Picture Books Too Babyish (i.e., FUN??) For Kindergarteners

Oh, that is sad. My 8 year old still likes picture books and he can read chapter books. I don’t see them going out of our lives for quite some time.

My head just exploded.

Chapter books for little ones cost 4.99 and last a week while a picture book costs $15 and lasts ten minutes. I won’t spend money on picture books, we get those at the library. My daughter reads books that are challenging at home, she gets plenty of picture books at school and needs to be challenged somewhere.

Sara, I hope you let your daughter pick out her reading material. She’ll get enough mandatory reading forced upon her as she goes through school.

In my opinion as a teacher, I don’t think that challenging kids with their leisure reading is necessary or advisable. I also think that our society has this misconception that reading earlier is better. It’s not and doesn’t really make any difference regarding their later development. We need to stop making our kids grow up so quickly, and taking away their picture books is just another way we’re doing it.

Kids who are pushed into reading will not become good readers. The part about the little kid who “doesn’t want to WORK at reading” broke my heart. They don’t LET him read picture books? Way to make a non-reader mom.

Argh, typos!

I meant to say “the minute any job
I have consumes my time so much that I have no time for leisure.

I think there is a wee bit of an assumption that picture books are less challenging than books in chapters.

I often come across very adult or complex themes in picture books and the illustrations serve as a way into the subject and a useful complement to first hand experiences when these are possible.

Books have to interest a child. Some children learn and enjoy comics and other texts accompanied by illustrations.

Next, a child can read a book yet understand little of what he or she is reading. Conversations and discussions around books and other texts are a key factor in challenging children, arousing their curiosity and ensuring they comprehend what they have read.

Picture books are as “real” as any other book and many are very memorable and provide early positive reading experiences.

Reading picture books IS reading and is not necessarily lower quality reading than chapter books. I’d much rather have my kids reading a well written picture book than some of the crummy, fad chapter books that are available. I loved many of my favorite picture books enough to keep my copies with me as a young adult before I even had children to read them to. Now, I love reading them with my kids, and I love that my kids are finding their own favorites, too. Helping children develop a love of literature that will enrich their lives for a lifetime is more important than getting them to read books of a certain format just because it seems (but is not always) more sophisticated.

I disagree that quantity is more important than quality when it comes to children’s books, but that has nothing to do with picture books vs. chapter books. A good book is a good book, and a lousy book is a lousy book.

The story doesn’t scare me, actually, because the old favorites are still popular. I’d much rather have a few great books than a boatload of some of what I’ve seen in the bookstores.

@Maureen — as a parent, homeschool teacher, and public school volunteer for many years, I have to disagree with you about the wisdom of “challenging” children in their leisure reading. I think it all depends on the child. Our daughter would come home from school terribly unhappy about the books she had to read in school, and eagerly dived into the ones I offered her, which just happened to be several levels (both reading ability and content) higher. Boredom turns off potential readers at least as easily as too much of a challenge.

But still, this has nothing to do with not reading picture books, which often have better vocabulary and more beautiful language than “chapter books” (as opposed to “real” books with chapters).

My 8-year old loves chapter books. But he also LOOOVES him so Calvin and Hobbes!! I’ve never pushed one or the other but let him lead by interest.

Absolutely! Quality picture books are a rich, entertaining, magical part of childhood (the Caldecott Medal winning picture books just for starters http://tinyurl.com/3ok83r.) Don’t rush kids past them. Picture books are a complex and rich genre all of their own.

Here’s my trick. I loaded up an iPod with good audiobooks when my daughter was 4. The thrill she got from Tom Sawyer far exceeded anything she had gotten from picture books. Along with my phonics-based teaching, greasing the path with audiobooks led my daughter quickly to excellent literature. Sure she reads some trashy books like Nancy Drew, and I’m not bothered by that.

There always seems to be a chorus of American parents and teachers who exclaim, “Don’t expect too much of our kids! Don’t rush them!” Rubbish.

American kids have been reared on picture books for decades. How’s it working out? Good readers are they?

I’ve always thought that to really understand what’s going on in the world, all you have to do is read the Sunday Comics.
I have several comics collections at home and it’s a real pleasure to see a kid sit down with one, begin reading intensely and then bust out laughing when the punchline connects. I know they didn’t just “get the joke”. They got a lot more out of it.

Many, many, many years ago I recited The Nativity story at my Catholic grade school Christmas play. Memorized it word for word. The Nuns and Priests were amazed I had learned this Bible passage so perfectly. Guess it’s time to cleans my soul – I NEVER read that particular passage in the Bible. I memorized it from watching A Charlie Brown Christmas.
Linus and I would argue Peanuts IS like the Bible.

Whoops, some of you guys should know more about what you’re talking about before spouting off!

Most picture books are written at a HIGHER level than chapter books. They are meant to be read to children who cannot read them themselves, or to be read independently by children who have pretty high reading skills. The pictures are meant to be enjoyed with the story.

In our library, I hear a lot of parents steering their kids away from “baby” books. Sad. Who cares what they read for pleasure? Some libraries have renamed them “Everybody Books” to encourage a wider population to read them.

On the other hand, in our schools, the school librarians won’t let kindergartners check out chapter books. Only picture books. I guess they assume that there’s no one at home to read Charlotte’s Web to them? Or that there’s no value in checking out a book you can’t yet read fluently?

Dumb.

Our assistant director at the library asked her high schooler to read her Llama Llama Mad at Mama (a picturebook) the other day because she wanted to connect with him about his attitude and what was going on in his life. By the time he got done reading the book to her they were both laughing. Much better to start the conversation with “I have a book I want to share with you” rather than “WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT YOUR ATTITUDE.”

1. For those few who really think chapter books are more “challenging” than picture books – you’re probably wrong.

Last year I went ahead and labeled every last picture book in our house (and we have hundreds, it was a two day task!) with their Guided Reading level. I don’t advise ANYbody do this for their home use unless they’re in the specific situation I was in: A worried, perfectionist niece who doesn’t want to get in trouble for reading “off-level” for homework, but who also doesn’t want to read “boring” books from school.

I had already believed most picture books to be of a high “reading level” because they’re meant for adults to read to children, but I was surprised at HOW high – many of our books came in at a 4th grade reading level or even higher!

They’re just shorter than chapter books, and they’re also less likely to be un age appropriate, so if you have a first grader who’s reading at a fourth grade level, you may find that picture books are the best choice.

2. With that said, I take it that Lenore didn’t read the comments to the article. Many librarians spoke up saying that this doesn’t reflect what they see in libraries, and many others spoke up saying that they suspect it’s a price issue. It’s hard to find picture books in paperback, but it’s easy to get paperback chapter books. Spend $16 on one short book, or two long ones? What a question!

Others point out that the book industry has been going through a boom lately. For the numbers to be dropping off in a recession isn’t scary, it’s normal.

3. One of the women in the article says she was very much misquoted, her response is here: http://zenleaf.amandagignac.com/2010/10/when-quotes-are-taken-out-of-context.html

Kate is right – the vocabulary in picture books is much more challenging than in most chapter books. I taught my daughter to read when she was 5, and she could read Magic Treehouse, etc., long before she could puzzle out some of the long words in a book like Graeme Base’s Animalia (one of my favorite picture books).

