Your baby can read!

[mirandagrate]

My cousin was telling me about a program she bought for her just turned two year old. She said she is reading 31 words already.. anyone have any advice on this? It seems neat but is it a bad idea?

[DoulaClara]

Is it the one where you show them a picture of a tiger, and it has the word "tiger" on top, and then later you remove the picture and leave the word?

I do think this is a very bad idea. I don't think it has much to do with reading to communicate, or understand, or enjoy the aesthetics of books. I think it wastes time when the parent could be holding baby and reading books to them, and pointing out pictures and talking about what is going on. What's the point? :shrug3 So they can show off at Mommy & Me? (I'm not meaning your cousin, necessarily, but the program implications). I can see this totally backfiring, and turning some (not all) children away from reading for pleasure, especially if it's something the parent does as a means of making themselves feel adequate. :no2 I've heard the commercials for it on the radio, too, and the ads are pretty annoying and pushy.

Out of curiosity (I always wanted to know this, when listening to the commercials)- does the baby read only the word on the card, or can she read the same word in different contexts? Like, if she's shown the word in a separate book, does she know what it means?

[mirandagrate]

I didn't get to ask her much as it was an instant message.. but, actually, I'm 99.9% positive my cousin is doing this to show off... in the past she's actually said to me "I just wish Hailey would do (insert whatever thing) before my friend's kid just so I could brag about it"...

(I do think it's the program you were talking about though)

[Rabbit]

At best, it won't hurt anything.

Here's a well written, well researched critique:
http://trevorcairney.blogspot.com/2008/07/your-baby-can-learn-to-read.html

[DoulaClara]

Would I introduce my children to this program? No. This program does not teach children to ‘read’. Neither is it clear what its benefits are, nor if in fact it could have a negative effect on your child and impede their long-term learning. While the program’s creator claims research expertise in early literacy, I was unable to find much evidence to support this claim, and virtually no citations of his limited publications by other researchers. Instead of using this program I would encourage my children from birth by stimulating their language (singing to them, reading with them, asking questions etc) and learning (exploration, invention, creative play etc). In short, I would be constantly engaging with my child in varied ways.

:yes My point exactly, and now that I've read his review- even more so that the program is a DVD that is played daily. Is this something you were interested in, or just wondering about because of your cousin?

[mirandagrate]

Just wondered because of my cousin :)
I'd really just like her to teach herself to read... we read lots of books everyday, she's memorized some and she knows all of her letters and stuff and all of that's been self taught through playing and things... I'd like to keep it that way with a LOT of things.. :)

[Victorious]

I was sitting for a child whose mom was doing this. The DVD is supposed to be played 3 times a day :jawdrop . I could definitely see that it would work, but just seems like a party trick to me :shrug3

[MamaPepper]

The boys dad got this for the boys, and best I can say is it's another book for them to read, or another DVD to plop them down in front of. . . I suppose that if I had time to sit down with my babes for a few hours ever day, that maybe it would help, but I guess I'd rather be taking them to the park at this age (2 and 3) and not trying to push them to learn to read. . . All in good time I figure. I read to them and they LOVE books, so I just dont' think the program is necessary, unless you want bragging rights that your 2 year old can read :shrug3

[Grover]

There have been books/packages that have been marketed since the 80's.My step mom bought one way back then and it involved giant red flashcards .Each day she would take one of the little ones off and show the word.I think even small children can recognise symbols and ''read' .For instance my children from an early age -can spot the yellow M sign for macdonalds-they are 'reading'.[We dont do M alot btw-just when we are travelling but they like it].Its just working on the same principle as that.You flash a word-they repeat it and they get lots [hopefully]of positive re inforcement.That system came from a doctor who realised he could teach children who had some brain injury to read.I think thats a whole other scenario.
Now back to my siblings and step mom.They did read a handful of words at 2 or 3.The programe was a bit monotonous and it got dropped.The kids soon forgot the words.They did read well later though :shrug3 but I think that has more to do with them being surrounded by books and the idea that books are fun and enjoyable.
Finally my biggest critisism would be that I have seen no eveidence of these schemes having a lasting affect or if you like advantage.The kids who learnt to read at two are not showing they can read better than their peers at 7 .In a similar vein the schools here are required to take children the september after their fourth birthday.That means lots of UK kids are starting school at just four years old and they start teaching them to read and write.By contrast our neighbours in europe often delay formal schooling until 7 or so..In theory that means we have four year olds reading and writing when the other european kids are still playing .But at 10 the kids in the UK are not reading as well as the kidsin Europe who started three years later.In germany they did a thorough trial with their 5 year olds in the public school system and found that the kids who got to 'just' play did much better than the kids who got a mixture of play and formal learning.They then changed their kindergarden to solely play based education.

[veggiegirl]

Why does a baby need to know how to read? :shrug3 I think reading to your child is a far better use of a parent's time. Even if a young baby could read, can they really comprehend what they are reading?

