6 ms·

U.S. children read, but not well or often: report

44 points by kevin818 12y ago

nickthemagicman 12y ago
In related news the sky is blue.
Code_Poet 12y ago
Even if YOU don't have children, this is a big deal—this essentially means a highly-illiterate work force for the future. As an educator, I can read with students in a classroom, have them read aloud, and even assign reading outside of class (which they generally don't do, mind you), but it doesn't help if adults and parents aren't making an effort to encourage by example. If I'm a kid who wants to be a web developer one day, and I decide to follow Paul Irish on Twitter, you had better bet your buttered biscuits it makes an impact when Paul is doing nothing but tweeting links to industry articles left and right. This goes beyond the simple need of just having mommy read you a bedtime story...
- zhemao 12y ago
  It would be worrying if reading ability was actually getting worse, but the article mentions that this is not the case. > Reading scores among young children have improved since the 1970s. > The reading scores among 17-year-olds, however, remained relatively unchanged since the 1970s.
msluyter 12y ago
It's not just kids. About 6 months ago, I started reading "Constellation Games," a really fun and clever sci-fi novel. Yet it now sits on my desk about 2/3 complete. I didn't lose interest or anything -- I simply find it increasingly difficult to set aside time for pleasure reading, for a variety of reasons. Even though I enjoy long form reading, it's now something I have to schedule and force myself to do. I'm not sure whether I'm actually reading less in total (I don't believe so), or simply whether reading novels has been displaced by reading, say, HN and blogs. If I find it difficult these days, I can't imagine how difficult it might be for kids with (presumably) much shorter attention spans.
- deelowe 12y ago
  Maybe people simply have less free time these days? I know I find it hard even keeping up with paying bills at times.
- abledon 12y ago
  tldr; Our ability for deep reading is being affected by the internet medium we are operating in. [Coming from a person who grew up without internet] In this internet age, there is SO much text that we are forced to skim over, deciding whether it is relevant or not. If we didn't , and devoted 100% attention to every article/tutorial we came upon, we'd never get our tasks done. We're retraining our brains from the slow-paced deep reading required of an offline novel. Kids have no previous neural wiring that required deep immersive concentration into a static simple book of tatooed dead tree leaves. The first thing they are encountering is swaths of internet text, flashing, changing, interaction - too much stimulation for a developing brain. No wonder they can't concentrate, let alone, sit still and be engaged with a single text for a half hour or so.
  - saraid216 12y ago
    > If we didn't , and devoted 100% attention to every article/tutorial we came upon, we'd never get our tasks done. I don't seem to have this problem. I frequently dismiss articles as not interesting, but I also make a point of reading stuff and then reflecting on it for a minute or two. I do the same kind of thing when I go to the movie theater; I watch the film, and then I let the credits roll while I think about what I just saw. I consider this basic mental hygiene. It's not clear to me why so many people excuse themselves from it in the name of convenience and efficiency.
- segmondy 12y ago
  We are reading more crap. I read tons of blogs, HN, reddit, and useless stuff every day. Seems important, but not. We are overloaded with shallow information. When I was young and there was no internet, getting access to information, especially one with depth was a delight. It opened up a new world, where your imagination went to work. Today, there are very few things that wow and have my mind racing as it did when I was much younger. The same applies to kids today, with TV/Internet they have somehow seen it all, even if it's just at the surface level, so very few get drawn to dig in deeper.
Xdes 12y ago
I do not see the problem. I have never read books for pleasure. Most of the books I own are technical or reference material that have practical applications. Why would I want to read for pleasure? I did not find anything interesting about The Catcher in the Rye, Lord of the Flies, or To Kill a Mockingbird which were standard readings when I went to school. Maybe I do not have the imaginative capacity like those people that "get lost" in books.
- j2kun 12y ago
  Standard assigned readings may not interest you precisely because they're assigned. You're telling me you've never read a novel on your own? Not Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones, nothing?
  - Xdes 12y ago
    >You're telling me you've never read a novel on your own? I have never read a novel. I was curious whether I could finish one, so I tried to read the first Harry Potter book. I did not continue after the fifth chapter since it felt like work.
    - watwut 12y ago
      Not every adult finds Harry Potter fun to read.
    - wyager 12y ago
      >I have never read a novel. Wow. This is like someone telling me "I've never used the internet.". You're cutting yourself off from a huge supply of information.
    - sergiosgc 12y ago
      It takes the right book, the right mood and the right stimulus. I used to think like you. I can tell you that after you enjoy the first novel, you "get" it. You get why everyone says the book is better at the end of a movie session. What changed my perception of fiction books was the passion of a friend of my mom about a particular book, and the fact that the book was around during some particularly boring summer vacations. I imagine such a collusion of events in nowadays fast paced world is more difficult. I do understand where you are coming from, though.
bryanlarsen 12y ago
"Rideout cautioned that there may be difference in how people encounter text and the included studies may not take into account stories read online or on social media." IOW, the study is completely invalid, but we'll report it anyways.
j2kun 12y ago
Am I the only one that finds it ironic that this article is in the "one sentence per paragraph" form that I tend to associate with bad writing (or perhaps writing aimed at people who don't read long form)? I imagine the journalists are somewhat to blame for this. I'm looking at you, Buzzfeed.
