Merely having books in the home seems to have more impact on a child’s educational attainment than the education level of the parents, the country’s GDP, the father’s occupation or the political system of the country, according to a new study from the University of Nevada, Reno published in Research in Social Stratification and Mobility.
“For years, educators have thought the strongest predictor of attaining high levels of education was having parents who were highly educated. But, strikingly, this massive study showed that the difference between being raised in a bookless home compared to being raised in a home with a 500-book library has as great an effect on the level of education a child will attain as having parents who are barely literate (3 years of education) compared to having parents who have a university education (15 or 16 years of education). Both factors, having a 500-book library or having university-educated parents, propel a child 3.2 years further in education, on average.”
The study suggests that “getting some books into their homes is an inexpensive way that we can help children succeed,” says Mariah Evans, the study’s principal author. Having as few as 20 books in the home has a significant impact and “the more books you add, the greater the benefit….You get a lot of ‘bang for your book,” she notes
I suspect these parents are avid readers. It won’t help to put more books in the house unless the parents are avid readers. I suspect the readers’ conversation with their kids is what transmits the knowledge/academic aptitude.
Comment by Ben F — May 21, 2010 @ 9:16 am
Agreed, Ben. It seems pretty obvious to suggest that people who value education and reading have books in the home; those that don’t…don’t. Causation vs. correlation. Again.
Comment by Robert Pondiscio — May 21, 2010 @ 9:21 am
Ummm, I believe this phenomenon was addressed in the book Freakonomics, published a few years back. I’m pretty sure the authors agreed w/ Ben F. that it’s not the number of books, per se, that makes a difference, but having the type of parents who prefer to buy and read lots of books. Shipping 20 books to kids all over the country (absent also giving them book-loving parents) has been shown to make no difference in their education, I believe. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Comment by Attorney DC — May 21, 2010 @ 10:45 am
Robert,
The full paper is behind a pay wall, so maybe I am wrong but is this not a sterling example of the fuzziness of education research that you cited Dan as calling out last week?
If the study design was so weak as to not control (or attempt to control) for other factors, are we not simply mistaking correlation for causation?
Reminds me of the time when Paula Poundstone archly asked Peter Segel on Wait, Wait, Don’t Tell Me, “where do you get this research?”
Comment by Matthew — May 21, 2010 @ 11:28 am
I just got my new Restoration Hardware catalog. Now, for $29, you can buy a set of 4 “antiqued, uncovered book bundles” tied in (authentic) twine–to achieve that Paris-in-the-early-20th-century-intellectual look. Can you buy smarts so easily?
Ben’s right–it’s about having a house full of ideas and language, not a house full of books. A penniless mother who took her children to the free public library twice a week, reading to them and beside them, could achieve much the same effect, I’m certain. A household that can afford 500 books (which would likely cost a few grand) might also be able to afford other intellectually stimulating items. Causation v. correlation, indeed.
Here’s the study I’d like to see: What if researchers offered parents 500 books in exchange for every TV in the home, with a side benefit of an additional 200 volumes for each copy of Grand Theft Auto and the like removed from the premises? Just for a year… then they could have the TVs back and keep the books.
I’m thinking here about the $2/per book read bonus that Roland Fryer offered kids in Dallas. They read, on average, only seven more books per year–a pretty modest payout, but it yielded significant gains in reading comprehension.
Comment by Nancy Flanagan — May 21, 2010 @ 11:37 am
I find the commentary on this website to be utterly baffling. This finding is in no way inconsistent with the general view of education expressed here, is it? Books! They’re important! That’s where all the Core Knowledge is stored.
Perhaps the problem is people are having trouble imagining the concept of a house with no books, compared to one with 20. Imagine the difference between a child entering kindergarten having never played with a book and one who has at least entertained him or herself with picture books since he or she was one. It is a big difference!
Plus, even very poor adult readers can at least read simple childrens books — or even look at the pictures with kids. Or somebody in the family probably can read. So if you think about it, you can see where a high level of parental education might not be necessary.
This isn’t educational research. It is sociology, published in a presumably peer reviewed journal. I mean, maybe it is crap, but I don’t see any particular reason to think so.
Comment by Tom Hoffman — May 21, 2010 @ 1:31 pm
Your bafflement baffles me, Tom. What part of “people who own books value education” confuses you? Kinda like “people who drink water are less likely to be thirsty,” no? The issue is not whether it’s crap, but whether it’s surprising. It’s not.
Comment by Robert Pondiscio — May 21, 2010 @ 1:41 pm
I suspect that most knowledge transmission in such households occurs orally from parent to child, not from book to child. Telling is more powerful than reading. My students learn more if they hear it from me than if they read about it.
