• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bedtime reading could disadvantage other children, academic says

Really?!

We now should consider how our good parenting actions might give our kids an advantage in life while other kids don't have that advantage? We're supposed to feel guilty about that? Maybe we should feel guilty about feeding our children healthy meals and providing them with warm, functional clothing too.

Aren't we supposed to teach our children to be individuals?

Should we make them take a poll at school before we make any decisions on how we treat our children?

The scary thing is that somebody actually said something this stupid out loud.
 
This story made my head hurt. I don't see that he was seriously suggesting that bedtime reading be discouraged, but at the same time I think that framing the story in that way to "get attention" was seriously irresponsible and boneheaded.

And even it it does seriously disadvantage those who don't get read to, so what? Stop it, already! Stop trying to drag everybody down to the lowest common denominator. Geez!

You beat me to it, with that phrase.

That phrase has been in my head for a few days reading stories like this on this site.

The Baltimore Mayor set it off. She gave people room to destroy, instead of protecting the tax payers of the city from them.

Lowest common denominator.
 
The scary thing is that somebody actually said something this stupid out loud.

You need to get out more. Equally stupid things are being said all the time.

Then again, being stupid is a fundamental human right.
 
Maybe we could help them "step up" by giving them free coupons for books every now and then or something.

"Two-thirds of America’s children living in poverty have no books at home, and the number of families living in poverty is on the rise. Many public and school libraries are being forced to close or reduce their operating hours. Children who do not have access to books and do not read regularly are among the most vulnerable Americans." from: Literacy Issues


"When we imagine people without books, we think of villagers in places like Afghanistan. But many families in the United States have no children’s books at home. In some of the poorest areas of the country, it’s hard to find books for sale. A study (pdf) of low-income neighborhoods in Philadelphia, for example, found a ratio of one book for sale for every 300 children. Tens of millions of poor Americans can’t afford to buy books at all." from: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/16/a-book-in-every-home-and-then-some/?_r=0

I would like to inventory what other items they have in their house.
 
You need to get out more. Equally stupid things are being said all the time.

Then again, being stupid is a fundamental human right.

I get out enough, but it is still scary that people can think like this. What got ****ed up in their lives to think like this.

I bet he was read to as a kid, and now he feels guilty.
 
I get out enough, but it is still scary that people can think like this. What got ****ed up in their lives to think like this.

I bet he was read to as a kid, and now he feels guilty.

Striving for excellence is a mortal sin against the current gospel of equality.
 
I should take a picture of all the books I've read aloud to my class this year. It's a massive pile.

So how does this fit with what this guy said? It sound like all the kids in your class are receiving the same benefits from getting read to.
 
So how does this fit with what this guy said? It sound like all the kids in your class are receiving the same benefits from getting read to.

But kids benefit from being read to at home at earlier than school age. And even once they start school, that bonding time where kids ask questions and parents answer, they sound out words together, a more nurturing (one hopes) environment than school....these things all enhance a child's curiosity and ability to learn.
 
So because there are some parents that are terrible and don't care about their children, all parents should purposely not help tap into their child's potential. Makes sense.

That has been the way of "fairness" for 50 years, or didn't you know that. Why do you think our educational system is the suckiest in the galaxy?
 
Society giving young children books before starting school seems like a good idea. Because the cost for a few books is almost nothing compared to the total cost society pays for a childs edacuation. Also parents don't read bedtime stories only because lack of money but also lack of reading tradition in famillies. That if your parents didn't read for you, you may not see the need to buy books and read for your child. But if you get a book for free to read to you and your child you may try reading for your child and found out it's fun for both you and your child. Also bedtime reading seems to have great benefits to both children and society so it probably takes a small amount parents starting reading to their children for society to get back the money.
 
Last edited:
Attention grabbing nonsense. It's sounds like something a conservative would come up with to parody his skewed perception of liberal thinking.

I agree with you often, but you're off on this one. I thought it was an extreme hyper-liberal being serious until I read the story and realized he was only doing it for effect.
 
I agree with you often, but you're off on this one. I thought it was an extreme hyper-liberal being serious until I read the story and realized he was only doing it for effect.

Man I was starting to think I was the only one who actually read the thing.
 
I agree with you often, but you're off on this one. I thought it was an extreme hyper-liberal being serious until I read the story and realized he was only doing it for effect.

I did read the article. It was the ridiculous summary (the headline) I was responding to. Swift seemed to be referring to the benefits of reading to one's child only to have that message turned around and somehow repackaged into the click bait nature of the resulting headline.
 
You seem to think if you just give families a bunch of free books, then all of the parents will magically be able to and want to read them to their children. This is a very naive way of thinking. So, no, it doesn't solve both problems. Some parents truly just don't care.

Nowhere did I say anything about all parents. My mother read to me as a child so I can appreciate nuance as an adult. Not everyone was so fortunate.
 
A lot of Americans have serious problems in many areas demonstrated by their lack of parenting skills, lack of concern for their child's education and lack of self-control. Money is one of the LAST reasons why a child comes to school significantly less educated than his peers.

Who do you think didn't educate their parents or their parents' parents?
 
Nowhere did I say anything about all parents. My mother read to me as a child so I can appreciate nuance as an adult. Not everyone was so fortunate.

Not everyone was so fortunate because some parents just don't care. You agree with that, right?
 
Who do you think didn't educate their parents or their parents' parents?

It's a vicious cycle, of course. Bad parents many times have kids who grow up to be bad parents and so on.
 
So how does this fit with what this guy said? It sound like all the kids in your class are receiving the same benefits from getting read to.

I wasn't trying to make it fit in with what the article. We were just discussing read alouds and I like talking about them. :)

The second part of your comment --- yes, my students benefit from me reading aloud to them. However, when they come to me their brains have already been developing for 6 years. Those beginning years (even in the womb) are incredibly powerful moments to shape a child's mind. Study after study shows that kids whose parents talk to them often, read to them often and, overall, create a home environment that's print and vocabulary-rich, come into kindergarten with higher level thinking skills and overall knowledge than kids whose parents don't do those things or don't do them often. (Did that sentence make sense? Might have been a run-on. I'm tired.) :)
 
Read more at Bedtime reading could disadvantage other children, academic says - 9news.com.au




Uhm, what do you think? Is "unfairly" advantaging their children something parents should even concern themselves with or feel bad about? According to the article, it is.

I sure as hell hope so. My children were read to almost religiously when they were growing up. If anything, I want my kids to have advantages in life I didn't have, especially if some whiny asshole considers it unfair. Nothing I love more than offending those whose mission in life is looking for something by which to be offended.
 
Back
Top Bottom