- dalacv 12y ago
  No.
antidaily 12y ago
The reading scores among 17-year-olds, however, remained relatively unchanged since the 1970s. Interesting. At least they catch up. Isn't this just another casualty of the war on public education and teaching for these stupid common core tests?
- watwut 12y ago
  Another quote: "... reading scores among young children have improved since the 1970s, according to one test that measures reading ability. ..."
127001brewer 12y ago
According to Jim Trelease's book, "The Read-Outloud Handbook", one of the most important things to with your kid is to read to them every night.[1] The book, from what my recollection, discusses how students in other countries, such as Finland, perform better overall because their parents tend to read to them every night. Even someone like Warren Buffet focuses on reading - spending "80 percent" of his workday ready.[2] 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Trelease#The_Read-Aloud_Handbook http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Trelease#The_Read-Aloud_Han... 2. http://theweek.com/article/index/248655/the-warren-buffett-formula-how-you-can-get-smarter http://theweek.com/article/index/248655/the-warren-buffett-f...
ap22213 12y ago
Recently, I stopped over a friends house. And, I was surprised to see a group of 7 or so 9-11 year olds all watching their computers or devices. At first I thought they were having a lan party, playing a game. So, I asked them what they were doing, and they said they were watching youtube videos. I observed them for a while and watched as they'd go back and forth between each other, sharing different links then sitting in silence, watching. Then, they'd get together and talk about it. I'm not sure what they were looking up, but they were all engrossed, sharing in some sort of learning experience. I'm not sure if this is good or bad (who can really say?). But, I see it in my son, who is 9. I get frustrated that he's not reading at the level I was, when I was his age. And, we certainly have lots of books around the house and encourage good reading habits. However, he likes his videos and audio. Didn't Marshall McLuhan predict this back in the 60s? The 'book' as we know it has only been around for a few hundred years. And, certainly it's been quite important to our progress and exchange of information. But, information has been communicated for thousands of years, in different means, with success. I'm fairly optimistic that new generations will rely on different types of communication to exchange ideas and to learn. Books will not be irrelevant, but books (and reading) are being replaced, in importance. What will happen when we re-evaluate all of our knowledge outside the context of the 'Gutenberg mind'?
- watwut 12y ago
  "... reading scores among young children have improved since the 1970s, according to one test that measures reading ability. The reading scores among 17-year-olds, however, remained relatively unchanged since the 1970s. ..." The article complains about reading ability among children being the same as before. They lament lack of progress, they do not lament decline in ability. Maybe your reading abilities were above what 9 years old could do back then.
- lifeisstillgood 12y ago
  Thank you. What I wanted to say. I would also add one of the more important means of communication that we really do not know how to use well - code.
- johnchristopher 12y ago
yp_all 12y ago
Does the HN title accurately reflect the article? Was this a wordlwide study? The title of the article is "U.S. children read, but not well or often: report"
bluedino 12y ago
its cuz of txtng Not just texting, but it seems like any communication online is excused from having to follow any sort of rules. People try to justify it in a sense of 'This is just how kids speak these days', but would any other field allow a grotesque destruction of itself? What's the lol-speak equivalent in math, science, or art?
- VLM 12y ago
  "What's the lol-speak equivalent in math, science, or art?" We should be proud no one mentioned Religion yet. Whoops.
fiatmoney 12y ago
Subtext: "About 46 percent of white children are considered “proficient” in reading, compared with 18 percent of black children and 20 percent of Hispanic kids. Those gaps remained relatively unchanged over the past 20 years, according to the report." I.e., it's likely that the change in the average is driven by a change in the proportions of the components, not a shift in the by-component means.
Beliavsky 12y ago
Doesn't the following quote from the article contradict the title's assertion that kids are not reading as well? "Despite the large percentage of children with below-basic reading skills, reading scores among young children have improved since the 1970s, according to one test that measures reading ability. The reading scores among 17-year-olds, however, remained relatively unchanged since the 1970s."
- sitkack 12y ago
  This should have been communicated in some sort of chart. Maybe children are progressing at a slow rate in their earlier years but making it to the same plateau as 17 year olds? Our reading proficiency might have been more of a step function / trapezoid, arrived early and then grew slowly, vs constant slower growth.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
ensignavenger 12y ago
The New York Times article on this study had a comment suggesting that kids "text" but don't read. I thought it funny that the author thinks that kids only write text messages, but don't ever read them! Actually, this Reuters article touches on this: "Rideout cautioned that there may be difference in how people encounter text and the included studies may not take into account stories read online or on social media." And therein lies the problem with the study. Kids probably do more reading- online, on social media, text messages and in video games. Granted, the quality of writing encountered is likely substantially lower (certainly a subjective claim), I think kids are probably reading a lot more than this study suggests.
brownbat 12y ago
I'd really like to see a study of how many words are read by the average person today vs. 30 years ago. Reading fewer novels may, but doesn't necessarily, imply less reading overall.