I’ll bet it’s the parents’ HAVING READ A LOT –and then telling their kids stuff –that is the educational supervitamin in this situation.
Comment by Ben F — May 21, 2010 @ 2:30 pm
I recently heard a story from someone working with teen moms who were uncomfortable reading even a picture book aloud to their children! It’s not a given that everyone would do this if they had books in their house. A parent whose own level of education is low may still be able to muster up courage and learn to be vulnerable enough to read aloud to their children. Perhaps the “X factor” is parents’ attitude toward education. Is this too hopeful?
Comment by Sarah — May 21, 2010 @ 3:33 pm
Perhaps the study’s most interesting finding is that the number of books in a household is a better indicator of the parents’ education than is the number of degrees they happen to hold.
Yes, it goes without saying that children who benefit from many books in the household are likely benefiting from the fact that their parents USE those books, model good intellectual behaviors, read to their children, and encourage their children to read books. Not everyone with advanced degrees does all those things, and not everyone who lacks a college degree fails to do those things.
Comment by Claus — May 21, 2010 @ 5:09 pm
I would say the overall tone is more than to just say it is not surprising, particularly insofar as everyone is seemingly falling over each other to come up with reasons not to just give all kids more access to books.
“Valuing education” doesn’t necessarily mean you have a lot of books in the home. Lots of people in the low-income neighborhood I live in value education, send their kids off to school on time with hair neatly combed and clothes pressed and try to make sure they do everything their teacher says — and don’t have many books in the home. I bet a lot of these kids end up being the ones who do behave and do everything they’re told, but somehow don’t learn as fast as they should.
Comment by Tom Hoffman — May 21, 2010 @ 5:53 pm
This posting brings back interesting memories and thoughts. As someone who grew up in a household that had very few books (I had only 2 between the ages of 8-17) and that did not value formal education, I can attest that it took many years of hard work on my part as a college student (going to college was my way of rebelling!) and as an adult to develop the background knowledge and vocabulary of my peers who came from opposite backgrounds. On the other side of the coin are my own elementary-aged children who have such an advanced vocabulary and knowledge of history and science that they find school utterly boring and want to be homeschooled.
Back to the question, which is whether the number of books makes a difference rather than whether or not anyone reads them. My parents were not interested in books so they didn’t have any. If someone told them that your children will do better in school if only you would fill a shelf with 20+ books I think they would have not really cared. I can imagine that if my siblings and I were given a bunch of children’s books by outsiders we probably would have read them; but it would have required removing our eyes from the constantly blaring television. The 2 books that I had (and I don’t know where I got them from) were Jungle Book and Kidnapped. I read both of them many times.
Comment by Gina — May 21, 2010 @ 7:51 pm
In terms of positive student energy, some of the best days in my classroom are when I bring a load of donated books from the Friends of the Library. Over their high school career, students are able to create their own personal library, which is then shared with all the members of their family. For many, these are the only books in their homes.
I don’t disagree that there may be issues with the study, but it’s hard for me to believe that having these books in the home will not have a very beneficial impact on student academic achievement.
Comment by Larry Ferlazzo — May 21, 2010 @ 8:46 pm
I think we fetishize books and reading. Young minds need knowledge –the medium is just a medium.
Comment by Ben F — May 21, 2010 @ 9:31 pm
“The life and times of Mexico”, by Earl Shorris, tells the story of the post-civil-war Mexican Secretary of Education Jose Vasconcelos, at a time when the literacy rate in the country was 28%. Vasconcelos persuaded the new government to double the education budget, and oversaw the building a thousand of rural schools and two thousand libraries. And he also directed government presses to print vast numbers of books, and has many of them carried in boxes by mules into the far away villages.
“As an educator”, writes Shorris, “he insisted upon the classical texts of Europe as the only worthwhile texts. His devotion to this idea was so deep and unyielding that it sometimes led his critics to find him ludicrous. In one of the best known (probably apocryphal) stories about him, Vasconcelos is said to have traveled to a very remote village, where he asked a native several questions, including the name of the village in which he lived. To all questions the man replied that he did not know. At the end of the interrogation, Vasconcelos turned to an aide and directed him to implement a solution to the villager’s problem: ‘Send two cases of books to this village. Immediately.’ “
Comment by andrei radulescu-banu — May 21, 2010 @ 10:36 pm
@Larry Surely you’re not suggesting that merely placing books — any books at all — in a child’s home, absent any other conditions is enough to raise achievement? That seems to be what the study’s author is suggesting. I’m guessing Race the the Top money would cover the cost of buying a home library for every low-income 4-6 year old in the country quite easily. That would probably be a better use of those billions, but I think it wouldhave the same effect, which is to say not very much.
