Excerpted from Chapter Nine of The Read-Aloud Handbook by Jim Trelease (Penguin, 2006, 6th edition). For a list of all topics covered here and in the print edition see Chapter Nine question list.

CHAPTER 9: TV, Audio, & Technology—
     Hurting or Helping Literacy? — continued

What exactly is so wrong with television?

Until recently, the answer was "nothing." It was the abuse of the set that caused the problem. TV was just an innocent bystander to parent neglect or irresponsibility. At least, that's what many experts felt. New research, however, is getting closer to identifying TV as more of an accomplice. But even if the research fails to indict, all of the research points to the dangers of over-viewing among all age groups, with the youngest being the most prone to danger. Let's start with that age group and work upward.

1. When the television viewing habits of 2,500 children were tracked and examined by researchers at Seattle's Children's Hospital, the doctors concluded that for each hour of daily TV viewed by the child, the risk of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder by age 7 increased by 10 percent.¹ (ADHD is now the most common childhood behavioral disorder.) For more on these pediatric studies, click Toddlers.

In light of that finding, the Kaiser Family Foundation's most recent media research² offers statistics that don’t bode well for future classrooms:

• Among children age two or younger, 59 percent watch TV daily and 42 percent watch DVD's or videos;
• Among children age two or younger, average daily screen time is 2:48 hours (TV plus DVD-video);
• Televisions are a permanent part of the bedroom for 30 percent of children by age three and 43 percent of children by age six;
• In homes with children age six or younger, the TV is left on at least 50 percent of the time, even if no one is watching, and 30 percent have the set on “almost all” or “most” of the time;
• Among families with children under age six, only 34 percent subscribe to a newspaper.

Today's young parents, awash in their ambitions to keep their child one step ahead of the neighbors' child, are buying into an electronic culture that is one big suede shoe operation. Remember the hucksters who used to be pushing their snake oil products off covered wagons and then moved to late-night infomercials? They just encamped in the nursery, promoting series of toys, DVDs, videos, and gadgets that will make your child into an infant Einstein. Considering the unhappy childhood of Einstein, who would want it? Apparently millions of parents, all of them ignorant of comments like this from the director of child research at one of the nation's biggest toy companies: "There is no proof that this type of toy helps children become smarter."³ Child development experts caution against the do-all toys intended to boost IQ. As one critic explained, “The most useful toy is the one that requires the most activation on the part of a young child. The more they have to use their minds and bodies to make something work, the more they are going to learn.” There is ample research, however, to substantiate the claim "There's a sucker born every minute." That could easily be amended to "sucker-parent."

On Oct. 24, 2009, the Walt Disney Company alerted parents that it was be issuing refunds to those unsatisfied with the Baby Einstein videos. Baby geniuses apparently were not jumping out of the crib in pursuit of the family encyclopedia. Simply put, it was a dramatic concession from Disney, although in 2006 they dropped the term "educational" from its advertising for the videos after the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood group took them to court over the wording. More details on the issue can be found in the NY Times' Page 1 story: "No Einstein in Your Crib? Get a Refund" by Tamar Lewin, Oct. 24, 2009 (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/24/education/24baby.html)

SOURCE: Dina L. G. Borzekowski and Thomas N. Robinson, "The remote, the house, and the no. 2 pencil," Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine. 2005, 159, pp. 607-613.

2. Once in school, the impact of heavy viewing is reflected in student achievements in both reading and math. In a study of 348 ethnically diverse third-graders from six California schools, the presence of a television set in the child's bedroom was significantly associated with lower math, reading, and language arts scores.⁴ (chart, right). Kaiser media studies show bedroom TV's always correlate to more viewing hours.⁵ A TV in the child's bedroom spells more viewing and lower scores.

By age eight, 60 percent of children not only lived in a home with three televisions but also had a TV in their bedroom.⁶ Kaiser found children with a TV in their bedrooms watched 90 minutes more daily (10 hours more weekly). If a video game is in the bedroom, the child plays 32 minutes more daily; and the availability of a bedroom computer doubles the usage when compared with a child who doesn't have it in the room (90 minutes vs. 47 minutes).

Latest and most comprehensive of media studies

Report Ties Children’s Use of Media to Their Health By Brian Stelter, December 1, 2008, NY Times, p. C3 The National Institutes of Health and a nonprofit advocacy group, Common Sense Media, have another reason for President-elect Barack Obama to keep urging parents to “turn off the TV.” In what researchers call the first report of its kind, a review of 173 studies about the effects of media consumption on children asserts that a strong correlation exists between greater exposure and adverse health outcomes. “Coach potato does, unfortunately, sum it up pretty well,” said Ezekiel J. Emanuel, chairman of the bioethics department at the institutes’ clinical center, one of the study’s five reviewers. The report should compel lawmakers to underwrite media education efforts and public service advertising campaigns and should motivate the entertainment industry to be more “responsible and responsive,” said Jim Steyer, the chief executive of Common Sense Media, which helped to finance the study. “The research is clear that exposure to media has a variety of negative health impacts on children and teens,” he said. Dr. Emanuel, Mr. Steyer and others plan to brief Washington policy makers on the study on Tuesday. Joined by researchers at Yale University and California Pacific Medical Center, Dr. Emanuel’s team analyzed almost 1,800 studies conducted since 1980 and identified 173 that met the criteria the researchers set. In a clear majority of those studies more time with television, films, video games, magazines, music and the Internet was linked to rises in childhood obesity, tobacco use and sexual behavior. A majority also showed strong correlations — what the researchers deemed “statistically significant associations” — with drug and alcohol use and low academic achievement. The evidence was somewhat less indicative of a relationship between media exposure and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, the seventh health outcome that was studied. Dr. Emanuel, whose brother, Rahm, is the president-elect’s chief of staff, said he was surprised by how lopsided the findings were. “We found very few studies that had any positive association” for children’s health, he said.

The ubiquitous cell phone (and attendant distractions like texting) is having a powerful impact on learning in both the classroom and the home as three Stanford University professors demonstrate in a study that shows the biggest users may be the biggest losers. Listen to one of the author-professors explain the findings HERE.

NEXT: Can't you see how hard it is to monitor or limit children's TV or gaming hours?

Chapter Nine — p. 1   p. 2   p. 3   p. 4   Footnotes