he's an active toddler he won't sit still for so long, but we've always got old favourites to go back to and have established story reading as a fun, snuggly time together.
I'm not saying it's essential for everyone but it definitely was beneficial for us.

I started reading to dd1 when she was a baby as she's alwAys loved books. Tried a lot with dd2 but she just wasn't interested til about 22 months and still isn't as interested as her sister.

Another thing to feel guilty about, great

I guess, on the plus side, she would have been exposed to me reading to her sister.

I think any research carried out by an organisation with book in the title is going to conclude that books are the answer. Talking, singing, playing, making up stories, reading books and interacting generally with very small children are what contribute to language development. Not books on their own. Don't read to your baby = bad parent? Rubbish

I read the Spot The Dog books to my DC in the maternity unit .

But only because I was at a loss to know what to do. For probably the first time in my life I was forced to sit in one place with these two pairs of eyes staring up at me. So I read. And I read everyday. And I still read to them everyday (they're 12).

However, I'm sure just chatting to them clearly, or singing rhymes would have been equally good. I don't know that they understood at all. The trouble is so many people don't chat or sing or read. The TV is on all day, and they're on their laptop, or their phone, in a way reading forces you to think about spending some time with no other distractions.

Bookstart do seem to keep doing surveys with very startling results indeed, which strangely indicate that there is a great need for their services.

It's most peculiar.

I started looking at the research on reading to babies last night (I am a bit of a psychology geek but this isn't my area of expertise). I have seen several studies that singing beats reading to babies for language development because of the rhythm and the rhyme and the modulation of the voice. That seems to make more sense to me that the thought that reading 'That's not my puppy' or something of that ilk, is particularly beneficial. People have sung to their children for centries, long before the majority can read. It seems an intuitive thing to do but I think there is evidence that parents aren't even doing nursery rhymes with their children any more which is the most basic of child friendly song.

I read to ds1 from birth, ds2 didn't enjoy looking at books until he was closer to a year. Not all babies are interested at such a young age.

BBB intuitively, I'd say that was right.

Parents have always sung and rhymed to their DC. And they do it in every culture.

OMG - I just cannot believe for a minute that you are depriving your baby or putting them at an academic disadvantage because you didn't read to them as babies.

This sort of research seems a bit sad - I think my loving and supportive nursery-rhyme singing, story-telling and just chatting-to-me parents, who rarely read to me because it wasn't in their cultural background, but encouraged me to read, supported me with my homework, have given me the best possible foundations in life and I refuse to believe that reading some written words to me as an infant would have been better.

Reading books is not the only thing in life.

Chatting and singing to the baby is probably more beneficial because it can be face to face and the baby watches your face and mouth as you speak.

I've always read to my DC and now at nearly 2 he picked up the Gruffalo's Child and said 'aha, oho'. It was just part of our bedtime routine, cuddles and a book. We read a mixture of things, at the moment we are finishing The Silver Chair. We also sing loads, and he knows three songs, and I tell him made up stories too. I think what matters most is that you talk to babies, not treat them like inanimate objects.

can't remember how old dd was when I started reading to her. I rmemeber trying to sing, I definitely did that - poor child

Absolutely agree with other posters that singing and talking to babies is more important than reading books.

I think Britain is becoming a bit book obsessed.

To be honest neither of my children were that interested in books before one years old. DS is an avid reader now and is doing really well at school aged 10.

We never got any booktrust books with dd, although we still have the booktrust books we got given when ds was four. I don't particularly care we ever had booktrust books with dd as we have loads of books in the house.

I think there needs to be more definate targetting of which families need the booktrust books. Also a family with illiterate parents aren't going to be able to use the books. Prehaps we have to think laterally how we are going to support the literacy development of children whose parents have learning difficulites.

Been reading to DD now aged nearly 5 every single bedtime, since she was about a year old. Before that she simply wouldn't sit still at all and would walk/crawl off to do her own thing. Much like her brother who is 1 today does now

Done neither of mine any harm not being read to regularly as babies. DD has been speaking in sentences since she was 17 months old and DS is attempting to say yes, mine and more. He's been able to say mummy for ages now too. It's important to encourage reading, but if baby/toddler isn't interested and leaves the room not much you can do.

Also I think it's more important to talk to babies. I chatted/chat bollocks to mine all the time and they babbled away to themselves all the time, which I'm told helps them form words.

Sadly for DS I sing (very badly) to him too all the time. It's his own fault though really as singing the wheels on the bus is the only thing that stops him wrigging around when he has his nappy changed. He has no one to blame for that but himself.

I started reading to ds very early on - probably because I'm a book addict myself. He had those board books you get for tiny babies - I remember one very fondly, that had black and white pictures of baby's faces. He loved it, would happily spend ages gazing at the pictures and listening to me recite 'giggle giggle smiley baby something something I love you'. Something about the rhythm combined with images of faces really grabbed him.

He still loves a bedtime story but in the day time it's hard to peel him away from TV/ds/wii/playing...

DS (15w) sits on my lap whilst I read DD (2.11) her bedtime stories. He is SO not interested . He is much more interested in pulling DD's hair. Am I raising a philistine?!

On the other hand he was enthralled by seeing the Gruffalo on stage and will happily watch DD recite/enact her repertoire of JD/AS books. Perhaps he's just more into theatre and I've been neglectful in not having enrolled him in drama classes by the ripe old age of 4m.

You can also "read the environment" to your baby or toddler. Walk along the street and explain everything you see. For my girls, that has been way more important than proper reading.

Also, pick books that you actually enjoy yourself. I happen to love Richard Scarry books from my childhood. Many others I find unbearably dull.

I don't think it would have occurred to me to read to a baby of that age. Not because I don't care about literacy (I do, very much, and love reading myself) but because I wouldn't have seen the point. At that age surely they don't even understand what a book is, and they don't know that the words you're saying are related to the papery object you happen to be holding? It's the fact that you're talking to them that helps with language development, I would have thought.