@TomH OK, I’ll bite. What exactly do you see as the stumbling block for kids “behave and do everything they’re told, but somehow don’t learn as fast as they should?”
Comment by Robert Pondiscio — May 22, 2010 @ 10:04 am
Since the study is behind a $31 firewall, and nobody wants to pay, we can’t read the darned thing.
Robert, how about you buy it and charge it to CK?
Seems like there are 3 possible studies. I wonder which one it is.
1. Incredibly dumb study, just correlates books and education.
2. Fairly clever study, isolates book ownership effect by controlling for all other factors (mom/dad education levels, income etc). I think that’s what this study did.
3. Best study. Giving books away, per comment 16, to an experimental group chosen at random; no books to control group.
Comment by MG — May 22, 2010 @ 10:22 am
I’d like to see MG’s suggested study #3: Give books away at random to families and then compare to control group of like families who were not given the books. There might be some beneficial effect on some children, but I’d bet that by and large there would be little increased learning…. Because it’s the parents who can afford to buy books, who value reading and “book learning” and who have high reading comprehension skills that typically own many (500) books. As an interesting alternate study, I bet if you forcibly took most of the books away from a family with 500+ books, their children would still do pretty well in school.
Comment by Attorney DC — May 24, 2010 @ 8:24 am
Robert,
All I’m saying is that there *are* families who both value education and don’t have books in the home. Who don’t necessarily know how important having books in the home, reading to their kids, etc. are. And not only would I suspect that not having books in the home tends to reduce the children’s achievement in comparison to an equivalent family with books, but apparently there is now a very large sociological study which backs up that argument.
And this issue *is* relevant to the current debates over federal funding. The Obama administration wants to eliminate the earmark for Reading is Fundamental (RIF) to make it part of a larger competitive grant pool. I don’t know enough about budgeting on that level to have a dramatic opinion, but I do think that — while programs like RIF are clearly not the ONLY solution to our problems — funding access to books, in home, school and libraries is a cost-effective investment, and a pre-requisite for lots of other further interventions.
Comment by Tom Hoffman — May 24, 2010 @ 2:05 pm
I think we can agree that correlation doesn’t imply causation. However I think it is often true that when we find correlation we interpret it as a bit more evidence for a hypothesis of causation that we already had in mind. And I suppose if a researcher has causation in mind, correlation would be a sensible first link in a chain of steps needed to establish that causation. The internet link provided in this post leads to a brief press release about the study, not to the study itself. A quote by the director of that study, “The results of this study indicate that getting some books into their homes is an inexpensive way that we can help these children succeed.” certainly sounds like she is assuming causation, or wants it to be assumed by others.
I certainly don’t know whether or not putting more books in the homes of poor children would cause an increase in educational accomplishment or not. But it might be worth a try, not on the basis of any research, but just on a common sense basis. Even if gains are only modest, perhaps the cost of such an effort would also be modest. It seems to me that if a state would buy in bulk and buy carefully it could probably send a book a month to every poor child in its borders and not bust its budget. Would that be worth while? What kind of research could show whether it’s worthwhile or not?
I think we can envision what kind of research this would take. Would this research cost more than the program itself? That seems entirely possible. And would such research yield solid results? That seems very unlikely. So maybe such a program doesn’t need any research. Perhaps a state could start such a program on a common sense basis, and keep it going on a common sense basis, meaning just as long as it gets enough votes in the legislature to keep it funded. I’m all for research, but in a situation such as this I wonder if it’s really worth the cost.
The original research is described as “a 20 year study of over 70,000 cases in 27 countries.” What has that cost so far? I can only guess, but I would certainly guess in the millions and millions of dollars. And for this we arrive at the hardly surprising conclusion that more books in the home are correlated with higher educational accomplishment. That doesn’t seem like much bang for our research buck.
So, if I may for the moment, I want to forget books in the home and think about research.
This books-in-the-home study strikes me as a classic case of a common idea of research – count something and do stats. This approach, count something and do stats, is very well established in education and many other fields. I have no doubt that it sometimes is very productive and well worth the money. But often it seems quite the opposite, as it certainly appears to be in this case.
Is there an alternative to this kind of research? I suppose there are many alternatives, but one in particular appeals to me. I will describe this as the “look closer” approach. I have long argued that the number one rule of science can be stated as “Look closer and you’ll see more”. (I have expanded on this idea in an article on my web site, “Rules and Methods of Science” at http://www.brianrude.com/sci-mt.htm.) And by unlikely chance I have an example of that.
