2009.07.06
Disagree with the New York Times?
Nicholas D. Kristof, a columnist for The New York Times since 2001, is a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner who writes op-ed columns that appear twice a week. But I disagree with him on a certain issue he wrote about on July 4, 2009. In this column, he speaks of American children dropping I.Q. points over the summer and gives a list of "The Best Books Ever." I won't argue his opinion on the list of books, as it his opinion and I do agree that most of them are good choices, though some seem a bit old fashioned for today's fast paced child to really enjoy. However, it is what he states about "poor" children that I whole-heartedly disagree with.
"This (drop in I. Q. points) is less true of middle-class students whose parents drag them off to summer classes or make them read books. But poor kids fall two months behind in reading level each summer break, and that accounts for much of the difference in learning trajectory between rich and poor students."
Kristof does not cite any studies to his claim and if he has some sources I would very much like to see them. I grew up "poor," yet I always had my nose in a book. My mother took us to the library on a regular basis and my grandmother frequented sales for us at her library where discarded books were sold. My favorite thing to do while visiting Grandma was going to the thrift store for second hand books. I would come out with a stack of .25 books. My own daughter got her first library card at the age of three and we would tote home the limit of books after every story hour once a week. We were definitely not in the middle class. When my son was born here in Roanoke we looked forward to RIF events where the children were allowed to pick out books to take home for free. Both of my children enjoyed free story times and other programs at the libraries.
To the contrary of Kristof's statement, and I'm not citing sources either, but for the sake of argument, I would think that middle class and "rich" children would have a harder time being distracted with other options to reading than a "poor" kid would. Cable television, computers and internet, video gaming systems, expensive toys and such would certainly be harder to overcome than comparatively more "empty" time. Parents of a "rich" child might send them to summer camps or take them on vacations while a "poor" child might not have these opportunities for reading distraction. Which child would have more time to read?
Stating that a middle class parent is more apt to make their child read is preposterous. Why would this be so? Are "poor" parents less caring than "rich" parents? I hardly think so, and such a broad statement is impossible to back up even if you wanted to. Whenever my children state that they are bored I tell them to read a book and try my best to provide them with reading options. An opposing argument, though I'm not making it, might be that a "rich" parent may be too busy working for their income to encourage their children to read.
What do you think? Are "poor" kids losing more I.Q. points over the summer than "rich" kids due to not reading? Can the difference in learning trajectory that Kristoff mentions be attributed to something else entirely? Perhaps "rich" students live in areas where the schools are better; perhaps their parents can afford to pay for tutoring?
I think Kristof is making a wide generalization based on the stereotype that the great unwashed wouldn't know what to do with a book and reading is only for the privileged.
And I think he's full of it.
We may not have been "poor," but my family was far from wealthy. My parents watched every penny. One of the most economical way to entertain kids in the summer is take them to the library for films, story time and to check out books, so that's what my mother did. I remember looking forward to Tuesday mornings because it was our regular library day.
I was divorced when my daughter was very young, so she certainly did not grow up wealthy, but she has had her nose planted firmly in a book since the first Harry Potter book was released. She was also a library rat. She's an adult now and still reads at least one book (paperback) per week.
Comment by Nona Nelson — July 6, 2009 @ 2:48 pm
I'd like to see what research he's talking about in order to make such a statement. However, I did find this article, http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200107/iq-the-test, that does suggest that being in school helps with IQ as well as several other factors. It was referring to dropouts, but I guess could have a correlation with summer break, but I don't see anything saying that poor kids would do worse. If that is true, I don't think it is solely because middle class parents encourage their kids to read more. It also states that IQ as a whole is rising, and lists other facts about IQ.
I do support his suggestion to read more and watch TV and play video games less. But it seems as if IQ is somewhat relative. If someone falls behind in reading levels, they might have advanced elsewhere, and/or get right back into the swing of things when school starts again. It's important to look at a broader picture than one summer.
Comment by Dana — July 7, 2009 @ 10:38 am
Kristof's statistics might be true in a general sense, but we as a society need to treat our children as individuals. Each child is capable of whatever their heart desires - no matter what their family's socioeconomic status is. To pigeon-hole a child because of his family's income is ludicrous at best.
And despite the advantages some children might have as their parents drag them to libraries all summer, there are disadvantages too. These "advantaged" children might lose something in the process - a love for reading. Summer is about self guided exploration.
Growing up, I lived in a middle-class neighborhood, but my dad watched every penny we spent. I spent many endless summer days dreaming, playing outside, building forts and reading. This had nothing to do with my family's financial status. Reading became something I WANTED to do - not a chore.
Comment by Amy Hanek — July 7, 2009 @ 11:29 am
I'm from a lower-middle class family and spent my summers reading avidly, too. But when examining the author's claims, it is necessary to look at the research and not fall back on personal or anecdotal evidence.
A review of the scholarly educational literature reveals the phenomena of "summer loss" has been well documented:
"A review of 13 empirical studies representing
approximately 40,000 students found that, on average,
the reading proficiency levels of students
from lower income families declined over the summer
months, while the reading proficiency levels of
students from middle-income families improved
modestly. In a single academic year, this decline resulted
in an estimated three-month achievement
gap between more advantaged and less advantaged
students. Between grades 1 and 6, the potential cumulative
impact of this achievement gap could
compound to 1.5 years’ worth of reading development
lost in the summer months alone" (Cooper, H., Nye, B., Charlton, K., Lindsay, J., & Greathouse, S. (1996). The effects of summer vacation on achievement test scores: A narrative and meta-analytic review.
Review of Educational Research, 66, 227–268.)
Studies by the NEA in 2002 and 2005 show no improvement in this socioeconomic disparity. If you are interested in this topic, I recommend "Summer Reading Loss" Mraz, Maryann; Rasinski, Timothy V.. Reading Teacher, v60 n8 p784-789 May 2007.
Comment by Candice — July 7, 2009 @ 11:42 am