Most parents don't enjoy reading to their children, survey suggests
Less than half of parents find it fun to read aloud to their children, new research shows.
Only 40% of parents with children aged 0 to 13 agreed that 'reading books to my child is fun for me', according to a survey conducted by book data company Nielsen and publisher HarperCollins.
The survey shows a steep decline in the number of parents reading aloud to young children, with 41% of 0- to four-year-olds now being read to frequently, down from 64% in 2012.
A significant gender disparity was identified, with 29% of 0- to two-year-old boys being read to every day or nearly every day compared with 44% of girls of the same age.
'Being read to makes reading fun for children', said Alison David, consumer insight director at HarperCollins. 'So, it's very concerning that many children are growing up without a happy reading culture at home. It means they are more likely to associate reading with schoolwork, something they are tested on and can do well or badly, not something they could enjoy.'
Gen Z parents are more likely than millennial or Gen X parents to say that children's reading is 'more a subject to learn than a fun thing to do'. HarperCollins said that parents in this age group grew up with technology themselves, so may think 'fun comes more from digital entertainment than from books'.
However, most Gen Z parents still overwhelmingly see children's reading as a fun activity, with 31% saying reading is more a fun thing to do than a subject to learn and 35% saying reading is equally a subject to learn and a fun thing to do, compared with 28% who said reading is more a subject to learn.
The survey asked 1,596 parents with children aged 0-13 about reading in December 2024.
HarperCollins said that many parents focus on the literacy element of reading, seeing it as a skill, rather than encouraging a love for reading in their children.
Some parents stop reading to their children once they can read by themselves, assuming that their children will choose to continue reading, or that if they continue to read to their child who can already read, 'it will make them lazy and less likely to read independently', reads a report accompanying the survey. 'None of these beliefs are true.'
Sign up to Bookmarks
Discover new books and learn more about your favourite authors with our expert reviews, interviews and news stories. Literary delights delivered direct to you
after newsletter promotion
A third of parents with children aged 0 to 13 reported wishing they had more time to read to their children, and the number of parents saying their children have too much schoolwork to read books has risen significantly, from 25% in 2012 to 49% in 2024. However, 44% of all parents agreed with the statement that 'reading books to my child makes me feel close to them'.
'The good news is when children are read to frequently, they very quickly come to love it and become motivated to read themselves', said David. 'Children who are read to daily are almost three times as likely to choose to read independently compared to children who are only read to weekly at home. It's never too late to start, or resume, reading with children.'
The survey results come as the Publishers Association, in its capacity as the secretariat of the all-party parliamentary group on publishing, releases its proposals for how to revive children's enjoyment of reading, based on evidence submitted by publishers, reading charities and other groups.
The report suggests that the Department for Education ensures the curriculum prioritises reading for enjoyment alongside reading skill development, and says that teachers should be able to access training on how to 'confidently and sensitively' teach texts by writers of colour, among other recommendations.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
3 days ago
- The Guardian
Welcome to a new ‘gloomcycle' of news. Here's how to stop compulsive scrolling
The threat of a world war. Political assassinations. Federal raids on unsuspecting migrants. There seems to be no end to terrifying news these days. In fact, it comes at us so unceasingly that numbness can set in. Or even depression or melancholy, like a black cloud over every part of our lives. The 'gloomcycle' is what Rachel Janfaza, who founded the gen Z-oriented site known as the Up and Up, has dubbed what's going on. In a recent piece, she quoted one 23-year-old from Alabama: 'I am really overwhelmed by all of the bad news I am seeing right now.' Whatever generation we're from, that's a familiar sensation. The question is, how to deal with it? After all, particularly because of Donald Trump's chaotic ways, it shows no signs of slowing down. And while it's important not to tune out altogether, it's also important to stay grounded. Where's the balance? I'm certainly not a life coach but as someone whose work requires me to stay connected and informed, I've developed some coping resources. Here are three recommendations to manage the firehose of bad news and to protect your spiritual and emotional health while still staying engaged in the world. Set thoughtful limits. Can you put your phone in another room or in a drawer for a period of each day? Can you pledge never to sleep with it nearby? I have a friend who has made a pact with her spouse to have an hour after waking and an hour before going to bed in which they don't talk about current events, and certainly never utter the name of the 47th president. Can you decide not to be on social media during significant hours of the day? And maybe even to ignore your email unless it's during