44 points by kevin818 12y ago

In related news the sky is blue.

Even if YOU don't have children, this is a big deal—this essentially means a highly-illiterate work force for the future. As an educator, I can read with students in a classroom, have them read aloud, and even assign reading outside of class (which they generally don't do, mind you), but it doesn't help if adults and parents aren't making an effort to encourage by example. If I'm a kid who wants to be a web developer one day, and I decide to follow Paul Irish on Twitter, you had better bet your buttered biscuits it makes an impact when Paul is doing nothing but tweeting links to industry articles left and right. This goes beyond the simple need of just having mommy read you a bedtime story...

zhemao 12y ago
It would be worrying if reading ability was actually getting worse, but the article mentions that this is not the case. > Reading scores among young children have improved since the 1970s. > The reading scores among 17-year-olds, however, remained relatively unchanged since the 1970s.

msluyter 12y ago

It's not just kids. About 6 months ago, I started reading "Constellation Games," a really fun and clever sci-fi novel. Yet it now sits on my desk about 2/3 complete. I didn't lose interest or anything -- I simply find it increasingly difficult to set aside time for pleasure reading, for a variety of reasons. Even though I enjoy long form reading, it's now something I have to schedule and force myself to do. I'm not sure whether I'm actually reading less in total (I don't believe so), or simply whether reading novels has been displaced by reading, say, HN and blogs. If I find it difficult these days, I can't imagine how difficult it might be for kids with (presumably) much shorter attention spans.

