Research and context
Why shared reading matters.
National data show that many young children are not read to every day. Longitudinal studies also show that early reading difficulty can persist—but these findings describe groups, not a child’s destiny.
Published and updated August 25, 2026
The short answer
Shared reading is one way families spend time with books. National survey data show that its frequency varies, while longitudinal research shows that early reading difficulties sometimes remain visible years later.
Those findings make reading worth taking seriously. They do not grade a family, predict an individual child, prove that one activity causes later outcomes, or establish that any product can teach a child to read.
Reading at home
What does the national survey show?
The combined 2022–23 National Survey of Children’s Health asked how many days in the past week a parent or other family member read to a sampled child age 0–5. Its weighted national estimates were:
40.4%
were read to every day.
43.1%
were read to on 0–3 days.
8.3%
were not read to during that week.
The survey reports 8.3% at 0 days and 34.8% at 1–3 days; 43.1% is the sum of those two reported categories. Estimates describe the population of U.S. children ages 0–5, not the population of parents.
Source: 2022–23 National Survey of Children’s Health, Indicator 6.7, Data Resource Center for Child and Adolescent Health, supported by HRSA’s Maternal and Child Health Bureau.
Fourth-grade reading
What did the 2024 NAEP results show?
Nationally, 40% of fourth-grade students scored below the NAEP Basic level in reading in 2024. Thirty-one percent scored at or above NAEP Proficient.
An important language distinction
“Below NAEP Basic” should not be rewritten as “cannot read.” NAEP also states that its Proficient level does not represent grade-level proficiency under state or district standards. The achievement levels are specific performance categories and remain in trial status.
Source: National Center for Education Statistics, 2024 NAEP reading results for grade 4.
Following readers over time
What do longitudinal studies tell us?
A small four-year school study
Among 24 children from one low-income elementary school who scored in the bottom quartile of reading comprehension at the end of first grade and remained in the study, 21 were still at least six months below the expected grade-equivalent level at the end of fourth grade.
This is evidence that difficulty persisted for most children in this particular cohort. It is not a universal rule, a national estimate, or evidence that catching up is impossible.
Source: Connie Juel, “Learning to Read and Write: A Longitudinal Study of 54 Children From First Through Fourth Grades” (1988).
The Connecticut Longitudinal Study
Researchers modeled nine annual reading assessments from 403 children. Children in the reading-disabled groups improved over time, but on average did not close the gap with non-impaired readers; the pattern fit a persistent skill-deficit model better than a temporary developmental lag.
The finding is not that children plateau in third grade. It does not say that every struggling reader will remain behind or that effective instruction and intervention cannot help.
Source: Francis and colleagues, “Developmental Lag Versus Deficit Models of Reading Disability” (1996).
Early scores and later graduation
In a national longitudinal study of 3,975 children, the rate of not completing high school by age 19 was 16% among children in the report’s two lower early-reading score groups, compared with 4% in the top group—a fourfold difference.
This was a correlation, not proof that reading scores caused noncompletion. The report grouped PIAT reading scores into thirds that roughly corresponded to NAEP labels; the children were not assigned actual NAEP achievement levels.
Source: Donald J. Hernandez, “Double Jeopardy: How Third-Grade Reading Skills and Poverty Influence High School Graduation” (2011).
What this means for Puffling
Our goal is to help make books inviting and storytime easier to return to through story-centered activities and caregiver tools. That is an aspiration and a product-design direction, not a claim that a box produces a reading outcome.
Puffling is not a phonics curriculum, a reading intervention, or a substitute for evidence-based reading instruction. It does not diagnose reading difficulties or promise that a child will reach a particular literacy milestone.
Learn how we handle claims, sources, and corrections in our editorial standards.
Common questions
Does below NAEP Proficient mean below grade level?
No. NCES explicitly says NAEP Proficient is not the same as grade-level proficiency under state or district standards.
Do early reading difficulties always persist?
No. The longitudinal studies describe patterns in specific groups. They do not determine what will happen for an individual child.
Does Puffling teach phonics?
No. Puffling is not a phonics curriculum and should not replace evidence-based reading instruction.
Do these studies prove a product can change reading outcomes?
No. None of the research summarized here tested Puffling or establishes a product effect.
Sources
- 2022–23 National Survey of Children’s Health, Indicator 6.7. Data Resource Center for Child and Adolescent Health; HRSA Maternal and Child Health Bureau.
- 2024 NAEP Reading: National Trends, Grade 4. National Center for Education Statistics.
- Juel, C. (1988). Learning to Read and Write: A Longitudinal Study of 54 Children From First Through Fourth Grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 437–447.
- Francis, D. J., Shaywitz, S. E., Stuebing, K. K., Shaywitz, B. A., & Fletcher, J. M. (1996). Developmental Lag Versus Deficit Models of Reading Disability: A Longitudinal, Individual Growth Curves Analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(1), 3–17.
- Hernandez, D. J. (2011). Double Jeopardy: How Third-Grade Reading Skills and Poverty Influence High School Graduation. The Annie E. Casey Foundation.
Last updated August 25, 2026