loosely defined business hours? (This is an especially tough one for me; I always want to respond immediately, which only elicits another response.) Engage in self-care. Maybe you go to the gym or for a run. Maybe it's a bubble bath. Maybe it's listening, without any other distractions, to Mozart – or Jon Batiste. For me, it's daily yoga (the challenging ashtanga practice) followed by meditation. And it's reading fiction or memoirs unrelated to politics – most recently, Cormac McCarthy's All the Pretty Horses, Fredrik Backman's My Friends, Molly Jong-Fast's How to Lose Your Mother, and, in galley form, Susan Orlean's not-yet-published memoir, Joyride. A friend told me recently that she's rereading all six novels of Jane Austen as an antidote to these fractious times. I like to read books in print, not on a device, since screens are already too dominant in my life. Can you slow down enough to give your full attention to literature for an hour? It will help, and it will also help to build back your undoubtedly frayed attention span. Rely on trusted voices and sources of news. I think the Guardian is one of these, and I would think so even if I didn't write here almost every week. I know a lot of people who count on the perspective of Heather Cox Richardson, the history professor who writes a daily newsletter, Letters from an American. Robert Reich, a former labor secretary, is one of my go-to sources of perspective, as are a few columnists, including Will Bunch at the Philadelphia Inquirer and Lydia Polgreen at the New York Times. While traveling in Asia recently, I read the Japan Times and the international edition of the New York Times each morning; they were bundled together and delivered to my hotel room. There was something about that well-organized news – delivered in old-fashioned print form – that was incredibly calming. A prominently displayed column about Israel by Thomas Friedman gave me more context than a freaked-out social media thread, no matter how smart. While it's unlikely that we're going to return to reading a print newspaper as a major news source, the daily pacing and the sensible curation of what's important has a lot to recommend it. In Chris Hayes's recent book, The Sirens' Call: How Attention Became the World's Most Endangered Resource, the political commentator identifies what's going on for all of us – and the dangers. Hayes confessed in a Vox interview that despite his knowledge about the 'attention economy' and its personal costs, he still struggles. 'I've written a recovery memoir,' Hayes joked that he told his wife, 'and I'm still drinking.' The bad news will keep coming. As citizens, we need to know what's happening so we can act – in the voting booth, at a protest rally, in conversations with our neighbors or loved ones. But that doesn't mean constant immersion. A little of the gloomcycle goes a long way. Margaret Sullivan is a Guardian US columnist writing on media, politics and culture
The Sun
4 days ago
- The Sun
Strangest ways Brits have tried to open a bottle revealed – including wooden spoon, cigarette lighter & their own teeth
SOME of the strangest ways Brits have tried to open a bottle are with a wooden spoon, a cigarette lighter - or their own teeth. But 23 per cent of those who have tried the latter ended up with a chipped tooth – although in 90 per cent of cases, they did at least get the bottle open. 3 3 One in 20 (four per cent) have attempted to use a three-pin plug to get a lid off, while 34 per cent have used a spoon's handle. The research of 2,000 adults found 61 per cent of those who have damaged a tooth would consider an ' accessory ' - like a diamond - to cover it up. With Gen Z far more likely than any other age group to consider this oral upgrade. The research was commissioned by Kopparberg to mark the launch of its custom tooth caps which double up as a bottle opener, in partnership with Tuff Tooth - and is giving away 18 gold-plated caps on its social channels. Rob Salvesen, from the fruit cider maker, whose collection includes a design which nods to its Strawberry & Lime drink, said: 'We know that sometimes you find yourself without a bottle opener, but that doesn't mean you have to miss out. 'That's why we've created limited-edition custom caps - a clever solution for opening your drink whenever you need it." Other odd ways adults have tried to crack into a bottle included using a key (37 per cent) or a house brick (23 per cent). For those who have attempted to get into a much-needed refreshment without the proper equipment, 64 per cent just couldn't find one to hand. While 17 per cent consider their unusual opening technique a 'party trick', they do it in order to show off. On average, bottle-drinking Brits estimate they have to open one without a traditional opener 25 per cent of the time. Fury as cost of 12-pack of beer set to soar by £1 thanks to sinister new tax brought in by Labour In total, 52 per cent of respondents have tried to open a bottle with something other than a standard opener according to the data. With 19 per cent considering it likely they'll attempt to get into one via their teeth, at some point in the future. A little more than a fifth (21 per cent) would consider a tooth accessory to cover up any damage, were it to occur. Top 10 things people have used to open a bottle - without a bottle opener 1. The edge of a countertop or table 2. A key 3. Your teeth 4. Piece of cutlery (fork, spoon, knife) 5. Brick or wall 6. Another bottle 7. A screwdriver 8. A ring on your finger 9. Cigarette lighter 10. Wooden spoon
Spectator
4 days ago
- Spectator
My campaign to bring back real life