Aha, take this post on the subject:

http://giftsandoccupations.wordpress.com/2010/10/08/20-things-wrong-with-the-nyt-article-about-the-death-of-picture-books/

It neatly sums up most of what is said in the comments to the article.

As a writer, trying to become an author of children’s books I was recently informed that if I wanted to sell a picture book it had to be between 500-900 words. The one I was trying to sell was 2,000. As are many of the picture books me children are reading now.
But, publishers are making picture books shorter and more “babyish” aiming for the preschool and kindergartner crowd. By first grade, second at the latest children are expected to be reading “highly illustrated books for young/emerging readers” ie; chapter books with a few line drawings thrown in.
YUCK! My kids won’t touch those books with a ten foot pole. And by the time they want to be reading chapter books, they’ll be on to the good ones like Magic Treehouse, Harriet the Spy, Ruth Chew, Patricia Wrede, etc.
Right now, they like the picture books, they like being engaged and sometimes surprised by the pictures which can add so much to a short book.
Publishers and booksellers are wrong. And I think it’s time us parents told them so.

I read about your book etc. in The Guardian, also like the blog! I think you should all migrate to Norway.. it really is easier over here.. Though it worries me that we are moving in that same direction!

Interesting. Based on the rock-start popularity of Mo Willems, kids are still reading picture books! http://www.mowillems.com/

Great article, Renee! Thanks for the link.

@Linda – you aren’t disagreeing with me at all. If you are letting the kids pick what they like, they will almost always pick books at their level.

@Larry – I absolutely agree with you. Everyone wants to push their kids and everyone thinks they have the next Einstein and everyone is in competition with their neighbors about whose kid read the at the earliest age.

My kids (10 and 7 years old) both love reading and are quite good at it. The 10 year old recently tested with a reading comprehension level of 12th grade according to the school’s tests…..Yikes! Both love both chapter books and picture books or graphic novels.

I think both chapter and picture books are good. Many picture books are indeed written at a higher level than chapter books geared to the same age range, as the picture books are often written for adults to read to the child. Because they’re written for adults to read, the vocabulary and wordplay in picture books are often more sophisticated than the kids might be exposed to in the chapter books.

I found that chapter books were just a different challenge for my kids (well, still are for one of them) — a page with just words is usually pretty intimidating for the little guys, and it’s more a matter of getting over that fear of the loss of other visual cues than of the story being more difficult.

That said, I’m another who has to speak up for making sure the child does get challenged sometimes (not all the time — not everything should be a challenge!) in leisure reading. I say this because the school refuses to give my child reading that is challenging to him. If it were up to the school, he would have been reading Junie B. Jones in second grade rather than reading Alice in Wonderland or James Harriott’s Cat Stories, both of which he loved dearly. (He hated Junie B., by the way.) I think kids need access to books that push them a bit, but also that it doesn’t mean that you need to take away the easier stuff.

My son is in first grade, and is an excellent reader (if I do say so myself…). I think we’ve struck a nice balance for him. He really enjoys the stories in the chapter books (his favorite at the moment is the Magic Treehouse Series), but his attention span won’t hold when he reads it himself. So I read it to him. Every night, we snuggle in for a few chapters of Jack and Annie’s adventure, and he looks forward to travelling with them each night as we follow them.

When he’s reading on his own, visiting the library, etc, he still picks out picture books, although they are getting wordier as the weeks go on. I never fuss at him for the picture books he chooses, unless it’s the same one we’ve read sixty times over and he wants ME to read it to him! Then I have him read it to me.

He also has a couple of magazine subscriptions – Highlights for Kids & Lego, which occupy him for a good hour at a time whenever he picks them up. He also reads maps when we travel, advertising brochures, pretty much anything he can get his hands on. I find it hard to understand that a child reading *anything* is considered a bad thing! Some people need to get a grip.

I’m 28 years old and still read picture books with as much fervour as when I was 6! I’ll encourage my son to do the same and embrace VISUAL LITERACY equally. My love of picture books never stopped me from becoming a good reader nor reading other books when the time was right. Idiots…..

I’ve seen senior citizens on the bus reading comic books ( even Japanese manga) and when I talk to them they are some of the most interesting people to have conversations with. One guy I talked to was a WW2 veteran and learned Japanese during the occupation of Japan, and he has been reading untranslated ( ! )manga since that time to keep his mind sharp.

I get so sick of the “my kid reads Shakespeare at 7” mentality that this reflects in our Lake Wobegone world of all kids are above average. It’s all about going through the motions and not about actually understanding and enjoying what you are reading. There’s no award for learning to read first. There’s no award for getting to chapter books first.

I learned to read late – well into 1st grade – because I went to kindergarten in a school that didn’t teach it until 1st grade. By the end of 1st grade, I’d caught up to all those who learned in kindergarten or before. By 2nd, I’d surpassed most. By 4th, I had to be taken out of the standard reading program and just given books because I was so far ahead of everyone. In 7th, they put me in the 8th grade reading class because they weren’t allowed to enroll me in the high school classes (although in the same school). I graduated college with a degree in English.

Likewise, I read voraciously throughout childhood and chose my own books outside of school. Until middle school, most were traditional kid-fare, certainly nothing that jumps out at me as being unusually mature. My ex hated kid books and read solely adult books starting in elementary school, largely spy novels and history books. As adults, our reading levels, comprehension, intelligence and life achievement are all about equal. I was, by far, the more voracious reader as an adult (sadly my interest in reading died in pregnancy and hasn’t really returned). He has a crazy knowledge of history but no concept of common childhood literary references – he had no clue what I was talking about when I recognized The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe movie 5 seconds into the trailer having had no knowledge that they had even made a movie.

Intelligence is largely genetic. Life can certainly hinder intelligence but it can’t really raise it above the genetic ceiling no matter what you play in the womb and how soon you introduce Shakespeare. In a typical, educated, middle class family, a kid’s reading level is going to be what it was born to be regardless of when he learns to read or what books he chooses to read. While I can see suggesting some more advanced books that you think will interest your child, pushing a kid into books that he is not interested in will only make reading a chore and negatively impact his interest in reading.

I bought ‘Free-Range Kids’ at Christmas, and wrapped it. My 3 year old son opened it, quickly leafed through it, then said “It’s only alphabets. Here dad, it’s for you.”

Picture books and chapter books are completely different things. I’m 44 and many of the picture books we bring home from the library are ‘for me’.

As for cost, my son has over 300 last count, mostly < $1 each from garage sales and thrift store. You're welcome to pay $15 for one, and someone must, but I won't.

@Jen Connelly. They most certainly DO seem to want to take all the fun out of being a child. Play-dates, keeping them indoors never letting them anywhere near even the most deserted streets, “no running”–in a wide-open grassy park! (that one really annoys me), elimination of recess, parents not letting them ride their bike more than 10 inches from the front-yard even at age 10, taking them to the lake & showing them the water but then not letting them go near it.

And this too?

Good grief. Being a kid is SUPPOSED to be fun. Heck, being an ADULT is supposed to be fun.

LRH

My son learned to read at 2 1/2, mostly on his own. In kindergarten he was tested at a 4th grade level because that was the highest the teachers eval could go.

