originally posted in:Secular Sevens
[quote][b]The Power of Talking to Your Baby[/b]
By the time a poor child is 1 year old, she has most likely already fallen behind middle-class children in her ability to talk, understand and learn. The gap between poor children and wealthier ones widens each year, and by high school it has become a chasm. American attempts to close this gap in schools have largely failed, and a consensus is starting to build that these attempts must start long before school — before preschool, perhaps even before birth.
[...]
All parents gave their children directives like “Put away your toy!” or “Don’t eat that!” But interaction was more likely to stop there for parents on welfare, while as a family’s income and educational levels rose, those interactions were more likely to be just the beginning.
The disparity was staggering. Children whose families were on welfare heard about 600 words per hour. Working-class children heard 1,200 words per hour, and children from professional families heard 2,100 words. By age 3, a poor child would have heard 30 million fewer words in his home environment than a child from a professional family. And the disparity mattered: the greater the number of words children heard from their parents or caregivers before they were 3, the higher their IQ and the better they did in school. TV talk not only didn’t help, it was detrimental.
[...]
And [url=http://www.childrenofthecode.org/interviews/risley.htm]they argued[/url] that the disparities in word usage correlated so closely with academic success that kids born to families on welfare do worse than professional-class children entirely because their parents talk to them less. In other words, if everyone talked to their young children the same amount, there would be no racial or socioeconomic gap at all. (Some other researchers say that while word count is extremely important, it can’t be the only factor.)[/quote]
[url=http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/10/the-power-of-talking-to-your-baby]Tina Rosenberg | The New York Times[/url]
tl;dr: Talking to a child between birth and age three is such a hugely important factor in their development it may be the entire source of significant educational disparities between families of different socioeconomic levels.
tl;dr:tl;dr: Poor people are stupid because nobody talked to them as babies.
Is this surprising to you? Do you know if your parents talked to your or your siblings much as children, and how this may have affected you? And for the handful of you who are parents, have/do you talk to your children much, and do you make a conscious effort to do so?
I personally find it really surprising, and I'm a bit sceptical of the claim that it could be the sole cause of socioeconomic educational disparities, but it's still really promising as a way of potentially closing the gap between low and middle to high income households/families. It might be a bit of a strain on working class parents who might often be exhausted or otherwise occupied, though, and the main limiting factor on the effect is the parents' own level of language development, so there's still going to be disparities due to that.
What do you think?
-
Bullshit. If youre on welfare, your parents are home more often than those whose parents work.
-
Surprised, but I suppose I shouldn't be. It's common sense that you need to interact with your children and poor families can't afford to do that.
-
[quote]Working-class children heard 1,200 words per hour, and children from professional families heard 2,100 words. [/quote] What's the difference?
-
Well, after reading this, I'll try and remember it and try to talk to my future children as much as possible when the day for that comes.
-
My parents talked to me in their native language as a child. Before I entered preschool, I only knew one language that wasn't English. I didn't learn English until 3rd grade. Today, I now know four languages: Tagalog, English, Spanish and Japanese. If you consider Hawaiian Pidgin as another language and not a dialect, then 5 languages known today.
-
Edited by Gabriel Eisen: 4/12/2013 5:26:30 AMLanguage development in children, either by means of universal grammer and innate linguistic ability or by acquisition through positive-negative evidence, is directly related to cognitive capacity and memory. Differing perspectives regarding the significance of stimuli can be considered. One extreme posits that cognitive and behavioral evolution is dependent on emergent experience, and Rosenburg's assumptions, however clumsily, fit into that model. The other side of the coin believes that the biochemical facets of the human mind are "wired" into the genome. Was Einstein born or was he made? Language is the crossroad where the material world and the meta-realm collide, and IMHO, is our greatest innovation.
-
Wow, that's great. Too bad I don't give a -blam!-.
-
Children could develop even faster if their parents are bilingual. A child who takes in two languages a day develops much faster than if he/she had monolingual parents. One of my old high school buddies grew up with a Lithuanian/American father and a crap ton of German relatives on his step moms side, and he's F*cking brilliant. I think it might have diminished his sense of humor though...
-
It might be true, but I think there's more to it than that. My family has always been lower class, but I'm in the top 5% of my school. I think it's not just the amount of words you hear as a child, but also the quality of the words. As in, the overall level of vocabulary your parents speak in. And of course, parents who encourage literature over television (like mine did) will make a big difference in their child's academics.
-
That's pretty interesting. The poverty rate in the US is very high, class distinctions are becoming more defined, social mobility is getting more difficult, and Washington is hell-bent on cutting spending. Hell of a combination. I think a renewed effort to provide more support to the poor, as well as programs for families with young children, could help a lot. The president's budget includes increased funding for early childhood education, which is good. Anyway, I'm from a middle-class family and those numbers sound right.
-
Not surprising, while there are the good parents who are poor, you've also got the druggies, the people who are out looking for a job 24/7, and the people who just don't care about life. Those all will most likely fall into the poor parent category, hence would talk less to their children.
-
I'm from a "professional" family, and I'm sure I heard at least 2,100 words per hour.
-
I do not believe that I heard 2,100 words an hour, not including TV talk, when I was a baby; and according to most people, I'm pretty -blam!-ing smart.
-
That's probably a factor in determining whether you'll be in poverty or not, but the three main factors are: health, parental economic class, and quality of schooling (closely related to parental economic class).
-
[quote]tl;dr:tl;dr: Poor people are stupid because nobody talked to them as babies.[/quote]I suddenly feel the urge to hug every stupid poor person that has ever existed :'(