A new book by an American writer, Christine Rosen, details the way in which we are losing touch with the real world: the one we evolved in, as opposed to the virtual one. All the scrolling and texting means we're forgetting the look and feel of life unmediated by screens. The book is called The Extinction of Experience, and if we get more anxious year by year, then it's not just wars or the cost of living, Rosen suggests, but because we're grieving for the real world, whether we know it or not. I definitely know it. I'm Gen X, so I grew up without the internet, yet like other members of my generation now find myself caught in the smartphone itrap, dependent and resentful. It's a proof of Rosen's point that my friends and I increasingly find ourselves reminiscing about our pre-smartphone reality-based childhoods, like refugees remembering a country left long ago. We recall the endless waiting with no way of knowing how long the wait would be, and the various means we used to pass the endless time. We became extremely involved with the very near environment. We examined paving stones. We peered into cracks and picked satisfying paint flakes from walls. In the car, we misted the glass with our germy breath and raced the raindrops. We chewed paper; bit our own forearms, inspecting the little dented marks; spent hours face-down on lawns, studying grass. If you'd asked us back then, which no-body did, we'd have said we were bored to death and that the extinction of this sort of experience could only be a blessing. But we lived in constant communion not with a touchscreen but with the close-up real world, and in retrospect it was sort of wonderful. There's been a lot written about the disastrous effect of smartphones on our private lives, what you miss when you chat, even date, via a screen. But just as disturbing, says Rosen, is the extinction of experience from public life: the lack of acknowledgement that we're all here in the same space. I'm a slack parent in most ways, but a fanatical enforcer of that little wave of gratitude a pedestrian gives a car which stops for them at a zebra crossing. This gesture is the bedrock of civilisation, I reckon, and there's hell to pay when my son forgets. But it's a dying convention. Barely one in five passers-by now gives the wave. And almost no one on the street looks at each other any more. 'Civil inattention,' Rosen calls it. I've been trying, just for fun, to make eye contact with the twentysomething baristas in the cafés round my way – the very serious purveyors of impeccable flat whites. They hate it. Their eyeballs slide sideways and widen with terror. Smartphone-induced, contact-avoidant anxiety. Or could be that they just think I'm dangerously insane? What happens to public life, and what happens to civilisation, when we've sunk so deep into our separate, virtual worlds that we feel no sense of comradeship with the humans right next to us? Rosen thinks there's a terrible price to be paid. 'Our use of technology has fundamentally changed not just our awareness in public spaces but our sense of duty to others,' she writes. 'Engaged with the glowing screens in front of us rather than with the people around us, we often don't notice what is going on.' Worse: we don't care. In 2019 a man violently attacked a 78-year-old woman on the New York subway. No one intervened, but all manner of people whipped out their phones, filmed the fun event and shared it online, where it was viewed more than ten million times. 'It was not long ago that witnessing the death by suicide of another human being would have registered as a traumatic event,' says Rosen. 'But now we read stories about a woman in New York who purposely used a suicidal man on the bridge as a backdrop for a selfie.' Police in America and the UK have had to issue statements begging people who witness an assault to call for help before they start to record it. If I could, I'd like to get a copy of Rosen's book to Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, proud father to ChatGPT, and one of the leaders in the great global AI race. Last week Altman addressed the world on the subject of the coming AI apocalypse, the point at which computers overtake us in intelligence and the world is forever transformed. 'In still very important ways, the 2030s are likely going to be wildly different from any time that has come before,' he wrote. 'We are building a brain for the world… We do not know how far beyond human-level intelligence we can go, but we are about to find out.' Altman sought to reassure us normies that human life will remain sacrosanct and special, even when the virtual world dominates the real. 'People will still love their families, express their creativity, play games and swim in lakes.' Swim in lakes? I could spend a while pondering the insight this gives into Altman's mind. How many people does he think live near lakes? But the most interesting part was the Panglossian conclusion: 'There will be very hard parts like whole classes of jobs going away, but on the other hand… people have a long-term important and curious advantage over AI: we are hard-wired to care about other people and what they think and do, and we don't care very much about machines.' Altman stands to gain unimaginable power if his company dominates the field. He knows that the rise of AI will submerge us all even further in virtual reality and that the joyful, messy, real-life experiences we crave will be ever more elusive. I wonder if he's considered, though, that his 'world brain' might spell the end of the very quality he thinks makes us most human.