Now, he is nearly 14 and wants to read his mother’s Stephen Kong collection. He’s already read a few of the earlier ones. We only limit what he can read by the age appropriateness of the stories. He’s currently reading ‘The Stand’.

He got to this point by reading everything from picture books to ‘Captian Underpants’ to my collection of ‘Calvin & Hobbes’ and ‘Bloom County’ books and comic books.

Bottom line, ANYTHING a child reads is good. The mote they read the more they love reading.

It seems to me that there’s a lot of worry about picture books as some kind of crutch, but I don’t think they will slow a good, keen reader down. They’re not going to be still reading Meg and Mog when they’re at college because you didn’t discourage them from picking up something with fewer pictures.

By all means, introduce less pictorial books, but don’t ‘ban’ pictures.

My 7 year old was an early reader and enjoys both picture books and chapter books. He will read picture books to his younger siblings and then settle down to read his book. He also enjoys listening to audio books, comic books, and reading the cereal boxes. My 5 year old didn’t start reading as early as his brother, but he loves (picture) books and I’m not worried about his reading level. Let them have a say it what they read!

If it’s true that parents thing picture books are “too babyish”, that’s just sad. My oldest guy is in kindergarten and we’ve been reading to him for ages, but that’s still how he’s learning to read: by connecting the words to the pictures and memorizing the short sentences. I don’t understand how kids are supposed to develop reading comprehension when what they’re given is ALWAYS a challenge. When I read, I see picture in my mind, not words on the page; it’s difficult or nearly impossible to do that if it’s a struggle to unwrap every word and sentence. Challenges are how we learn, but for me, love of reading comes first. If you love to read, you will seek out challenges so you can learn to enjoy more complex stories and the beauty of the language they’re told in. Being forced to read books that are way beyond someone’s level or that they find completely uninteresting just to “keep up” just teaches kids that reading is a chore, and to me, that’s a tragedy. Letting kids read what they love along with their more challenging books is NOT “retarding” their progress- it’s encouraging them to want to branch out on their own.

As to the cost thing, I could totally understand that! If not for thrift stores, we would have VERY few picture books, because they are really expensive. If a story becomes a favourite, of course it’s worth $15… but maybe they’ll only want to read it twice. We’ve been finding “Manager’s Specials” at our favourite thrift store where we can fill up a big, clear bag full of children’s books for $1.99. HEAVEN! I buy new books when I can to support the authors/illustrators, but money’s tight, and my kids love their stories. And God bless the library… even if ours is an hour away. :/

I’ve found it interesting to compare my reading habits and my husband’s. I grew up loving books and reading, staying up way too late reading (*gasp!*) Nancy Drew when I was in grade 2. Great literature it wasn’t, but I learned to love books that way, because I understood them and they were interesting. I read “literature” now whenever I have time, but to have been force-fed Steinbeck in grade 6 almost certainly would have kept me from enjoying one of my favourite books of all time now, as an adult.

My husband doesn’t love reading. I don’t know why- he wasn’t “challenged” as a kid more than necessary, he just never learned to enjoy it. The one thing he will read for pleasure is a graphic novel, and I’ve learned from that, too. I’m usually a really fast reader, so it’s hard for me to slow down and “read” the pictures as well as the words, to let my mind make connections between panels… It’s been interesting, and I’m learning to enjoy it. I need to re-read “V for Vendetta” soon- there’s a challenging “picture book” for you!

1. Crystal, you’re talking about fifth graders. We’re talking about five year olds. Sure, there’s the number 5 in both of those, but they’re two wildly different groups of children!

2. As far as “too simplistic” goes in terms of storylines, that depends. Some picture books will have a very complex storyline, perhaps two or three different ones, some that you can’t read about and have to infer from the pictures. These are the ones written for older readers.

Some chapter books have a single storyline, with a simple moral at the end to tie it all up neatly. These are usually the ones for younger readers, but sometimes they’re just badly written.

At any rate, it’s through the use of certain choice picture books that my nieces have learned about the fourth wall and the unreliable narrator, and honestly, without the pictures, I find these concepts hard to, well, illustrate.

“On the other hand, in our schools, the school librarians won’t let kindergartners check out chapter books. Only picture books. I guess they assume that there’s no one at home to read Charlotte’s Web to them? Or that there’s no value in checking out a book you can’t yet read fluently? ”

Or, that they CAN’T READ THEM THEMSELVES?

I agree about not pushing and thinking that “higher” level books are always better, but some of my kids were definitely ready for chapter books at that age. It would have been ridiculous to restrict them to picture books — who are librarians to make that kind of judgment call for individual students they probably barely know? I agree with others that picture books can be challenging in their own way also, but my kids who were younger fluent readers (which was not all of them) liked reading words and verbal content. They also enjoyed picture books, but had I been restricted to the whims (or even Professional Opinions based-on-not-much) of a school librarian for what they could and could not read on their own it would have been sad indeed under that kind of policy.

No, Christina, it is generally not good to force a kid to read books she hates, but that is a tangential issue. My 8-year-old ENJOYS reading Breakfast at Tiffany’s, and watching movies based on Jane Austin books. Is there a problem with that?

Well, Nick, she does have a point.

There are a number of children who push themselves to read a book well above their understanding. They may enjoy it, or they may not, but often they’d enjoy it better if they’d waited until they were really old enough.

However, this is an individual thing. Some children may not understand all the concepts in a certain book while others will lap it up.

Given the reading skills of the typical American child, courtesy of the public schools, almost any book with mutisyllabic words is a challenge, even at age 12. Much of this discussion reflects the acceptance by American parents of dumbed-down education. Despite kids having had picture books and “educational” TV shows for decades, a huge chunk of incoming college freshmen require remedial reading courses. When it comes to education, Americans are the proverbial frog in the heating pot.

Poor reading skills are not confined to wee children. Starting in fourth grade American kids fare poorly compared to their international peers, and even the top 10 percent of American students suffer in comparison to the top 10 in many other countries.

Americans no more care about intellectual development of their kids than they do that their tykes are obese from gluttonous eating.

Public school attendee here.

My mom tried teaching me to read when I was four. I remember sitting on her lap with McGuffey’s Eclectic Primer looking at “A cat and a rat” over and over. I stubbornly refused to cooperate. She says I didn’t really start reading until I had other kids to compete with in Kindergarten. In first grade I started reading chapter books and in the fifth grade I shocked my teacher by lugging Mists of Avalon around. I never before thought about the importance of picture books because they have always been a part of my library. My mother is an artist and collects picture books for their art, so even when I was in college we were still giving each other picture books as presents.

I now have a two year old and we buy a variety of books for him including chapter and reference books we happen across that he won’t be reading for years yet. Has anyone read Flight by Sherman Alexi? You get the idea.

My husband encountered one of those school librarians who wouldn’t let him check out books deemed too difficult for him. His mother wrote her a nice note and solved that problem. If my mother had told me, “No you can’t read Mists of Avalon” because some of the content was quite adult, I would have read it behind her back. When I picked it up because it was about King Arthur she just shrugged and said that if I had any questions, feel free to ask her to explain.

Variety seems to be a good way to “grow” enthusiastic readers.

