Home
May 16, 2008 Est 1999 Scotland's award-winning independent newspaper
Reading is a habit that we can’t afford to lose

IF YOU are thinking of giving children books as a Christmas present this year, brace yourself for faces crumpled with disappointment when they rip the paper off and discover that those hard edges do not belong to a CD or video game. If the latest Progress In International Reading survey is right, a book is about as welcome to a Scottish child as a bulging folder marked "extra homework". Our children, it found, find reading boring, do less of it at home, and enjoy it less than they did five years ago. Our literacy level is plummeting. Among 45 countries, Scotland has now slipped from 14th to 26th position.

The survey also came up with one other terrifying statistic: 37% of our 10-year-olds spend more than three hours a day playing computer games, much longer than their peers elsewhere. Bear in mind that according to another study reported in the Journal Of Obesity, the average 5 to 15-year-old also watches over two-and-a-half hours television each night. You can see why they barely have a minute left to pick up a book.

The methodology of such surveys is always up for dispute, but however imperfect, these snapshots do capture an unwelcome truth. We are breeding a nation of semi-literate computer nerds and anoraks who would only recognise Robert Louis Stevenson if he had an entry on Facebook, a nation of couch potatoes who would only be persuaded to take an interest in Treasure Island if it was featured on A Place In The Sun.

This has happened because we swallowed the sales pitch of the technocrats who told us first that TV, and then computers, were progressive, modern educational tools that would engage children who might otherwise be turned off by old school methods. Middle-class parents - always a lucrative market to target - were encouraged to believe that they would be depriving their children if they allowed them to be "internet illiterate". What a joke. What we actually needed was red flashing warnings on TVs and computers that read: "Caution: excessive, extended use of this product may stunt your intellectual and cultural development."

As a child, I considered my father, a teacher, as wildly unreasonable and embarrassingly eccentric for refusing to allow a TV in the house. His contention, quite simply, was that it would stop us reading books. He was right. Now that affluent households are stiff with plasma screens, consoles and monitors, we have whole generations who barely read.

Obviously, computer competency is a key skill for many of today's adults, but when should it be introduced? The hugely sensible approach taken by Rudolf Steiner schools is that computers only become useful in the teen years once children have mastered fundamental, time-honoured ways of discovering information and learning, such as practical experiments and books. This week there was news coverage of a scheme to flood Nigerian schools with £100 computers in the name of progress and development. The education minister remained, quite correctly, unimpressed. Why computers, he asked, when many of his schools still didn't have books, desks or toilets.

Mention literacy, of course, and you have the Tories jumping up, attacking the government's reading strategy. They bang on about re-introducing synthetic phonics, and some progress has indeed been made using this traditional "sounding out" method in West Dunbartonshire and Clackmannanshire. But phonics is not the whole answer because, in English, there are so many exceptions to the rules. And David Cameron's demand that every child should be able to read by the age of six is just an opportunistic stick with which to beat the government, not to mention misguided. In Scandinavia, children are not taught to read until they are at least six years old. By then they are ready to learn and do so faster, without all the anxiety that surrounds reading in the UK.

Almost as worrying as the 20% of 11-year-olds who are illiterate, is the number of literate teenagers who actively choose to read as little as possible. Many of them have come to hate English as a subject because they associate it with term after tedious term spent ponderously picking apart one poem, one book, one play. The excitement that used to come from being encouraged to read widely and prolifically, and the flexibility to select a range of books that interests you, is being edged out of the English curriculum.

And so the reading deficit grows. Book shops close and library borrowings keep dropping. Any realistic editor nowadays recognises that it is an uphill struggle to get people to read the longer, denser articles that used to run routinely. This is why so much of what we now read is broken up with fact boxes, 10 bests, top tips and celebrity pics.

We are slowly losing that civilising regular reading habit, and our habituation to quick-fix, truncated information, gained from TV and computers, is in danger of leaving us with the attention span of a flea. In fact, if you have persevered to the end of this article, then give yourself a pat on the back. On present trends, you are one of a dying breed.

Share this story on: Digg | del.icio.us | Furl | reddit | NowPublic | Yahoo!
Posted by: Sam on 9:35pm Sat 1 Dec 07
The ancient phosphors lamented development of the written word because they feared it would cause lazy students to not develop their mnemonic skills. They were right.

Think about it. Then think of all the positive aspects of technology (like the miracle of you and I exchanging thoughts today). Work to develop the good; to help our children take full advantage of the power of instant information. Help them to guard against the negative aspects. Support physical and interactive games. Encourage parents to get online along with their kids.