I really like what the above poster shared about all the studies that were done with early reading. You can't walk into a 3rd grade classroom and say, "Oh, you can tell that student was reading at age 2 and you can tell that student didn't learn to read until they were 6." Hogwash! All children even out by about 3rd grade anyway.

[Titus2Momof4]

The website is www.yourbabycanread.com. Most of the DVDs are between 7 mins and 22 mins. Three of them are 30 mins.

[bananacake]

I've been seeing the commercials lately. To answer one of the questions above, the video showed a 3 y/o reading A Christmas Carol.

[Calliope]

Doesn't matter if they can recognize and say the word if they can't comprehend it. Word recognition without being able to understand what the words means and what they are saying in a sentence and story is NOT reading. :no

That little girl is prattling off the words in A Christmas Carol, but she doesn't know what she is reading ABOUT.

[illinoismommy]

Doesn't matter if they can recognize and say the word if they can't comprehend it. Word recognition without being able to understand what the words means and what they are saying in a sentence and story is NOT reading. :no

That little girl is prattling off the words in A Christmas Carol, but she doesn't know what she is reading ABOUT.


I agree. This is not true learning. A baby is not supposed to read. They are still putting things in their mouths. Most can't speak either. Learning only happens where the brain is at.... and a 1 year old brain is not developed enough to understand something like A Christmas Carol. So what would be the point in getting them to know the words by sight?

[bananacake]

That little girl is prattling off the words in A Christmas Carol, but she doesn't know what she is reading ABOUT.


Her parents would disagree with you. Many users of the program do claim their kids comprehend what they are reading.

[bananacake]

Doesn't matter if they can recognize and say the word if they can't comprehend it. Word recognition without being able to understand what the words means and what they are saying in a sentence and story is NOT reading. :no

That little girl is prattling off the words in A Christmas Carol, but she doesn't know what she is reading ABOUT.


I agree. This is not true learning. A baby is not supposed to read. They are still putting things in their mouths. Most can't speak either. Learning only happens where the brain is at.... and a 1 year old brain is not developed enough to understand something like A Christmas Carol. So what would be the point in getting them to know the words by sight?


The girl reading A Christmas Carol was 3, not 1.

[Soliloquy]

My DD taught herself to read when she was 4 (actually 2 weeks before her 4th birthday). My 3 y.o. DS commonly confuses letters and numbers and shows no signs of reading any time soon. IMO it is best to allow children to move at their own pace, reading to them as much as they like, taking them to the library, etc.

I don't see any benefit to using a reading curriculum with babies or young toddlers. I do see potential for harm, as an unschooler, by setting such an early precedent that you need a DVD to learn to do something. DVDs can certainly be educational but I see a huge value in children figuring things out for themselves and asking for assistance at their own pace.

[Aisling]

Eh, even if it works perfectly, it's not actually going to make them "smarter" in the long run. My kids have almost their entire childhood to have facts crammed into their heads. I'm not in a hurry...for now, I'm happier to let them run and romp and play in the dirt. :shrug3

My take on tiny children who are able to read the classics: teaching them sight recognition of words doesn't suddenly jolt the years ahead relationally, emotionally, logically, etc. They might get parts of the story, but being able to extract the abstract meanings and morals will still be lost on them for a while. It's entertaining for their parents, but I can think of more beneficial ways for a toddler to spend their time. :shifty

[deena]

At best, it won't hurt anything.


On the one hand, the kid learns something- no harm done. (Although, a DVD? come on. :sick)

But the harm that is being done, in my opinion, is to the parents. It's really re-enforcing all the wrong values (competitiveness, pride, your child's value being linked to performance). And as an unschooler, I am somewhat passionate about the fact that all the best learning is "child led" and this goes completely against that notion. :doh

[illinoismommy]

Doesn't matter if they can recognize and say the word if they can't comprehend it. Word recognition without being able to understand what the words means and what they are saying in a sentence and story is NOT reading. :no

That little girl is prattling off the words in A Christmas Carol, but she doesn't know what she is reading ABOUT.


I agree. This is not true learning. A baby is not supposed to read. They are still putting things in their mouths. Most can't speak either. Learning only happens where the brain is at.... and a 1 year old brain is not developed enough to understand something like A Christmas Carol. So what would be the point in getting them to know the words by sight?


The girl reading A Christmas Carol was 3, not 1.


Oh well then its not really "your BABY can read" is it :giggle

Preschoolers learn to read all the time, at different rates. :)

[deena]

I do see potential for harm, as an unschooler, by setting such an early precedent that you need a DVD to learn to do something. DVDs can certainly be educational but I see a huge value in children figuring things out for themselves and asking for assistance at their own pace.