My mom added the following tactics: begin reading chapter books at bedtime when the child’s attention span is willing. Progress to books in a series and the kid will pick up the rest of the series on their own time if they are interested in the story. Don’t limit yourself to books written specifically for children, read something that both parties can enjoy and keep reading aloud for many years (assuming both parties enjoy it).

Hmm. There are some great picture books out there (I probably own most of them). But there are a lot of duds, and the duds seem to be getting more numerous. And very expensive. Too many of them are going down some weird path that doesn’t even make sense to the adult reader, or pushing some humanistic “moral,” or containing illustrations that are downright scary. Using language that is either too complex for the age group or not even language. I’m not gonna pay $20 for the opportunity to sit and make weird noises at my kids. I can do that for free.

So maybe there is a glut in the picture-book market or maybe the authors / publishers are missing the mark. Because though I own thousands of kids’ books for all ages, and have two preschoolers, I haven’t bought a new “picture book” in years.

But no, it’s not because kids are too smart for them now. Kids aren’t reading “functionally” any earlier, their interest for higher-level reading isn’t starting younger, their language isn’t richer, their reasoning isn’t at a higher level. If anything, I’d guess there are fewer parents who really know how to sit down and enjoy a book with their child.

Nothing wrong with early reading. But that’s not literature. Relying purely on reading mechanics, a kid would have to be pretty old before he could start to experience actual literature, and would miss a large window of opportunity. Do parents know the difference?

My 3yo is beginning to read, and watching her, it’s very apparent that she draws upon her experience with literature far more than she draws on phonics as she decodes. She knows how stories tend to be organized, knows how to extract info from illustrations, has excellent language skills, etc., which provides most of the underlying logic needed for reading. You can drill the alphabet and phonics all day and still not have a literate child.

grammar fix: the reason fewer books are selling

This weekend, while watching his 6 year old grandkids trade picture books, my dad mentioned this article to me, with an appropriately snarky comment. I refused to read it.

We’ve been reading chapter books with my son since he was 3 years old. He loves them and also his picture books. As with most things in life, and parenting, I have not found a need for either/or thinking. Why not both types of books? Articles like this are meant to inflame us.

Here’s a tip if you want to impress your friends with your “Harvard-bound” kid , yet still allow the young one to enjoy picture books: graphic interpretations of the classics. When my son was 5 and in his knight phase, he found (in the picture book section of the library) a graphic interpretation of Don Quixote. I tried to “forget” the book when we left, but he noticed and went back for it. Try explaining this story to your kindergardener!!! He loved it though. We borrowed that book several times. Months later, while we were at dinner with several other families at a Mexican restaurant, he noticed a picture on the wall. He shouted, excitedly ” Look mom, it’s Don Quixote!!” Stunned silence from the other parents at the table. Finally someone was brave enough to ask if he had seen the movie. “No”, he answered, “I read the book all by myself!!!”

I think that says it all.

I’ll be contrarian: how many of you read a Stendhal novel this year? I did! Remember when everyone made fun of Al Gore after he said his favorite novel was The Red and the Black? OK, I get it, but put Charterhouse of Parma on your “Someday” list — it is a crazy, hilarious, breathtaking book about some incredibly devious, selfish people who succeed by lying constantly. What’s not to like?

Sorry for going off-topic. I actually agree completely with Lernore’s post. I would only add “Grown-ups Reading Neglected Classics: good.” 🙂

Personally, I grew up reading comic books… And was often told by teachers that they would rot my brain. These were the exact same teachers that were amazed that I was reading with a college level vocabulary and comprehension in the third grade.

The pictures put the words into context, and make it far easier to expand your vocabulary. I wish I could still put my hands on it, but I once compiled a vocabulary list from a random issue each of Spider-Man, Fantastic Four, and X-men…

I know that’s where I learned words like esoteric, plethora, prestidigitation, and legerdemain; was introduced to scientific concepts like genetic abnormalities, evolutionary biology, and quantum theory; and learned the Latin and Greek roots that let me translate most scientific jargon on the fly.

So yes… anyone who says that picture books are just baby stuff, and reading comics is bad for your vocabulary, should probably take their no-thank-you-bite and actually try it out before they say they don’t like it.

Okay, I agree that we shouldn’t push our children to stop reading picture books — they’re great for any age. But one of the things that resonates with me about the whole free range mentality is that children are capable of more than we give them credit for. The comments on this post seem to be saying the opposite.

Challenges are good for children. If their school is challenging them, great — but I think many schools are lowering standards (see above discussion on the ubiquitous “above grade level” label). Sometimes the parents have to supply the challenge that the school is not giving.

Kindergarten isn’t too early to start exposing children to books without pictures. Kindergartners have wonderful imaginations! As a commenter said above, a page without pictures is not too *difficult* for a child, but it is a little scary. I think reading chapter books aloud is a great way to help a child discover that books without pictures can be fun, too.

I also have to take issue with all the comments saying “it doesn’t matter what your child is reading, as long as they’re reading.” I would counter with the C.S. Lewis quote, “No book is really worth reading at the age of ten which is not equally — and often far more — worth reading at the age of fifty and beyond.”

I think parents have a role to play in suggesting excellent books to their kids. Many of the books I chose for myself when I was a child were just disappointments. What I needed was a guide… all I knew to do was to pick up the next book in the series du jour and hope it was more interesting than the last one.

Such a huge chunk of cultural literacy is based on picture books… who didn’t grow up wit Dr Seuss and Goodnight Moon… My husband grew up in a bookless home and we have spent the last thirteen years re-educating him with picture books and they just don’t stop their is no end to the beautiful classic literature out there that make our world and the world of books so inviting and well worth visiting!!!

Is nobody curious about what children read before picture books, which are, for the most part, a recent phenomenon. Historically, most children were illiterate, but were the literate ones tortured by having mere words? Did they take no pleasure in reading? Did they lack imagination? How did their reading skills compare with those of today’s young people? Of course there is room for picture books, but a well-taught child quickly moves on to more substantive, and pleasurable, books. Contemporary Americans have very low educational expectations, but they don’t seem to be low enough for some many people. The same arguments for picture books could serve to defend coloring books and TV.

Nick, you’re assuming that picture books aren’t – and can’t be – substantive, nor as pleasurable as chapter books. I really doubt this is the case.

Nicolas, “chapter books” is just the modern name for books with separate chapters and a lot more pictures than text (if any pictures at all.) It’s not a specialized or new thing, just the name that has come to be attached to books for kids that aren’t picture books. On a fairly beginning level, think Beverly Cleary or Boxcar Children.

Substantive picture books: lots of fairy tales are done in picture book format. There are even books on a fairly high reading level with lots of thematic content and high verbal content that really look like the picture book format, such as Rosemary Sutcliff’s retelling of the Trojan War, “Black Ships Before Troy.” That’s not really what we’re talking about, but picture books do cover a range of reading and thematic levels — they’re not all just books with simple drawings and ten words on a page.

And Laura, I agree — there is a middle ground between “pushing” and keeping kids “stuck” at books on a very simple reading level. I’ve always read more “advanced” books to my kids.

Wow, there’s a lot of bragging on this post.

Please let me not be like that when my child is reading…. Is it inevitable?