In a comment to a Core Knowledge blog post of just a few days ago (http://blog.coreknowledge.org/2010/05/18/fools-rush-in-where-aera-fears-to-tread/) I asked for examples of educational research that is worthwhile, and was directed by another reader to http://www.lkl.ac.uk/rnoss/papers/ProportionalReasoningNursingJRME.pdf . I’ve spend a few hours on this and I do indeed find it worthwhile. The researchers did something more than count something and do stats (though they did that too, I suppose). They observed the thinking of actual nurses in actual practice figuring doses of injectable medicine. I thought probably nurses never did anything more than give the pills that are sent by the pharmacy, but that is apparently not the case. When a drug is to be injected the nurse must calculate the number of milliliters to inject. A prescription specifies so many milligrams of a drug and the drug is packaged in a solution, such as 2 mg of drug in 5 ml of water. Calculation is required. The researchers observed and questioned the nurses as they calculated, and analyzed the mathematical thinking. The problems are simple mathematics, but very important. The researches concluded, among other things, that the mathematical formula taught them in nursing school is seldom used. And they discovered that wrong dose errors are very common when nurses take paper and pencil tests of these drug calculations, but very rare in actual practice.
I find this very interesting, and potentially very valuable. As a math teacher I explain problems very carefully in class, and I explain very carefully to individual students when helping them in my office. And then I give a test and wonder what in the world the students are thinking. This study of dose calculations by nurses is not directly applicable to what my algebra students are thinking, probably, but surely it’s leading in the right direction.
So let’s have a lot more “look closer” research.
Comment by Brian Rude — May 24, 2010 @ 5:09 pm
Dolly Parton started a program in Tennessee in 1996 to give a book a month from birth to age 5 to all children born in her home county. The program has expanded throughout Tennessee and in other states (as well as Canada and the UK). Surveys of pre-K and kindergarten teachers indicate that the students who received the books were better prepared and did better in kindergarten. I realize that’s not rigourous research, but for a minimal cost (~$150 per child total for 5 years) it seems worthwhile.
http://imaginationlibrary.com/
http://www.governorsfoundation.org/index.php
Comment by Mia Munn — May 26, 2010 @ 10:57 am
Arean’t we all missing something rather obvious here? The large majority of children and parents are biologically related; a child shares 50% of his/her genes with each parent. Given that genes have a huge impact on how we turn out, the fact that parents who buy a lot of books tend to have biological children who do, on average, better in academic matters, tells us absolutely nothing. It does not prove that having books in the house causes higher academic achievement; nor does it prove (as many commentators here seem to assume) that the higher academic achievement comes about because parents are stimulating their chlidren more or modelling good behavior or whatever. As Steven Pinker and Judith Rich Harris have shown, studies of adoptive children suggest that such effects are minimal, and that correlations between numbers of books in the house and childrens’ academic abilities are largely based on genes.
Comment by Charlotte Warren — May 27, 2010 @ 7:28 am
I think Charlotte is right. Genes are important. I would guess that many of the commenters above would take that for granted, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t need to be said, or that we don’t need to be reminded of it. We can accept that genes are lot more important than putting books in homes where they would not otherwise be, but it still may be very worthwhile to put books in homes where they would not otherwise be. We can’t do much to change genes, but it is very possible to put a few more books in homes.
I’m all for research, but some research is a lot more valuable than other research. What would be the cost of research to disentangle the relative effects of genes, parental behavior, family resources, and so on, in promoting educational accomplishment? It seems to me that it would be very high, and the results would not depart much from common sense. The Tennessee program that Mia describes above sounds like common sense. Even a conservative limited-government person like myself can support it. I just don’t think we should try to base such a program on research. That type of research gives us very little bang for our buck. At least that’s the way it seems to me.
Comment by Brian Rude — May 27, 2010 @ 11:04 pm
“For a study to be published later this year in Reading Psychology, Allington and colleagues selected students in 17 high-poverty elementary schools in Florida and, for three consecutive years, gave each child 12 books, from a list the students provided, on the last day of school.
In all, 852 students received books each year, paid for mostly by federal Title I money. Three years later, researchers found that those students who received books had “significantly higher” reading scores, experienced less of a summer slide and read more on their own each summer than the 478 who didn’t get books.”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2010-06-01-summerreading01_st_N.htm
Comment by Tom Hoffman — June 1, 2010 @ 9:37 am