We posted at the same time with the same thought. :yes

[Dana Joy]

A couple weeks ago I was lucky enought o spend 3 days with Nancy Carlsson Paige (http://www.nancycarlssonpaige.org/), author and activist about children and play and commercialism. We discussed this very program. What exactly is going on in an infant's brain? What is it that an infant needs to be doing developmentally? The nuerons are busy making hundreds of connections, from motor skills, to language to attachment, all in such a short time span. Why waste time on a skill that most children are not biologically ready to do until 7-9 years old? The window of opportunity to learn to love and play is a small one, while reading is something can be learned up until adulthood.

[deena]

A couple weeks ago I was lucky enought o spend 3 days with Nancy Carlsson Paige (http://www.nancycarlssonpaige.org/), author and activist about children and play and commercialism.
cool!! I wish I could have been a fly on the wall that day!


We discussed this very program. What exactly is going on in an infant's brain? What is it that an infant needs to be doing developmentally? The nuerons are busy making hundreds of connections, from motor skills, to language to attachment, all in such a short time span. Why waste time on a skill that most children are not biologically ready to do until 7-9 years old? The window of opportunity to learn to love and play is a small one, while reading is something can be learned up until adulthood.


yes. yes. This is very true.

[illinoismommy]

Why waste time on a skill that most children are not biologically ready to do until 7-9 years old?


:poke I agree with your sentiments, but most educational books seem to say more like "most" are ready and interested 4-7 years old. So I just wanted to interject that. Yes I am a geek and read a lot. :glasses

[Leslie]

What exactly is going on in an infant's brain? What is it that an infant needs to be doing developmentally? The nuerons are busy making hundreds of connections, from motor skills, to language to attachment, all in such a short time span. Why waste time on a skill that most children are not biologically ready to do until 7-9 years old? The window of opportunity to learn to love and play is a small one, while reading is something can be learned up until adulthood.


This sounds like Jane Healy's book Endangered Minds - except she wasn't so much thinking about programs to teach babies to read, but wasting that small window of opportunity in front of a television set. Even "educational" shows like Sesame Street hinder those connections at a time when children have more important things to learn and very little time to learn it. Sure, the baby might learn to recognize words, but there's no real, lasting benefit for the child - and that time could/should have been better spent.

[Six Little Feet]

Eh, even if it works perfectly, it's not actually going to make them "smarter" in the long run. My kids have almost their entire childhood to have facts crammed into their heads. I'm not in a hurry...for now, I'm happier to let them run and romp and play in the dirt. :shrug3





Yes.

I was listening to a show about this the other day on CBC. it talked about all this stuff. It was so interesting. It mentioned this book http://www.amazon.com/Hurried-Child-25th-Anniversary-David-Elkind/dp/073821082X/ref=sip_rech_dp_10 Has anyone read it. It is called the Hurried Child.

I do not know why *we* are in such a hurry for our kids to grow up.

[Rbonmom]

actually, the whole point of the program is that their language development centers are significantly closed by 6, so if the dc is reading before then it's easier for them to get a grasp on language in general and really hardwire those language pathways. Just in the way that if you are bilingual, the expert advice is to get your dc speaking bilingually before 6 because it permanently keeps that area open and firing well. It makes sense to me with my background in psychology and specifically the neuropsychology course I took, but I do think that for most people it's motivated by their desire to push their kids, even starting as a baby. I saw an informercial for the set now, and to me, that makes it even more of a "party trick" type thing.
Ds knew his the whole alphabet, colors, shapes, and could count to 20 by 20mo. (I didn't teach him, I just think he's a very visual learner so he picked it up as we read) so my mom got this dvd program for him thinking he would enjoy it. Honestly, he was pretty bored with the DVD's and would rather just play so we only tried it for about a week. I didn't want to have to cajole him into watching DVD's 2x a day :doh He still will pick them out occasionally if he wants to watch something (they are SUPER annoying btw :/), but for the most part they went untouched. I think there were several that never even got opened. Ds is reading now at 4, but it not something I worked with him at. We just read a lot and have since he was in utero, and he's in headstart while I'm in class, so his teacher have been working with him. I don't really see any advantage for him in it :shrug3 When we're reading if I try to get him to sound out words and read, he does great but he doesn't like it, so I just read to him. I figure he's got his whole life where he'll be reading on his own, I might as well enjoy the times he still wants to curl up with me and read together.

[illinoismommy]

What exactly is going on in an infant's brain? What is it that an infant needs to be doing developmentally? The nuerons are busy making hundreds of connections, from motor skills, to language to attachment, all in such a short time span. Why waste time on a skill that most children are not biologically ready to do until 7-9 years old? The window of opportunity to learn to love and play is a small one, while reading is something can be learned up until adulthood.


This sounds like Jane Healy's book Endangered Minds - except she wasn't so much thinking about programs to teach babies to read, but wasting that small window of opportunity in front of a television set. Even "educational" shows like Sesame Street hinder those connections at a time when children have more important things to learn and very little time to learn it. Sure, the baby might learn to recognize words, but there's no real, lasting benefit for the child - and that time could/should have been better spent.


That's interesting and I might have to read that too. :)