Trashy books like Nancy Drew!?!?! I can’t believe some of the comments on here or in the original New York Times story.
For the record, I was an early reader. I don’t remember learning to read. At age 5, I just knew how and I could read really, really well. By Grade 7, I was reading at a Grade 12 level.
My parents never pushed me to read, though they never discouraged me either. My mother swears I learned how to read by watching Sesame Street. Take that, anti-TV types. 🙂
I was allowed to pick whatever I wanted from the library and that included Nancy Drew, picture books, and some adult novels I read when I was too young to really understand the themes.
I really object to classifying certain types of books as trashy. There is a lot of skillfully written genre fiction and if it gets kids reading, it’s not trash.
I understand people’s concern over literacy levels, but look at Finland. From what I’ve read, they don’t even try to teach kids to read until age 7 and they have some of the highest literacy levels in the world.

Sheila,
Yup, Nancy Drew is trashy, both in style and content. I’m disgusted to the incessant references to Nancy’s appearance, and that of her friends. Nancy Drew books are factory pap, developed by the founder of the Stratemeyer Syndicate after his success in creating the Hardy Boys, and they have been written by various ghostwriters sharing the same pseudonym. As literature they compare very badly indeed to many books accessible to young people who are reasonably proficient readers. I’ve named a few, like Tom Sawyer, but there are many more, such as are published by The New York Review of Books.

http://www.nybooks.com/books/imprints/childrens/

But fine, I do know what you mean (I think) I’m just being a pain because you’re wrong.

You want a substantive picture book? I’ll give you one – easy.

George vs. George.

As the second review says (gosh, that person totally isn’t me :P) it’s written on a seventh grade reading level. I promise you, it has more information than a seventh grade textbook will, or a high school textbook for that matter.

Talkin’ About Bessie – 144 pages of conflicting views of the first American of any race or gender to have an international pilot’s license. With pictures. Dense text in different dialects on one side of the spread, picture on the other.

There’s a Hair in my Dirt! There’s probably a more “grown-up” way to talk about ecology, but I doubt there’s a more lasting and memorable way. Years after reading it, and I still recall specific scenes and facts from the book, clear as though I read it yesterday.

What’s worst about your argument is not that you’re saying there ARE no worthy picture books, but seemingly that there CAN’T BE. This is absurd – there can be good, deep, thought-provoking, challenging picture books, TV shows, movies, chapter books, and oral folklore. Whether there are or aren’t at the moment is, I suppose, up to each of us to decide alone (and I’d be surprised if your reply isn’t some version of “those don’t count” and/or “that’s not good enough for ME!”), but even if there are none at all it’s folly to assume there never could be.

Sure, picture books written for preschoolers tend to be simpler in text and storyline than those written for twelve year olds, or those written for grown-ups (yes, they exist). That’s because preschoolers are simpler than twelve year olds and grown-ups!

But moving “out of” picture books just because they’re picture books is absurd. People generally do move to more difficult experiences just for the fun of it, but it’s silly to lump all picture books in the “easy” category only because you don’t know enough to know there are other ones out there.

Your scorn for picture books, your insistence that children should give them up “quickly”, your derision of the term chapter book (and insistence that they cannot be “real books”, as though such a distinction ever could exist!) is a bit troubling. I leave you with this quote from C. S. Lewis:

Critics who treat adult as a term of approval, instead of as a merely descriptive term, cannot be adult themselves. To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence. And in childhood and adolescence they are, in moderation, healthy symptoms. Young things ought to want to grow. But to carry on into middle life or even into early manhood this concern about being adult is a mark of really arrested development. When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/C._S._Lewis

And Nick – for all your statements that SOMEHOW picture books are related to low literacy rates in the US, it’s *possible*, I guess (although if you’re comparing America with non-English speaking countries I’m putting the blame on the messed-up English orthography instead), but you’d have to back that statement up with something other than “I just kinda feel this way”.

So, Uly, I would find White, Dahl, and the Grimms in the “picture book” section at Barnes & Noble? Right next to Huck Finn?

We have Norton’s Annotated Brother’s Grimm, and Viking’s recent retranslation of Andersen’s Fairy Tales (almost illustration-free). I’d love to know more about the fairy tales you speak of being issued today, if you could direct me to them. It takes some doing to best the Grimms, Andersen, and George MacDonald.

Also, my last comment (the one before the one before this one) didn’t post because of too many links, so I’m going to c+p the text. It’s a bit long, but it does have three examples from my very own bookcase.

I’m sorry for being a bit snippy, but the truth is, Nick, I don’t think I like you. And I’ve had a long enough week (the worst was the full jar of maple syrup that shattered on the floor, followed by my grandmother’s dislocated hip that required me to spend several hours in the hospital fetching nurses for bedpans, followed by the plates that broke – and that’s all within three days!) that I don’t care about being nice at all, so… don’t take it TOO personally, I’d probably be nicer if I weren’t in a sucky mood.

But fine, I do know what you mean (I think) I’m just being a pain because you’re wrong.

You want a substantive picture book? I’ll give you one — easy.

George vs. George.

As the second review says (gosh, that person totally isn’t me 😛 ) it’s written on a seventh grade reading level. I promise you, it has more information than a seventh grade textbook will, or a high school textbook for that matter.

Talkin’ About Bessie — 144 pages of conflicting views of the first American of any race or gender to have an international pilot’s license. With pictures. Dense text in different dialects on one side of the spread, picture on the other.

There’s a Hair in my Dirt! There’s probably a more “grown-up” way to talk about ecology, but I doubt there’s a more lasting and memorable way. Years after reading it, and I still recall specific scenes and facts from the book, clear as though I read it yesterday.

What’s worst about your argument is not that you’re saying there ARE no worthy picture books, but seemingly that there CAN’T BE. This is absurd — there can be good, deep, thought-provoking, challenging picture books, TV shows, movies, chapter books, and oral folklore. Whether there are or aren’t at the moment is, I suppose, up to each of us to decide alone (and I’d be surprised if your reply isn’t some version of “those don’t count” and/or “that’s not good enough for ME!”), but even if there are none at all it’s folly to assume there never could be.

Sure, picture books written for preschoolers tend to be simpler in text and storyline than those written for twelve year olds, or those written for grown-ups (yes, they exist). That’s because preschoolers are simpler than twelve year olds and grown-ups!

But moving “out of” picture books just because they’re picture books is absurd. People generally do move to more difficult experiences just for the fun of it, but it’s silly to lump all picture books in the “easy” category only because you don’t know enough to know there are other ones out there.

Your scorn for picture books, your insistence that children should give them up “quickly”, your derision of the term chapter book (and insistence that they cannot be “real books”, as though such a distinction ever could exist!) is a bit troubling. I leave you with this quote from C. S. Lewis:

Critics who treat adult as a term of approval, instead of as a merely descriptive term, cannot be adult themselves. To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence. And in childhood and adolescence they are, in moderation, healthy symptoms. Young things ought to want to grow. But to carry on into middle life or even into early manhood this concern about being adult is a mark of really arrested development. When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/C._S._Lewis

And Nick — for all your statements that SOMEHOW picture books are related to low literacy rates in the US, it’s *possible*, I guess (although if you’re comparing America with non-English speaking countries I’m putting the blame on the messed-up English orthography instead), but you’d have to back that statement up with something other than “I just kinda feel this way”.