deelowe 12y ago
Maybe people simply have less free time these days? I know I find it hard even keeping up with paying bills at times.
abledon 12y ago
tldr; Our ability for deep reading is being affected by the internet medium we are operating in. [Coming from a person who grew up without internet] In this internet age, there is SO much text that we are forced to skim over, deciding whether it is relevant or not. If we didn't , and devoted 100% attention to every article/tutorial we came upon, we'd never get our tasks done. We're retraining our brains from the slow-paced deep reading required of an offline novel. Kids have no previous neural wiring that required deep immersive concentration into a static simple book of tatooed dead tree leaves. The first thing they are encountering is swaths of internet text, flashing, changing, interaction - too much stimulation for a developing brain. No wonder they can't concentrate, let alone, sit still and be engaged with a single text for a half hour or so.
- saraid216 12y ago
  > If we didn't , and devoted 100% attention to every article/tutorial we came upon, we'd never get our tasks done. I don't seem to have this problem. I frequently dismiss articles as not interesting, but I also make a point of reading stuff and then reflecting on it for a minute or two. I do the same kind of thing when I go to the movie theater; I watch the film, and then I let the credits roll while I think about what I just saw. I consider this basic mental hygiene. It's not clear to me why so many people excuse themselves from it in the name of convenience and efficiency.
segmondy 12y ago
We are reading more crap. I read tons of blogs, HN, reddit, and useless stuff every day. Seems important, but not. We are overloaded with shallow information. When I was young and there was no internet, getting access to information, especially one with depth was a delight. It opened up a new world, where your imagination went to work. Today, there are very few things that wow and have my mind racing as it did when I was much younger. The same applies to kids today, with TV/Internet they have somehow seen it all, even if it's just at the surface level, so very few get drawn to dig in deeper.

Xdes 12y ago

I do not see the problem. I have never read books for pleasure. Most of the books I own are technical or reference material that have practical applications. Why would I want to read for pleasure? I did not find anything interesting about The Catcher in the Rye, Lord of the Flies, or To Kill a Mockingbird which were standard readings when I went to school. Maybe I do not have the imaginative capacity like those people that "get lost" in books.

j2kun 12y ago
Standard assigned readings may not interest you precisely because they're assigned. You're telling me you've never read a novel on your own? Not Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones, nothing?
- Xdes 12y ago
  >You're telling me you've never read a novel on your own? I have never read a novel. I was curious whether I could finish one, so I tried to read the first Harry Potter book. I did not continue after the fifth chapter since it felt like work.
  - watwut 12y ago
    Not every adult finds Harry Potter fun to read.
  - wyager 12y ago
    >I have never read a novel. Wow. This is like someone telling me "I've never used the internet.". You're cutting yourself off from a huge supply of information.
  - sergiosgc 12y ago
    It takes the right book, the right mood and the right stimulus. I used to think like you. I can tell you that after you enjoy the first novel, you "get" it. You get why everyone says the book is better at the end of a movie session. What changed my perception of fiction books was the passion of a friend of my mom about a particular book, and the fact that the book was around during some particularly boring summer vacations. I imagine such a collusion of events in nowadays fast paced world is more difficult. I do understand where you are coming from, though.

bryanlarsen 12y ago

"Rideout cautioned that there may be difference in how people encounter text and the included studies may not take into account stories read online or on social media." IOW, the study is completely invalid, but we'll report it anyways.

j2kun 12y ago

Am I the only one that finds it ironic that this article is in the "one sentence per paragraph" form that I tend to associate with bad writing (or perhaps writing aimed at people who don't read long form)? I imagine the journalists are somewhat to blame for this. I'm looking at you, Buzzfeed.

dalacv 12y ago
No.

antidaily 12y ago

The reading scores among 17-year-olds, however, remained relatively unchanged since the 1970s. Interesting. At least they catch up. Isn't this just another casualty of the war on public education and teaching for these stupid common core tests?

watwut 12y ago
Another quote: "... reading scores among young children have improved since the 1970s, according to one test that measures reading ability. ..."

