Book Owners Have Smarter Kids...

Hm, an interesting observation made by Laura Miller, however, I believe there are some quite broad statements made that are not necessarily true although there are some good points. The writer cites a recent study made by what I believe to be sociology professors stating, "that just having books around the house (the more, the better) is correlated with how many years of schooling a child will complete." I feel that this is a an extremely faulty statement even after it is stated, "Children with as few as 25 books in the family household completed on average two more years of schooling than children raised in homes without any books." The wording of the statements does not imply that the children independently picked up the books, but says their mere presence has an effect on their learning. What is the problem? I think the writer or researchers failed to mention or complete a study of the parents of those children. I think it is unwise to think that most under-privileged kids would be more studious if they simply had books in the house. Who is going to motivate them to read said books? I know when I was young, I would have gone outside to do some other recreational activity until a book was suggested or thrust into my hands. Why do they think the more knowledgeable children are in homes with more books? Probably because their parents are knowledgeable people themselves and thus those students have the advantage. What the author says is true, books can do a great deal of good for students, but declaring that the mere presence of them in a house is going to make them automatically read them does not seem as likely as she assumes. The statement would hold more water if it mentioned how active parents are in the reading of their children.