“Many of the books I chose for myself when I was a child were just disappointments. ”

This seems to be more of a lack of knowledge of yourself than a indication that parents should select the reading material of their children. I recall picking very few duds when I was a child. As far back as I can remember, I knew what I liked to read. I picked subjects, authors and styles that I knew that I would enjoy. Our reading text in school contained mostly excerpts of books and I frequently chose to read those books. I sometimes asked for recommendations from friends, teachers or the librarian when I was at a loss but it was usually in the form of “I really enjoyed X; can you recommend something similar.” Often I just browsed the library reading little bits until something drew me in. Was it always great literature? Absolutely not, but it was all enjoyable to me.

“Why does anyone think such books are easier or more pleasurable to read than, say, Twain, Roald Dahl, E. B. White, or the unadulterated Brothers Grimm?”

What is pleasurable to read is very much a matter of personal opinion. For example, my literature degree can appreciate the quality of Twain stories, however, that doesn’t change the fact that I’d rather rip my fingernails out than actually read them. I’ve attempted reading Twain many times because I felt that I should like it and came to the conclusion many years ago that I just don’t. I’m okay with that. Same with your example of Anne of Green Gables, which may be a very well written story but I wouldn’t know because it didn’t hold my interest at all as a child (too girly for me). It’s very much something that I see my daughter enjoying so I may very well read it, and enjoy it, in the near future, but as a little girl, I preferred other things.

SKL, I’ve already stated that I like illustrations.

This discussion mostly comes down to the traditional divide between those who believe there are quality standards and those who think it’s all subjective. The subjectivists dominate the schools, and they are responsible for the tragic mass dumbing-down.

I’m an unashamed elitist. I want my daughter to experience the best in literature, music, movies, and food. So, my house is absent “chapter books,” Miley Cyrus songs, Pixar movies, and Oreo cookies. Do I live with the fact that my daughter will experience these things when she is not at home? Sure. But I don’t have to spend money cultivating her taste for such things.

Different kids like different things and develop different skills at different rates. Einstein was a famous late reader.

Just don’t take any of it too seriously http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikvcS3Oe-oA

Another great, and challenging, picture book, “The Three Pigs” http://www.amazon.com/Three-Pigs-David-Wiesner/dp/0618007016/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1286855300&sr=8-1
By David Wiesner. You could almost see the smoke coming out of my 3 year old’s ears.

To add to the list of excellent picture books:

With no words:
Welcome to the Zoo by Alison Jay
Wonder Bear by Tao Nyen

With words:
Alphaboat by Michael Chesworth
The Eleventh Hour by Graeme Base
Masquerade by Kit Williams
Motel of the Mysteries by David Macaulay

The point of a good picture book goes beyond the text that happens to accompany the illustrations. The point of a good picture book goes beyond the mere quality of the illustrations. The illustrations continue the story where the words left off and include details that the text was free to leave out. Text and pictures compliment each other. In a good picture book, if you gloss over the pictures, you loose much of the story.

Why not just leave out the costly illustrations and put in all the words? Could Da Vinci have sculpted the Mona Lisa instead of painting her? He certainly had the talent. We can debate until we are blue in the face whether the work of art would have been better in three or two dimensions. The fact remains that he chose to paint and the picture book author chose to have illustrations paired with the text. If you don’t enjoy picture books, read chapter books out loud to your child, but don’t attempt to limit their exposure to the other medium if they express an interest in it.

And all those examples of “elitist” books, are chapter books. They might have stood the test of time to be considered literature but they are still chapter books. I fail to see why Beverly Cleary is trash while Roald Dahl is treasure, sounds more like personal preference to me. (BTW Roald Dahl is almost always paired with illustrations by Quintin Blake). I heard no mention of the Earthsea trilogy, The Hobbit or Anne McCaffrey’s Pern books, but presumably fantasy is automatically trash.

And why has poetry been left out of this discussion? Does no one read A Child’s Garden of Verses? Or the more modern Shell Silverstein? I don’t know if they publish such things anymore, but we have a number of poetry anthologies compiled mid century that were intended for children complete with *gasp* beautiful illustrations, one of them is even a board book!

I think we are confusing ‘way too many issues here. And how can we possibly have a conversation about picture books and chapter books if we can’t even agree on definitions?

For what it’s worth, I say that when talking about children’s literature, a picture book isn’t a “book with pictures” any more than a chapter book is a “book with chapters.” Perhaps the librarians (of which we know there are many here) will tell me I’m all wrong, but based on my own nearly 60 years of experience with children’s books (as child, older sibling, college student, parent, teacher, school volunteer, aunt, and grandmother), when I refer to a picture book, I mean an illustrated book, generally thin but of larger length and width than most books, with much more of each page given to illustration than to text — illustrations designed to catch the eye of young children while the text is being read aloud to them. Comic books, manga, illustrated classics, and “coffee table” books are books with pictures, but not what I’d call picture books. (Of course there are exceptions, and places where the lines blur, but I’m giving basic definitions here.)

So-called chapter books are a relatively recent phenomenon. ‘Way back when I was a child, books were books, and when the stories got longer, the print got smaller, the pictures generally disappeared, and we were expected to supply the visual element in our own minds. (Not that I ever really gave up picture books. It’s wonderful to have younger siblings!) The phenomenon of chapter books now seems to be a niche between picture books and what we just called books: dimensions more like those of adult books, still thin, with relatively large print and few sentences on the page, but in which the illustrations are much fewer and less important. They can be well-done, but for the most part seem to be cranked out merely to give kids more practice reading and ease them into more advanced books. I’m not saying there aren’t good ones, only that on average I’ve found them on the wrong side of mediocre.

Little House in the Big Woods is relatively simple and also has larger print than adult books, but I wouldn’t call it a chapter book, just a book with chapters. And one, I might add, that I enjoy to this day.

Perhaps these definitions no longer make sense, but at least you’ll know what ground I’m standing on when I use the terms.

And about “bragging”: Maybe we have different definitions of that, too, but I don’t see any going on here. One man’s information is another man’s boast, I suppose, but I don’t see how one can have a meaningful discussion without facts. If I say that my grandson is six years old and is presently devouring the Nancy Drew books, but also still loves the picture books he reads aloud to his siblings, is that bragging? Or the reverse? To me, such information is merely facts to support a thesis, even if it were to be said about a three-year-old.

Sheila is right — parents who don’t read are a huge problem when it comes to children’s literacy. But I find the attitude of “at least I’m doing better than that person over there” to be rather unhelpful, if sometimes reassuring. If our children only like te eat peanut butter and jelly, chicken nuggets, and carrot sticks, they’re still better off than the kids that eat most of their meals at McDonalds, and far better off than those who rarely know where their next meal is coming from. But why should that stop us from encouraging our children to eat better? And why would it be considered elitist or snobbish to bring your children up liking broccoli, lentils, and curry?

“And why would it be considered elitist or snobbish to bring your children up liking broccoli, lentils, and curry?”