127001brewer 12y ago

According to Jim Trelease's book, "The Read-Outloud Handbook", one of the most important things to with your kid is to read to them every night.[1] The book, from what my recollection, discusses how students in other countries, such as Finland, perform better overall because their parents tend to read to them every night. Even someone like Warren Buffet focuses on reading - spending "80 percent" of his workday ready.[2] 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Trelease#The_Read-Aloud_Handbook http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Trelease#The_Read-Aloud_Han... 2. http://theweek.com/article/index/248655/the-warren-buffett-formula-how-you-can-get-smarter http://theweek.com/article/index/248655/the-warren-buffett-f...

ap22213 12y ago

Recently, I stopped over a friends house. And, I was surprised to see a group of 7 or so 9-11 year olds all watching their computers or devices. At first I thought they were having a lan party, playing a game. So, I asked them what they were doing, and they said they were watching youtube videos. I observed them for a while and watched as they'd go back and forth between each other, sharing different links then sitting in silence, watching. Then, they'd get together and talk about it. I'm not sure what they were looking up, but they were all engrossed, sharing in some sort of learning experience. I'm not sure if this is good or bad (who can really say?). But, I see it in my son, who is 9. I get frustrated that he's not reading at the level I was, when I was his age. And, we certainly have lots of books around the house and encourage good reading habits. However, he likes his videos and audio. Didn't Marshall McLuhan predict this back in the 60s? The 'book' as we know it has only been around for a few hundred years. And, certainly it's been quite important to our progress and exchange of information. But, information has been communicated for thousands of years, in different means, with success. I'm fairly optimistic that new generations will rely on different types of communication to exchange ideas and to learn. Books will not be irrelevant, but books (and reading) are being replaced, in importance. What will happen when we re-evaluate all of our knowledge outside the context of the 'Gutenberg mind'?

watwut 12y ago
"... reading scores among young children have improved since the 1970s, according to one test that measures reading ability. The reading scores among 17-year-olds, however, remained relatively unchanged since the 1970s. ..." The article complains about reading ability among children being the same as before. They lament lack of progress, they do not lament decline in ability. Maybe your reading abilities were above what 9 years old could do back then.
lifeisstillgood 12y ago
Thank you. What I wanted to say. I would also add one of the more important means of communication that we really do not know how to use well - code.
johnchristopher 12y ago

yp_all 12y ago

Does the HN title accurately reflect the article? Was this a wordlwide study? The title of the article is "U.S. children read, but not well or often: report"

bluedino 12y ago

its cuz of txtng Not just texting, but it seems like any communication online is excused from having to follow any sort of rules. People try to justify it in a sense of 'This is just how kids speak these days', but would any other field allow a grotesque destruction of itself? What's the lol-speak equivalent in math, science, or art?

VLM 12y ago
"What's the lol-speak equivalent in math, science, or art?" We should be proud no one mentioned Religion yet. Whoops.

fiatmoney 12y ago

Subtext: "About 46 percent of white children are considered “proficient” in reading, compared with 18 percent of black children and 20 percent of Hispanic kids. Those gaps remained relatively unchanged over the past 20 years, according to the report." I.e., it's likely that the change in the average is driven by a change in the proportions of the components, not a shift in the by-component means.

Beliavsky 12y ago

Doesn't the following quote from the article contradict the title's assertion that kids are not reading as well? "Despite the large percentage of children with below-basic reading skills, reading scores among young children have improved since the 1970s, according to one test that measures reading ability. The reading scores among 17-year-olds, however, remained relatively unchanged since the 1970s."

sitkack 12y ago
This should have been communicated in some sort of chart. Maybe children are progressing at a slow rate in their earlier years but making it to the same plateau as 17 year olds? Our reading proficiency might have been more of a step function / trapezoid, arrived early and then grew slowly, vs constant slower growth.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

ensignavenger 12y ago

The New York Times article on this study had a comment suggesting that kids "text" but don't read. I thought it funny that the author thinks that kids only write text messages, but don't ever read them! Actually, this Reuters article touches on this: "Rideout cautioned that there may be difference in how people encounter text and the included studies may not take into account stories read online or on social media." And therein lies the problem with the study. Kids probably do more reading- online, on social media, text messages and in video games. Granted, the quality of writing encountered is likely substantially lower (certainly a subjective claim), I think kids are probably reading a lot more than this study suggests.

brownbat 12y ago

I'd really like to see a study of how many words are read by the average person today vs. 30 years ago. Reading fewer novels may, but doesn't necessarily, imply less reading overall.