Your baby can read review?

[NewMom0208]

What do you think about the Your baby can read program?

My lo is a 2 yr old boy, late talker, but very bright.
Very active physically so it is difficult to show him cards, or anything else!
I am up to be able to read half a sentence from a book. After that here is is already in next room...sigh.

[jenfl]

I haven't used YBCR, but I'd suggest just starting to slowly work with letter sounds at this point. DD had a lot of fun with starfall.com at 2-2.5.

[BeanyMama]

I haven't used YBCR either, but wanted to say my little ones love Starfall, too.

Two is really, really early to be doing flashcards and reading and stuff. Especially for a guy working so hard on his physical developments!

[Lillian J]

Here's a thread where it's discussed at length:
Your Baby Can Read

I would just let him play and play and play - that's what he's learning and growing best from right now. There are few children that age who are looking to learn to read, regardless of how bright they are. Reading has its place, but he doesn't need to look into books to find things that fascinate him or to find information about the world - there are new things and experiences all around him all the time. His growing body and the things he can do with it are some of the most interesting things of all. If he isn't even interested in listening to you read yet, he certainly wouldn't have any interest in reading for himself - but that will all come in due time, which may be quite a few years from now. Meanwhile, there are a whole lot of other things that would be much more fun and interesting and educational for him at this point in his life. Lillian

[CParker]

IMO, if your 2 y/o is very active, sitting in front of a TV is the LAST thing he needs!

I agree with what others are saying: when he's able to focus for longer periods of time and interested in reading, he'll learn. Until then, a 2 year old really doesn't NEED to learn to read, and a lot of the research suggests that it may actually do more harm than good.

My neighbor has these videos/books/flashcards. I guess if your child is going to watch TV anyways this isn't a bad thing to watch--there is certainly much worse out there. They're about on par with the Baby Einstein videos.

[lmk1]

My ds was also a late talker...he maybe had 10 words at 2. He would not sit still for books at all. He's now about 2 and 5 months, and in the last 5 months, he's learned tons of words, makes simple sentences, makes poop/fart jokes, and LOVES starfall.com. He knows all his letters now (lowercase too), and he loves to read books with me (he'll sit for 4 Thomas the Engine books in a row). And he knows all his primary colors.

I think the following contributed to all the development: getting older, having his grandma around now who plays a lot with him (drawing cars/trains, play doh), doing Starfall (he learned to say a bunch of words before he even learned the letters), and getting hooked on trains and Thomas and so developing an interest in seeing books about trains. I am constantly looking for ways to help teach him different concepts and we had bought How to Teach Your Baby to Read by Doman, but honestly we've only done those flashcards a few times...we keep them in the car, and if ds is really bored, then that entertains him for a little bit. That program advocates showing him flashcards 15 times a day...and I cannot imagine who would have the time or what kid would have the patience. I looked at "Your Baby Can Read" on Amazon, and some of the reviews gave me the idea that it's just very dry flashcard type video. I don't think my ds would be at all interested in having words flashing in front of him for a long period of time. I decided against getting it. He really liked the Leapfrog videos: Letter Factory, Talking Words Factory, Math Factory. And at the same time, he's really developed physically...climbing anything at the playground. I think it's really important to give the child opportunities to learn what interests them, but if he seems bored, then he's just not ready for it...because he's busy developing in another direction. If your ds isn't ready to have books read to him, get him books where he can open the tabs, and just talk about what you see on the page. Some of the kids books really aren't all that great/or don't make sense, and it's kind of guess work what kids will really be interested in. Ds LOVES the DK Prehistoric Life book that my dh bought for himself. It's got tons of interesting pictures, and he just leafs through the book at random, and we try to talk about anything in it that would make sense to him.

[tnmom66]

I think YBCR is a fantastic program and I use it along with Glenn Doman's methods. If YBCR is too expensive, I recommend Glenn Doman's flashcard method.

OH! I have to say, too, that I found starfall.com to be a great resource. YBCR and the Doman Method are both sight-reading/memorization, which is good, but phonics is important, too, and we get that from Starfall.com.

I started YBCR at 8 months with my youngest and now, at 17 months, she is reading up a storm, identifying letters, numbers, colors, etc., soaking up everything like a sponge and having a wonderful time doing it.

I don't feel the least bit guilty about parking my child in front of the TV for 30 minutes 2 times a day when I'm trying to get chores done. She's safe and happy and I feel like her brain is getting good stimulation. If she didn't find it to be enjoyable, I wouldn't force it on her.

We have lots of hands-on, real life experiences. I breastfeed, co-sleep and do other Attachment Parenting things.

My background is in Early Childhood Education, and it is interesting to see what "experts" say--often you find contradicitons, like in everything else. I think all the stimulation I give my kids is helpful, and I am quite sure it isn't just all "good genes" that make my kids so smart. I have a 13 year old and an 11 year old who are academically gifted, well-rounded, and well-adjusted. Not "off the chart" geniuses, but it is a fantastic feeling knowing that my kids went to school reading easily and well, and that they both love learning. It is so sad to see 5th graders struggling with stuff my kids were reading in first grade.

I read some of the post on that other thread about YBCR. I don't know why it "works" for some and not others. I'd say it's always worth trying. Don't force it--if it is stressing out either of you, STOP! Learning should be fun.

Neil Harvey wrote "Kids Who Start Ahead, Stay Ahead" and I recommend that book.