It’s not elitist to bring your child up liking broccoli, lentils and curry. It’s elitist to look down your nose at and believe that you are better than people who enjoy chicken nuggets and carrot sticks or have never experienced broccoli, lentils and curry due to their upbringing. It’s elitist to completely dismiss chicken nuggets and carrot sticks as trash that should never be consumed. It’s elitist blame the dumbing down of America on people who enjoy eating chicken nuggets and carrot sticks. It’s elitist to fail to see that chicken nuggets and carrot sticks can be a part of a well–balanced healthy diet, along with occasional cupcakes, cookies and candy.

Sorry for the confusion. I was the one who put carrots in the list, primarily because chicken nuggets and carrot sticks was the favorite meal of my exceedingly picky nephew when he was young, and because adding carrots to the mix made it better than McDonald’s fare for my illustration. My point — admittedly not well made — was not that the diet consisted solely of junk food, but that so many kids I know have an extremely limited vocabulary when it comes to food, and this is considered normal and acceptable by their parents, who figure they’ll grow out of it eventually. And they do.

That, of course, is the parents’ choice. But I confess I see it as a handicap — having to fix special meals for the kids, limiting yourself to “kid-friendly” restaurants, having to bring your children’s food with you when you go to someone else’s house for dinner, finding yourself regularly eating at McDonald’s on a trip to Europe (!) — not to mention how limiting it is for the child himself, nutritionally and experientially.

Nor do I think it elitist, or bragging, to make the point that it doesn’t have to be that way. That children can easily move from mother’s milk to eating whatever the rest of the family is eating. That they can enjoy soda at a party but be limited to healthy drinks at home without being deprived. That they can, as young children, truly enjoy art museums, Wagnerian operas, and the unabridged version of Little Women. When we had young children I LOVED learning from people who had higher respect for their children’s abilities and tastes than I knew was possible. True, the point is better made if we don’t show disrespect for others’ choices in the process, but sometimes that’s easier said than done, especially when we all tend to be somewhat defensive, so a little grace and understanding can be very helpful.

One more thing. Ahem. Hrumph. Perhaps I am bragging now, but I still see it as providing facts, as information to make a point in this “men vs. women” can of worms. I’d happily stack my bookshelves against any man’s when it comes to “serious” titles. Hmm, well, okay, I’m not fool enough to really mean any man’s, or woman’s either. There are lots of folks whose reading is much more intellectual than mine. But the average man’s, certainly. Of the couple thousand books in our house there’s not much I’d call fluff. What’s more, Nicholas, it includes a complete collection of George MacDonald…. 🙂

Great picture books for older kids, without words (8,9,10+):

“Imagine a Place”
“Imagine a Night”
“Imagine a Day”

Another for older kids with words: (ages 8,9,10+)

“The Invention of Hugo Cabret”

Yeah picture books!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Laura, I don’t think there is anyone here who thinks there is no such thing as a poor quality book. I end up checking them out of the library on a weekly basis because my son has a train obsession and wants to bring home anything that depicts a train. In my opinion, being exposed to poor quality helps you appreciate the good. As much as the phrase irritates me, every moment can be turned into a teachable moment, including poorly written books. While I would prefer that the public library spends its money on the best quality books available, I also understand that they serve a large and diverse population which includes kids (and adults) who need some sort of hook, like a media tie in, to get them to pick up a book.

Well, Nicolas, I could probably make a fairly valid comment that porn tends to get a lot higher priority on mens’ reading lists than women’s. But I would prefer not to waste my time comparing my reading list to yours. I don’t see why you should care what anyone else reads. Just be careful, because your daughter might make you squirm for the rest of your life by taking up the habit of reading romance novels. Ha!

@Nicholas — I certainly agree about Oprah and honesty, though I’m a big fan of tact and grace. I like to provide information to people because I have benefitted so much as the recipient of same. “Reforming” people is another story and definitely not in my job description, either.

“… one of a tiny elite.” Me, all of my extended family, most of my friends … I guess I don’t get out enough. 😉

On the other hand, it’s true that people are reading fewer and fewer books; I’ve heard it said that the problem with illiteracy in this country is not the people who can’t read, but those who don’t. Which is why I sympathize with those who are trying so hard, even in ways I think misguided, to get children hooked on books. (I have less patience with publishers that churn out book after book of junk because it sells well. McDonald’s isn’t the prime culprit in our obesity problem, but they certainly aren’t helping.)

Children can and will respond to good books. Whether you like the Harry Potter books or not, you can’t deny they are, as literature, a few orders of magnitude above what most of Rowlings’ young fans were accustomed to before she came along. When our daughter was in fifth grade, we donated a bunch of “classics” (not watered down versions, either) to her class, and she reported that her classmates ate them up in preference to the other books there, which were all modern, and much less challenging in style, vocabulary, and content.

@ Linda
You must be from Georgia!

I doubt that hooking kids on mediocre books is much more useful that a high literacy rate in Cuba. There is difference between a data entry clerk and a mathematician.

I agree about the Potter books, which my daughter has read. I had to hear them on audiobook over and over, and while they are not great literature, they are not wholly offensive to the intellect. At least they aren’t chapter books!

Actually people are not reading fewer books, but only fewer good and substantive books. They are reading plenty of books about dieting, scrapbooking, and the rapture.

@Nicholas, I found the following shelved among the picture books at my local bookstore:

* D’Aulaire’s Book of Greek Myths, Book of Norse Myths, and Book of Trolls
* Aesop’s Fables
* Hans Christian Anderson’s fairy tales
* shorter versions of the brothers Grimm (fewer stories, not dumbed-down versions)
* lots of poetry, from The Spider and the Fly to stuff by Ogden Nash, Shel Silverstein, Jack Prelutsky, Langston Hughes, Robert Frost and on and on

All of this stuff is worth reading! For kids in the age range we were discussing earlier, picture books also give lots of opportunity to do some basic interpretation and analysis, as many long-lived stories have been written from multiple perspectives. It’s fun to read the usual version of, say, the Three Little Pigs, then read a version told entirely from the wolf’s point of view (The True Story of the Three Little Pigs!) and after that switch to a similar story changing our expectations around (The Three Little Wolves and the Big Bad Pig), but it’s also educational, getting kids to think about the stories they’re reading and hearing in ways they might not otherwise.

I’m trying not to bite on your sexism, other than to say that it sounds like the women you choose to hang out with are not particularly big readers — that probably says more about your choice of friends than about women in general.

Well, yes, Cosmo and Marie Claire, for example, are marketed specifically to women — so their male readership is, I am sure, quite low as a result just as the female readership of Hustler might be. I have different interests than yours, but they are no less serious. My reading tends toward Science, Smithsonian, and such worthless rags as the American Mathematical Society’s monthly publications and the Communications of the ACM. I am the one person in my college math department (in which there are many men) that encourages our students to read — stuff like Borges, Stanislaw Lem, and Tom Stoppard as gateway books, since the students tend to think they have no use for literature and that authors aren’t interested in themes that overlap their field of study.