If you'd have published your article on paper I would never have had the opportunity to read it. I’m glad I did. Merry Christmas to you and to all of Scotland, and may your New Year be full of joy.
Posted by: Barry Lees, Greenock on 12:44am Sun 2 Dec 07
Entirely agree, Joanna. I blame much of the decline on the sloppiness that seems to be encouraged by writing on personal computers. Spelling and grammar have gone out of the window big style. However, I copied this sub-headline from this very edition:

"When annie borjesson’s body was found on an ayrshire beach, THE police BLAMED suicide or an accident. but her MOTHER is convinced She was murdered. two years on, THE FAMILY ARE STILL searchING for answers by karin goodwin"

Read it and weep. Someone should be sent back to (primary) school.
Posted by: wendyann on 2:26am Sun 2 Dec 07
It seems to me that many parents today use tv and computers to keep their kids quiet for a few hours. It's not just reading that suffers but talking and interacting with one another. Kids follow by example so maybe more parents need to read too.
Posted by: Marion Walters, South Wales on 3:10am Sun 2 Dec 07
As an ex-teacher I am appalled at the way small children are put in front of televisions for hours on end! Contrary to popular belief children are still interested in books, and in a story well told. In my experience they will leave a popular television programme in order to enjoy the bond shared by listening to a story read to them by an adult. More bedtime stories please!! This is where an interest in reading begins - and continues for life. Oh! and please let us all ban televisions from children's bedrooms as the 'rot' can start here.
Posted by: okami on 4:40am Sun 2 Dec 07
The end of the world is nigh!

I offer a counterpiece:

http://commentisfree
.guardian.co.uk/stev
en_poole/2007/12/is_
our_children_reading
.html
Posted by: Allan, Christchurch, New Zealand on 6:41am Sun 2 Dec 07
Of corse Scandinavians, or most of them, lern to reed and rite faster at age 6. And not just because they ar reddy to lern; but also because most of thare languages hav spellings that help them to lern, unlike English, whose spelling is a handicap to lerning.
Posted by: Vic-the-Mick, Singapore on 7:00am Sun 2 Dec 07
Allan wrote:
Of corse Scandinavians, or most of them, lern to reed and rite faster at age 6. And not just because they ar reddy to lern; but also because most of thare languages hav spellings that help them to lern, unlike English, whose spelling is a handicap to lerning.
Another very silly theory! How do you explain then that literacy rates are higher in Japan and China than in much of Western Europe? It has nothing to do with "spellings that help them learn". It's about cultures that respect literacy. The future is yellow... the future is Chinese!!!
Posted by: My Middle Name is (ex) Pat, Donostia, Euskal Herria on 8:56am Sun 2 Dec 07
I am at school. I am bored.
I am bored because the books I am reading are very easy.

OR

When I was at school I got bored really easily, because the books we were reading were so simple.

Let's face it -- by the age of 6 you have mastered at least three-quarters of the grammar of English, and you're quite accustomed to hearing stories in the past tense. (Even if you haven't been read bed-time stories, you'll still have heard people talking about their day.)

OK, so it's impossible to introduce the soft little brain of a child to all those words in one go, but this "simplification" of English is no such thing.

At the age of 6, the present tense for narrative is unfamiliar. This means that it is actually more difficult to understand the story, even though the words themselves may be simpler. It makes reading meaningless, and a chore -- not a pleasure.

I was taught to read by my mother, with real, past-historic books.
Posted by: Yok Finney, Ross-shire on 9:47am Sun 2 Dec 07
"Why are you reading a book," asked my niece. She can read fine but thought it was peculiar that anyone would read in their own (not at school) time. It's about fishing (that I used to do), I muttered, since I was busy reading the book.

About big boat fishing, Orcadians, and how to build and run ships which always occupies me. Maybe about how to turn a profit when after battling towards the artic circle in the middle of winter, you have to dump tons of perfectly marketable, eatable fish due to the lawyer-devised quota system lunacies.

My friend Hamish thinks it's strange that I don't paint which he's done since early childhood. But I'm a musician, and write; also like fast cars, boats, and airplanes, so I'm obviously still human.

English is seldom spoken to much effect in Britain these days; why learn to read and write it? It's a system or sub-set on its way out. However if it's all you ever got from the TV how would you know better?

I use american scientific english in my world around engineeering work, just as latin was used in a previous age for general european communication.

