The Sears’ framed their messages on reading based on the 1985 United States Department of Education report titled Becoming a Nation of Readers, that stated that, “reading aloud to children is the single most important activity for building knowledge and eventual success” (Anderson, Hiebert, Scott and Wilkinson, 1985, p. 23). They went on to say that “the home is the child’s first school. Parents are the child’s first teachers. Reading is a child’s first subject” (Sears & Sears, 2002 p. 63). Asking why some children struggle in school and others do not, parents were told that “part of the answer lies in the attitude toward learning the home. Learning begins at home” and in that sense, “all children are homeschooled, even those who attend school” (p. 78). These views are consistent with advice from Trelease (1989) and Larrick (1975) who also equated success in school with the extent to which homes mirrored schools in the values and organization of learning. Indeed, this message became a mantra in the 2000s, with the consequences for not reading to children becoming increasingly dire. Prominent children’s author Mem Fox reiterated this message in her book promoting the “magic” of home reading. She argued that, “prevention [of reading problems] happens long before a child starts school. In fact, the first day of school is almost too late for a child to begin to learn to read. It’s as scary as that” (Fox, 2001, p. 13).

Early brain development is an emerging area of interdisciplinary research, integrating biological, social, and ecological perspectives of human development. The findings of this growing body of research in many ways confirm what people who spend time with children already knew: children thrive in a setting in which they are loved, protected from harm and have opportunities to learn. Strong arguments emanate from this research that support equitable distribution of wealth and resources within and between nation states as a means of promoting health, wealth, and productivity. Moreover, researchers such as Hertzman (1999) link this need for the equitable distribution of wealth to public education policies, warning of the danger that “parents’ right to choose” policies in education pose to socio-economic equity.

Yet, while early brain research convincingly shows that socio-economic status affects life chances, a finding confirmed by many other studies, what is problematic is that the translation of these findings into policy and educational practice is mediated through discourses of intensive mothering that naturalize as women’s work the responsibilities to teach in the home, and to advocate for quality child care and education. The privileging of the nuclear family as a site for ideal domestic literacy (with children from single parent homes deemed “at risk” for school failure), and advice that embeds children’s literacy development in domestic work, raises the expectations placed on mothers but also creates a path for guilt and fear to do their work on mothers’ confidence and self-esteem, as well as to displace fathers and other caregivers as important people in their children’s lives.