There’s No Substitute for Family Togetherness

Are parents of young children today only concerned with the potential intelligence and performance of their kids?

Your article “The Latest Parenting Debate” (Dec. 8) by Janny Scott certainly leads me to believe that.

What about simply expanding a child’s world, making them more aware of what’s out there for them and giving them knowledge just for the sake of it? Since when is a smart, achieving child a priority over a well-rounded one?

When my sister and I were kids, my parents frequently took us to museums and dance performances. New York’s Shakespeare in the Park was one of our summer highlights. Vacations included skiing in the Alps, pyramid-hopping in Egypt, and all the art, sculpture and architecture Italy has to offer. I attribute these activities not so much to my parents’ desire to heighten our intelligence, but to their desire to share with us their own natural interests.

Our experiences have also added an extra bond between our parents and ourselves that says, now clearer than ever: This is what my family did. This is who my family is. As the years go by, I find I need that sense of identity more and more. Besides, most of the things we did were fun.

JENNIFER CASTLE

Santa Monica

*

As a children’s author, psychologist and parent, I am impelled to respond immediately to “The Latest Parenting Debate.”

Prof. Sandy Scarr is quoted as insisting that “children learn literacy whether their parents read to them or not” and that reading to children, “that most sacrosanct of parental duties” makes “little or no difference.”

Which expert has ever emphasized teaching literacy or training a child to read as the primary reason for sharing a book with a child?

We read to our children to enable them to stretch their imaginations beyond the immediate environment. We read to them so that they may identify with story characters and express feelings. We read to them so that they can experience rhythms and rhymes, gorgeous art and the loveliness of our language. Most importantly, we read to our children to give them pleasure.

In my book, this makes the duty still sacrosanct.

JOANNE ROCKLIN

Los Angeles

*

The debate over whether parents can influence their children’s IQs is yet another example of people failing to use common sense.

As my wise aunt used to say, having a lot of money isn’t important. Having enough money is very important.

Having a lot of parental enrichment isn’t important. Having enough parental enrichment is very important.

JACKIE HYMAN

Brea

*

Although the question of nature versus nurture is not exactly new, it is still crucially important. Scarr stated that a person genetically predestined to be short could never grow up to be an NBA-height basketball player no matter how much they were fed.

This is true, but it skirts the issue. Take that same individual, genetically programmed to be 5 feet, 2 inches, and deprive him of healthy foods and essential nutrients, and that person won’t realize his genetic potential of 5 feet 2. The same is true in the realm of intelligence.

We need to shift our focus away from whether enriching experiences raise IQs to whether they provide a fuller, more rounded human being.

All children deserve to be introduced to a variety of life’s experiences, from nature walks to museum visits. Providing a safe, stable, loving environment and ample opportunities for children to discover their own interests will solve far more problems than merely altering intelligence quotients.

ALISA J. JOHNSON

Cedar Glen