But this is a foreign (exotic) language (they've never learned or understood) to my bank managers and Scottish Enterprise plc.
Posted by: Masha Bell, Wareham, Dorset on 11:26am Sun 2 Dec 07
The reason why Scandinavian children learn to read much faster than English-speaking ones is because in none of the Nordic languages do identical letters ever make different sounds as in the following high frequency English words:
all, any, are, called, came, gave, have, made, make, many, small, want, was, water, what;
bear, each, eat, great, head, please, ready, sea, tea; even, ever, every, here, never, there, there’s, these, very, we’re, were, where; big, did, find, his, I’ll, I’m; I’ve, inside, like, live, river, time, while;
friends, cried;
across, along, another, box, cold, dog, don’t, floppy, fox, from, got, hot, into, long, lots, most, mother, not, off, oh, old, on, once, only, other, stop, told, top, work; do, go, no, so, two, who;
come, gone, home, more, one, over, some; book, food, good, look, room, school, soon, too, took;
about, around, could, couldn’t, found, house, mouse, our, out, round, shouted, thought, through, would, you, your; grow, how, know, now, snow.

In other languages children need to learn no more than one sound for each letter of the alphabet and letter strings like ‘ea, o-e or ch’. It is only because many English letters can have more than one sound that learning to read English takes very much longer.
Posted by: masha bell, Wareham, Dorset on 11:32am Sun 2 Dec 07
I should have added that anyone interested in learning more about why all English-speaking countries have exceptionally high rates of functional illiteracy may like to visit

www.englishspellingp
roblems.co.uk
Posted by: canofworms, Glasgow on 12:40pm Sun 2 Dec 07
Masha, what a load of nonsense! The fact is that reading from an earlier age teaches children a great deal about English and also extends their vocabulary.

In my early years there were lots of books we all loved to read outwith school, like the Famous Five, Mallory Towers, Nancy Drew, the Bobbsey Twins, the Hardy Boys, the Little Women series, the Katy series.......and many more. At school we used to swap books too and quite often one was anxious to get through as many as possible in order to keep up with everyone else. Healthy competition for a change and the main beneficiary was the mind!

Laziness is the main factor now, plus an increasing number of parents are actually unable themselves to read or write properly. I also agree that lazy parents now use televisions, videos and computers to keep children out of their hair and so communication has suffered too. It is a fact that not so very long ago most children left primary school equipped with the basics in English and Arithmetic. These days they don't even have that when they leave secondary schools. Books provided for me a great deal and I think children now are missing out on a lot of, not just learning, but enjoyment too.
Posted by: leo burton, tréguier france on 3:01pm Sun 2 Dec 07
bruno bettelheim points out that the publishers of children's books have to eliminate offence to animal lovers, ethnic groups, the elderly, religious pressure groups, political parties etc.
by the time anything which could be possibly
offensive to anyone has been removed, all that is left is blandness, of no interest to any normal child
Posted by: canofworms, Glasgow on 3:51pm Sun 2 Dec 07
Leo, the books I mentioned above contained no such issues and were perfectly fine. Stop making excuses for lazy parents. Joanne is absolutely right in all she says. And define normal child, does it have to mean illiterate child? It doesn't. A child who is introduced to books early in life will learn automatically about good English, it is impossible not to. It will also connect with a child's imagination and make them want to write too and have confidence when they do. It may also lead them to recognise that source of learning and want to improve their knowledge even more. It is a very positive thing and as a person who still has wonderful memories of the books I so loved when I was younger, and the characters in them, I think it is to be encouraged.

The other point is of course that so many young people now leave school, and even university, and arrive on the doorsteps of employers unable to even compose a short letter. Now that is serious Leo!
Posted by: jeremy cotta on 7:02pm Sun 2 Dec 07
Books are so important to the development of reading habits on young children. Books are also important to the development of imagination and proper thought. We as human beings use nearly all our senses when we engage in our activities. The same goes for reading books. The trouble I have found is not in book popularity but in the sheer expense of stocking a big enough collection of books for me and my family. I am thankful to have received a big box of books from a friend this year. www.booksliquidation
.com For literally pennies on the dollar my whole family has hundreds of books to choose from. www.booksliquidation
.com will eliminate the costly expense of giving your kids hundreds of childrens titles for less than the price of a few cd's. Then you are free to spend the rest of your money on the hottest toys or game or other fancy young people are into. I thank GOD for companies like booksliquidation.com for offering books in bulk for middle-lower income families such as I.
Posted by: Adam Ghaznavi, London UK on 7:12pm Sun 2 Dec 07
It IS possible to read on those £100 or $100 laptops. You can (with the introduction of the Common Ownership of Information in exchange for the oil remaining on long enough for us to effect the transition to solar powered microgeneration) read on them.

