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 never read to my dd, i hate reading, really hate it (personal reasons) but it didn't have any negative impact on her, infact she has recently been told that she is the best reader/best at english in her year.

We read to DS from being a tiny baby in arms - we receivied a WHSmith voucher from FIL the Christmas I found out I was pregnant and Smiths had a buy 1 get 1 free offer on children's pciture books and there was nothing else worth buying in Smiths. There was a Hungry Caterpillar and Hairy McLairy before there was a baby to read them to.

He's always sat still and listened to stories - we bought him Farmer duck for his first Christmas at 4 months old and he alwasy sat still and listened and looked at the pictures. I do agree about other forms of communication with your children though - we've also sung nursery rhymes and turned the television off during the day so DS could hear us talking better. He's 2.10 now and still loves books and sngining songs. Thankfully he's moved on from showing he enjoys a book by asking for it 3 times in rotation which is a little wearing

I sort of agree with the singing is better than reading NOW - as having been told babies love books, we tried to get some baby books in DH's native tounge, and they just don't exist - even a trip home turned up nothing in the baby shops and book shops. They just don't beleive in board books.

However, DS2 has brought books to us since he could crawl at about 6 months, and now, at 13 months, he activly searches out "Dinosuars love Underpants" and brings it to us for multipul readings.

Anyway, if we should be reading to little people, and many people start reading when the bookstart pack arrives, shouldn't it arrive before they are 9 months?

I got my bookstart pack at about 4 months I think, it was definately a while ago and my twins are 7 months today. So probably different depending where you live

7 months is very young - if you are bfing (or otherwise giving milk) at bedtime, they are likely to get very sleepy and nod off.
I suppose that's no reason why you shouldn't read to them to keep them amused on the bus or something, but then you can expect to see a thread about you with something in the title about "show-off parenting" ;)

I didn't read to DD until she was 2. I tried but she didn't listen and just threw the book around. I read a lot so she did see that and we always had lots of books around. After 2 I read to her every night and she loves to read now and is a very proficient reader (she is 7). I don't think it is a big deal that babies aren't read to, sorry.

I agree with Ephiny. Sure, any baby will pick the book from the floor, will look at it, will chew it etc. This doesn't mean that the baby is 'bookworm' and 'loves reading'. It is like another toy for them.
I had those posters with alphabet and pictures on the wall at low level and they used to crawl there. Same thing with the miror, they loved it. Or watching out of the window or going into the garden and look at trees and flowers and 'chatting'. And yes they also 'read' the Argos catalogue or the package of the multi buy youghurts or the Oyster card or Jean-Paul Sartre . I remember at baby groups every time a baby picked a book and mum proudly said 'oh he is such a bookworm, he takes it from us' .

I started reading to DS1 at 5 months.
I feel like a prat in retrospect for doing it, pretty pointless.

Yup - my dh has never read to ds who is now 6. And it shows inspite of ds loving to read and doing it quite well (because I made the effort) - but he'll never read to his df as he think his dad can't read.

'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?'

Exactly!!!! Young children don't have the attention span to 'be read to' but it has been proven that babies who are used to 'using books' (that includes banging them on the floor and putting them in their mouths!) from under 6 months are more likely to go on to develop strong literacy skills when they start school. As adults we are often way too directive with children when it comes to playing/singing/books and think that if the child doesn't sit still and listen to us reading the entire story, then there's no point. Books are a fantastic way of developing language skills, by talking about the pictures, opening the pop-up flaps, pressing the noisy buttons etc. A lot of parents don't realise this but happily there seems to be a bit more publicity about it now. I work in a Children's Centre and we strongly encourage parents to use books with their babies from as early as possible.

I started at 6 weeks with both of mine. Everything else was going tits up so I wanted to find something nice to do with them. They seemed to like it, it wasn't hard to get them to pay attention as they got older.

I only read books that I enjoyed though. Lots of rhyming books and poems, books with flaps, noises and feel-y bits. If I ever go bankrupt it will be down to books.

My ds demands a story before bed now a vast improvement on the days he would ignore me completely while I read to him.

I never read to mine as babies. It never occurred to me. I started when they were around 15 months as part of the bed time routine.It may have even been closer to 2. DD is now 6 and a fluent reader so doesn't seemed to have mattered.

I read Peter Rabbit to DD1 when she was a few weeks old as it helped her to go to sleep hearing my voice but not talking directly to her.

With DD2 she must have been a few months old...but as we had books around she started picking them up and turning the pages herself, so I thought I'd better read to her...