There is no reason not to put any of the books I listed in the picture book section. The ones I listed are very undoubtedly picture books, and the picture books section is the appropriate home for them. Unless, of course, you just want to dismiss picture books as dreck, in which case you would miss out on some wonderful stuff by avoiding the section. I’m not saying that picture books are the only thing young kids should read — if you read my other posts above, you’ll see that my kids are reading other great books without pictures. The eldest (10 yo) is currently switching back and forth between Edgar Allen Poe’s works and The Lord of the Rings series, but with quick forays into his little brother’s picture books, daily reading of the comics, and some graphic novels. For summer work he was told to find a poem to read to the class and decided upon Darwin’s Ark by Philip Appleman, which might give an idea as to where his interests lie and as to what I make available to him. The youngest (7 yo) is currently reading The Fantastic Mr. Fox, Chi’s Sweet Home (very easy manga, but cute), the daily comics, and random picture books from his shelves. There is room for both chapter books and picture books, the children get a lot from both, and leisure time is leisure time. I shouldn’t be telling them what books they can’t read unless said books are actually harmful.

I stood up for my son at five years old when he wanted access to the full contents of the school library, the vast majority of which he was capable of reading at that age. I will also stand up for my children’s right to read picture books and comics when they so desire. They get access to the full spectrum in all its glory. The picture book section and the rest of the library both contain worthwhile literature that can enchant and inform.

Turn this on its head for a moment: Why do you think we should restrict kids from reading picture books in their leisure time? Isn’t that risk aversion, a fear that somehow they will be harmed by getting to read such a book?

If reading has to be “work” for children before they even get to school I don’t want any part of it….Reading/looking at beautiful/whimsical pictures should be fun while young…learning is in the fun of life. I buy books (all kinds) at yard sales (can’t beat 25-50 cents!) and also use the library. My son is just 9 months old and I will let him lead the way….I have “read” to him pic books since he was just a wee baby and he enjoys looking and chewing on them now. Reading pic books can be fun for me too as I can add words or change the story….”read” it in German (my native tongue) if I like…I want to instill that reading is part of daily life but I am not imposing my agenda for HIS life. There is definitely a middle road here.

@Anne
Cheerleading is a beauty contest with athleticism. Soccer is a sport. My daughter has played soccer for three years.

My partner will be pleased to hear that he’s pretty! Who doesn’t like to be told they are pretty?

I’m a school librarian and I’ve noticed my kindergärtner requesting easy reader books over picture books. Usually about half the kids want picture books, the other half want easy readers. They especially like Fly Guy which is a very amusing book series about a pet fly and his owner.

I would never tell a kid that they can’t check a book out just based on reading ability. Sometimes the teachers make rules since the kids might be using the library book as reading homework. I do tell the kids that if they check out a cookbook they have to cook their parents something out of it.

@ Christy
Judging by the reading abilities of many incoming college freshmen, their parents have judged crawling sufficient.

Maybe I’ve missed it, but I think not one other person in this discussion seems concerned that, overall, American kids compare dismally to other developed countries. As I said, even the top 10 percent of American students read badly compared to the top 10 in many other countries. American kids think they are doing well, though, due to the constant stroking of their self-esteem. It’s great for them to have the glee of looking at picture books, but what about the rest of their lives? When do the alarm bells sound about the failure of American reading?

I’ll quote economist Walter Williams in 2004, though the situation has not improved:

“Recently released findings of the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) ranked U.S. high school students 24th out of 29 countries. American 15-year-olds demonstrate less math proficiency than their counterparts in Hungary and the Slovak Republic. With those findings, we shouldn’t be surprised by a recent U.S. Department of Education study finding that nearly half of all college students must take remedial courses in math and reading. According to National Center for Education Statistics, in 2000 close to 80 percent of colleges offered remedial services.”

A nation of proficient crawlers.

@SKL
Please point me to the research which shows that “the use of age-appropriate, high-quality picture books is correlated with higher literacy.” If it comes out the Educational Industrial Complex I wouldn’t be surprised, as there is nothing so absurd that it has not found support from the colleges of education and its “research.” I understand that Finnish math is all the rage.

As I said, I taught my kid to read when she was 4. Then I lured her away from picture books with full-length audiobooks and printed books. (It was immaterial to me if she heard or read them.)

Now, at no small expense she attends a private school packed with kids from well-off families. She told me today that her classmates are constantly asking her how to spell words, and one of the teacher’s daughters, 9, recently asked her how to spell “school.” We laughed about it.

Each week I provide the teacher with a list of 15 words for my daughter, 8, to look up for meaning and spelling, and 15 sentences with blanks she must fill with the correct word from the list. Here is this week’s word list:

1. loquacious
2. symbol
3. fitful
4. opulent
5. perspicacious
6. grandiose
7. socialism
8. logistics
9. vigorous
10. vertebra
11. integral
12. expedite
13. carcass
14. society
15. lurid

If history repeats, she will get zero or one wrong among both words and sentence usage. Whatever she gets is OK with me because the purpose is to familiarize her with the words for when she later encounters them.

If I had put my daughter in a better-than-average public school she would be given words from the ubiquitous workbooks, just as the rest of her classmates get. And she would be asking how to spell “school.”

I know what works. I takes no great genius to make it work, but the educational establishment makes darned sure that it doesn’t work. Failure justifies funding.

Implicit in this discussion is the belief that picture books are more fun than textual books. My daughter would happily correct that misimpression.

This culture makes kids sexually precocious and intellectually unsophisticated. My objective is to do the opposite.

“Implicit in this discussion is the belief that picture books are more fun than textual books.”

No, I didn’t read that anywhere. Certain picture books are more ACCESSIBLE for young children than textual books. And many picture books are fun. But I see nobody implying that textual books are less fun.

The more I think about it, the more I suspect that you never really learned how to read for meaning, Nicolas.

How ridiculous! I have a degree in English and consider myself extremely well read. I enjoy picture books myself (eg, Anthony Browne, Shaun Tan, Babette Cole, Maurice Sendak etc). Having children is just an excuse for me to buy more of these books for myself. 😉

In an age where we are bombarded with visual information from the moment we get up in the morning (think breakfast tv, the designs on cereal boxes etc etc), it is really important that kids (and adults) develop skills in visual literacy so they can make sense of all this information.

Visual literacy is also a necessary part of art appreciation. Are we going to say that art is only for babies now too?

I would recomend the reading of Scott McLoud’s “Understanding Comics” http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/006097625X?ie=UTF8&tag=sikyden-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=006097625X

It’s a great book in comic form about the language of comics.

People, seriously! Reading is not the be-all and the end-all! I know I’m late, but I still have to respond.

See, as of now I’m 17 years old. My parents started me reading when I was very little (no, I don’t remember specific dates of when I started reading, or when I got weaned off of picture books). I know that I used to love Winnie the Pooh (that’s what my mother tells me), and I also remember loving to read non-fiction books (mostly encyclopediac things, and learning about animals). To this day I read (yes, mostly fantasy, but GOOD fantasy- Watership Down, Ender’s Game, 1984 and Edgar Allen Poe are some of my favorites, for you snobs out there) like most people watch TV. Also note that according to my IQ score, I am technically a genius. I don’t mean to brag, just that whoever reads this keeps this next statement in mind:

I am not a successful person. I am not a type A overachiever, not a go-getter. I don’t even get straight As! I don’t do as much as I should, and I am most certainly not going to be somebody you want your child to take as a role model. So people, please, stop acting like kids need to have lots and intelligence and read lots to grow into successful adults. It really doesn’t do squat for a kid to be brilliant if they don’t have ambition or common sense or social skills… Those things are by far more important.