& it would be far easier/ cheaper (& logistically practical) for children to have access to said books via said laptops. You can easily fit 50 books on a typical CD. A stack of 100 will enable you to have/ transport 5000 books.

Eg an African entrepeneur on a bicycle with a beatup suitcase, can take your/ a villages' order (for say 50 books on each CD), download same (in the city) & return with said CDs.

If you consider the concerns of the Pentaqon, that the internet should be considered as an enemy weapons system, it rather appears that there is TOO MUCH reading going on for some elements' liking.

Perhaps, the lack of control in schools may be more the answer as to why reading standards have tailed off? And that the cheaper & more effective answer is to so help Africans in Africa, rather than in London?
Posted by: RichieMagoo, Kentucky, USA. on 8:52pm Sun 2 Dec 07
The "difficulty" and idiosyncracies of the English language hjave nothing to do with illiteracy. In the past, the USA and especially Brittain were the most literate countries in the world of the past 2000 years.

Nor are computers necessarily the problem- as, personally, although I read fewer books since getting a computer, I actually do more reading on the computer on a daily basis than i ever did with books (even though I am a book-lover).

A large part of the problem has to do with discipline. The idea that we have to make everything "fun" for kids, as opposed to instilling in them the discipline needed to pursue real study. As others have also mentioned, the editing-out of anything remotely politically-incorrec


t, and the often simple nature of things they are forced to study is a factor.

But I think the MAIN hinderance to learning and reading today, is simply the fact that kids are so occupied with other things- like video/computer gamnes and TV. Not only do these things take up much of their time, but they encourage a mindset of instant gratification and spectatorship. That, coupled with the fact that kids very rarely truly "play' anymore- i.e. they don't engage in unsupervised imaginative/creative activities, tends to create a nation of zombies....who can recite back what you tell them are the correct answers, but who can no longer think and investigate and create.
Posted by: David Currie, Strathaven on 9:26pm Sun 2 Dec 07
Joanna, I thought the article was spot on, particularly the element about secondary school students having to disect plays, poems, etc. This dissection of English did my head in and I hated it, but now I see the English teachers point. (Sorry Miss Steadman etal - you tried your best!)

I learned to spell and read English in the 1960's using (semi) phonics and after the age of 6 I was well away to being functionally literate. However when you get someone like me to dissect Shakespear I just could not get my head around it, but if you gave me a maths, physics or chemistry problem; there was no issue - it was done!

I feel that I am pretty well educated but only scored level 8 in an IELTS test (top mark is 9!) and I am a native speaker with Degrees and postgraduate qualifications but no higher English; does that make me illiterate? I do not talk like Rab C Nesbit and don't chew a brick when I talk but I think you must be an Oxbridge Don to get a 9.

I work with Eastern Europeans and they have difficulty translating from English because we have so many nuances and positioning of sentence syntax to convey a particular shaded meaning in a sentence that it confuses them; as it probably does to school pupils.

From my meagre experience I find that English is a more powerful language than some others and if English was structured like some other languages Scottish and English pupils would come top of any survey.
So I would look at the way the study was done, although I do admit there are pros and cons of spending too much time infront of TVs and computers.
Posted by: canofworms, Glasgow on 10:45pm Sun 2 Dec 07
David, I disagree. I'm not sure what age you are but I'm in my late 40's and in my day most of us left primary school with the basics in English and Arithmetic. These days young adults are leaving secondary school without even that so something is obviously very wrong. I don't think English is difficult for a child to learn and I think Joanna is right in pointing out that books have vanished from the lives of children and been replaced with things that don't allow them to learn anything about the language or how to use it properly. I have Higher English but I hated Maths, Physics and Chemistry : )
Posted by: Philip, New Zealand on 11:33pm Sun 2 Dec 07
Computers are valuable assets, but there is something about the flexibility of books which do not require the same sitting position for hours on end. And not every book is available online! If I had young children, they would be book readers before being computer-absorbed.
Posted by: Cynicalm, Edinburgh on 11:56pm Sun 2 Dec 07
There seems to be confusion here beetween the ability to read and write, literacy, and the use to which it is put. I have a considerable library of books on subjects in which I have an interest but no novels, poetry or plays as I find them boring. Frankly, the insistance on reading "good literature" at school and analysing the story to death transformed me from a book addict unto someone who reads books only if there is nothing ealse to do.
Posted by: Allan, Christchurch, New Zealand on 12:30am Mon 3 Dec 07
Vic-the-Mick chides me:
Another very silly theory! How do you explain then that literacy rates are higher in Japan and China than in much of Western Europe? It has nothing to do with "spellings that help them learn". It's about cultures that respect literacy. The future is yellow... the future is Chinese!!!quote

