Why newborns don't need books

Hoffman believes there are better ways to expose your baby to language

John Hoffman,

Originally published in Today's Parent November 2004

Send
Share

I’m about to risk the wrath of the entire literacy community, but I just have to challenge the notion that parents should start reading to babies at birth — an idea advocates are pushing.

“It is not so important what is read to children in the first few months, just that something is read.” So says Reading Is Fundamental, the oldest and largest non-profit literacy organization in the US. “Newborns benefit from reading too!” — from an A to Z list of family literacy activities from ABC Canada, Canada’s most prominent literacy group.

I couldn’t disagree more. Before I tell you why, let me be clear about a few things.

Literacy and books are very, very important to me. Pre-reading literacy is critical. I think parents should be encouraged to introduce babies to books (looking at the pages, talking about the pictures) in the latter half of the first year. But I’ll go out on a limb and say it is not important to read to infants under six months. I don’t even think it’s a particularly good idea.

Now, if you read books to your newborn and you’re about to take umbrage, let’s make an important distinction. There’s a big difference between what some parents decide to try on their own and what we advise all parents to do. Individual parents (myself included) try all sorts of things to calm, connect with and entertain babies. If you find it enjoyable or comforting to read to your newborn, and if the baby seems to like it, I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is telling all parents that it’s important to read to newborns, and implying that this will somehow make them better readers.

Subscribe to Today's Parent for just $14.95* That's only $1.25 an issue!