• 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

Only leftists could come up with this premise (its unfair!), and as we know the lefty solution is to make everyone "equal" by busting them down to the most disadvantaged student-cause thats fair n stuff.

I see no one on either side of the fence supporting this.
 
Those on the left dont have the nerve to come out and say it, but its a tenet of leftism. Make everyone "equal" by cutting down anyone who does better.

Sorry, I am a liberal and you are 100% wrong about me...and most liberals I know.

Er, it appears you've been seriously misled....happens when people are eager to believe anything as long as it conforms to their own beliefs.
 
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.

It is certainty a highly intellectual sort of sadism that only few could enjoy. But now that it's out, everyone will be reading to their children. And so the invisible hand will again tear down a barrier protecting the elite
 
My first thought as well. It's legit as far as I can tell, but to be clear, nobody has advocated it be "restricted" or outlawed or anything. It's just an odd premise. I thought parents usually want their children to have an advantage and that that was regarded as normal.

Our society often acts quite the opposite and disadvantages success redistributing its higher return.
 
Sorry, I am a liberal and you are 100% wrong about me...and most liberals I know.

Er, it appears you've been seriously misled....happens when people are eager to believe anything as long as it conforms to their own beliefs.

You act like I just pulled this out of thin air. Who is the side always crying about differences in outcome? Who is always whining about the "gap widening"?
Who is always talking about "fairness" instead of meritocracy?

Now-YOU may not feel that way, but the left is all about that.
 
You act like I just pulled this out of thin air. Who is the side always crying about differences in outcome? Who is always whining about the "gap widening"?
Who is always talking about "fairness" instead of meritocracy?

Now-YOU may not feel that way, but the left is all about that.

Since I am part of the left and am not like that, nor many liberal people I know...yer still wrong.

And who says a meritocracy isnt fair? Yer wrong on that too.
 
What really kills me are the same nimrods wailing that you can't force democracy on a country that doesn't want it are trying desperately to force socialism on America, a country built both culturally and physically with a reverence for the individual.
 
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.
Anything parents can legally do to improve their children's chances is perfectly acceptable and probably laudable.

If anything, this indicates we have poverty issues and parental quality issues, rather than parents which are "too good".


WTF?
 
What really kills me are the same nimrods wailing that you can't force democracy on a country that doesn't want it are trying desperately to force socialism on America, a country built both culturally and physically with a reverence for the individual.

The irony is lost on them. But then again they aren't exactly approaching this impartially.
 
Yes your anecdotal views trump lefty dogma. Got it.

Well it's pretty obvious that your blanket statement is false. Alot.

But I didnt expect you to change your mind...just see my first post to you about it, lol.
 
Stop reading to your child cuz it's not fair to disadvantaged children... WTF??

No Cookies | dailytelegraph.com.au

THE ABC has questioned whether parents should read to their children before bedtime, claiming it could give your kids an “unfair advantage” over less fortunate children.
“Is having a loving family an unfair advantage?” asks a story on the ABC’s website.
“Should parents snuggling up for one last story before lights out be even a little concerned about the advantage they might be conferring?”
The story was followed by a broadcast on the ABC’s Radio National that also tackled the apparently divisive issue of bedtime reading.
“Evidence shows that the difference between those who get bedtime stories and those who don’t — the difference in their life chances — is bigger than the difference between those who get elite private schooling and those that don’t,” British academic Adam Swift told ABC presenter Joe Gelonesi.
Gelonesi responded online: “This devilish twist of evidence surely leads to a further conclusion that perhaps — in the interests of levelling the playing field — bedtime stories should also be restricted.”
Contacted by The Daily Telegraph, Gelonesi said the bedtime stories angle was highlighted by the ABC “as a way of getting attention”.
Asked if it might be just as easy to level the playing field by encouraging other parents to read bedtime stories, Gelonesi said: “We didn’t discuss that.”
Swift said parents should be mindful of the advantage provided by bedtime reading.
“I don’t think parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children, but I think they should have that thought occasionally,” he said.Professor Frank Oberklaid, from the Murdoch Childrens Research Institute said he was bewildered by the idea.
“It’s one of the more bizarre things I’ve heard,” he said. “We should be bringing all kids up to the next level.”
 
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

People living in poverty have access to free books through schools and libraries. The problem isn't that they can't get the books --- it's that some parents don't give a damn about their kids having books at home.
 
And my goodness, there are used bookstores all over where books are like 4 for a dollar.

And books for a quarter each at yard sales!
 
He's absolutely correct in that it makes curriculum in the early grades much more difficult to gear accurately to the wide range of incoming abilities. However rather than discouraging parents from reading to/with their children, more effort should be made to assure parents have the time at home without stress in order to read more with their children.

How....?
 
Re: Stop reading to your child cuz it's not fair to disadvantaged children... WTF??

No Cookies | dailytelegraph.com.au

THE ABC has questioned whether parents should read to their children before bedtime, claiming it could give your kids an “unfair advantage” over less fortunate children.
“Is having a loving family an unfair advantage?” asks a story on the ABC’s website.
“Should parents snuggling up for one last story before lights out be even a little concerned about the advantage they might be conferring?”
The story was followed by a broadcast on the ABC’s Radio National that also tackled the apparently divisive issue of bedtime reading.
“Evidence shows that the difference between those who get bedtime stories and those who don’t — the difference in their life chances — is bigger than the difference between those who get elite private schooling and those that don’t,” British academic Adam Swift told ABC presenter Joe Gelonesi.
Gelonesi responded online: “This devilish twist of evidence surely leads to a further conclusion that perhaps — in the interests of levelling the playing field — bedtime stories should also be restricted.”
Contacted by The Daily Telegraph, Gelonesi said the bedtime stories angle was highlighted by the ABC “as a way of getting attention”.
Asked if it might be just as easy to level the playing field by encouraging other parents to read bedtime stories, Gelonesi said: “We didn’t discuss that.”
Swift said parents should be mindful of the advantage provided by bedtime reading.
“I don’t think parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children, but I think they should have that thought occasionally,” he said.Professor Frank Oberklaid, from the Murdoch Childrens Research Institute said he was bewildered by the idea.
It’s one of the more bizarre things I’ve heard,” he said. “We should be bringing all kids up to the next level.”



This I agree with.

Instead of trying to hold some kids back, let's try to bring them all up to the next level.
 

Number one would be a living wage so they can work 40 hours and be home without too much financial stress. Otherwise I would imagine the list could include any number of things.
 
Back
Top Bottom