Vic, u'd no better than i do that Chinese requires a lot of memorization. One of the reesons we hav an alfabet is to use logic rather than memorization. To be good spellers at present we need to memmorize the dictionary!!!
As Scripps National Spelling Bee champion Evan O'Dorney sed when askd just after he'd won this yeers contest in Washington DC if he enjoyd spelling, :
'My favorite things to do were math and music, and with math i really like the way the numbers fit together. And with the music i like to let out ideas by composing notes – and the spelling is just a bunch of memorization.'
We dont all hav good memmorys!
Posted by: Lexine Prendeville, Cairns Australia on 6:47am Mon 3 Dec 07
Hey all, interesting arguments here. Would love to stay and keep reading them all, but my children aged 13 and 9 are both waiting for me to come and read their books to them. The five Findouters for miss 9 and Deltora quest for mr 13. best part of the day. Bye!
Posted by: Aaron, Aliquippa ,PA,15001 USA on 9:53am Mon 3 Dec 07
When Television is often described as "programming" , and average homes
have more televisions than people, I wonder!
In history, a pre WWII newspaper would have
at least 20 articles upon the front page.
Now in the 21st century , there are less than five "important news articles" with a large color photo on a front page of a newspaper.

Posted by: Craig, Miami USA on 10:32am Mon 3 Dec 07
What? What did this say? Too busy to read it.
Posted by: Pussolini on 1:59pm Mon 3 Dec 07
Well, it's obvious that technology has done nothing to improve the spelling, punctuation and grammar usage of those commenting here. Perhaps a bit more reading might help writing skills improve!
Posted by: Granite Yankee, New Hampshire, United States on 6:13pm Mon 3 Dec 07
Reading is Vastly over-rated. We in the united
states have proven this concept, every day, for the last 7 years. You can be totaly illiterate and still become PRESIDENT of the
UNITED STATES. And we ALL know how WELL that
has turned out.....
Posted by: VICB3, Palos Verdes Estates, California, United States on 9:00am Tue 4 Dec 07
1) It's not that reading is boring (or hard), it's that what the kids are given to read is boring. This kids will tell you that if you take the time to listen.

2) If kids are not reading, it's because their parents don't read. It's easy to blame the schools, but schools can only do so much. Schooling continues at home, and if the kids don't see their parents reading, they won't pick up the reading habit either, simple as that. The best thing that parents can do is turn off the **** TV and take the kids to the library.

3) More girls will end up as readers than boys. In part, this is due to the fact that most teachers are still women and quite naturally favor stories that will appeal to girls but are quite boring and bland from a young male's viewpoint. Hence, they naturally gravitate to highly active and fast paced videogames. Want these males to pick up the reading habit? Try exposing them to pulp or science fiction, written by such authors as Robert E. Howard and the like. Gore soaked and politically incorrect, they'll nontheless be entertained while simultanously having both their volcabularies pushed as well as being given painless lessons in ploting, character development, and the like.

4) Reading in schools as suffered, amongst a number of reasons, as a result of the endless see-sawing by "experts" between phonics and whole-word teaching methodologies. The reality is that learning to read in English requires drills in both. That explains why flashcards work, and why the kid has to be taught at some point the difference between, say, "to", "two", and "too".

5) Get any teacher drunk enough, and he or she will admit that some kids are not "educable."
Sad, but there it is.
Posted by: G. Love on 6:24am Thu 20 Dec 07
I wish more people knew what I read recently that children between ages of 1-5 should not watch tv because it will scramble their sense of spatial distance, as well as do other permanent damage.
Add your comment
Name:
Email: *
Location:
**
Security Image. Registered site users are not required to enter Security Image Information.
 
 e.g. 123-123
Comment:
Please note: All HTML tags will be ignored.
Format Text:

 
By posting a comment, I confirm that I have read and agree to the terms of use. Comments are not moderated but we will react if anything that breaks the rules comes to our attention and we may delete inappropriate postings. Please treat other people with respect. You must not post anything that is abusive, indecent, unlawful or defamatory. Remember, you are personally liable for what you post on this site. If you wish to complain about a comment, contact us here.
* Your email address will not be displayed
** To avoid register now or login