If your child masters reading at an early age, when it is EASIEST, it will ensure that other doors are opened. I am sure plenty of illiterate or near-illiterate people have accomplished tremendous successes, but I'd prefer that my children learn to love reading and to become lifelong learners.

I'd say that perhaps the children who early literacy programs don't "work" for are probably gifted in other areas. My son reads well, but doesn't read for pleasure...he're more interested in taking things apart and putting them back together again. My daughter, however, always has her nose in a book. We all want our kids to be happy and successful, I think, and reading before age 2 or 3 doesn't guarantee anything, but it makes me feel better. It's one tool in the toolbox, but I think it is one of the most critical.

Lydia

[moominmamma]

Originally Posted by tnmom66

If your child masters reading at an early age, when it is EASIEST, it will ensure that other doors are opened.

What evidence is there that learning to read is easiest at an early age? My experience with child-led learning suggests precisely the opposite. I see kids who were taught letter-sounds and sight-words by their parents at age 18-24 months, put in academic preschools at age 3 and by 1st or 2nd grade become solid fluent readers, many well above grade level. To me that translates into *five solid years* of literacy development.

My kids went from beginning reading to the same level of fluency in the space of 2-12 weeks. I know many other self-directed homeschooled kids who followed a similar trajectory.

Do you have evidence that it is easiest to learn to read early? I've never seen any. I've seen evidence that if a child is in school and doesn't learn "on time" that there are negative emotional and self-esteem repercussions of being subjected to a curriculum that moves relentlessly forward on the assumption that literacy has been attained. But that's a problem with school's assumptions (one not applicable in a homeschooling situation) and not evidence of waning literacy learning ability. In fact, in Scandinavian and eastern European nations where literacy instruction is delayed until age 7 or 8, literacy rates are higher and literacy-related learning disability rates are lower.

Miranda

[melcotx]

If you want to park your kids in front of the TV once in a while (and I confess to doing that at least once a day), why not choose a program that meets their real developmental needs? Mr. Rogers helps kids learn to control their behavior, get along with others, and exercise their imagination. Those skills are way more valuable than the ability to read.

(And BTW, I do have an early reader. At 3.5 my ds liked to play on Starfall just for fun, but turns out he was also teaching himself to read. Now he's 5, and can burn through Magic Tree House books in no time flat, but I'd be even happier if he'd just share nicely with his little brother.)

[Savoir Faire]

In the long run, I doubt someone knowing how to read earlier than someone else is important.

In my opinion...teaching a "baby to read" is just kind of weird. Childhood is short. There is no need for flashcards.

[Lillian J]

Originally Posted by moominmamma

Do you have evidence that it is easiest to learn to read early? I've never seen any. I've seen evidence that if a child is in school and doesn't learn "on time" that there are negative emotional and self-esteem repercussions of being subjected to a curriculum that moves relentlessly forward on the assumption that literacy has been attained. But that's a problem with school's assumptions (one not applicable in a homeschooling situation) and not evidence of waning literacy learning ability. In fact, in Scandinavian and eastern European nations where literacy instruction is delayed until age 7 or 8, literacy rates are higher and literacy-related learning disability rates are lower.

Glad you brought that up - this is a wonderful video on the subject:
Sweden - Early Years.
Lillian

[Lillian J]

A few interesting articles that don't support the idea that earlier is better:

Bringing Lessons Home - a book excerpt from Einstein Never Used Flash Cards: How Our Children Really Learn -- And Why They Need to Play More and Memorize Less.

How Our Children Really Learn And Why They Need To Play More And Memorize Less, by Kathy Hirsh-Pasek, PH.D., and Roberta Michnick Golinkoff, PH.D, authors of Einstein Never Used Flash Cards.

Einstein Never Used Flashcards, and Thoughts on the Mozart Effect - an interview with Roberta Michnick Golinkoff, co-author of Einstein Never Used Flashcards: How our Children Really Learn and Why They Need to Play More and Memorize Less.

Much Too Early, an article by David Elkind, Ph.D., Professor in Child Development at Tufts University, author or Miseducation: Preschoolers at Risk.

More articles on this page about preschool and kindergarten learning activities.

Lillian

[eclipse]

My son is 4 years old and has a speech delay/disorder. He cannot easily make letter sounds (he has know the sounds they make from toddlerhood, but has trouble making them himself) but is fascinated with words and has a large sight word vocabulary (learned from his environment, being read to, figuring out words on packages, etc). Anyhow, I didn't spend any money on the YBCR program (and I would never use it for a baby, and probably not for a two year old either), but we do have it and he enjoys watching it (though certainly not at the frequency that YBCR suggests). I like it more because it encourages the children to repeat the words, so it's good speaking practice for him, than because it teaches him words. He HAS learned words from it, but I really think that's because he's that type of whole word learner. I also have no doubt that most toddlers sitting in front of the tv watching it everyday would probably learn the words, but to what end? Why does a baby or toddler need to know how to read? (And I ask that question as the mother of one VERY young reader who mostly self taught at three and another fairly young reader at 4.) If the kids have a drive to learn, they'll be begging to be taught or will pick it up on their own, and won't need to sit in front of a TV watching words flash on a screen everyday. In short, I think it could be valuable for Kish age kids and up if they are whole word learners and are interested in having a bigger sight word vocabulary, but I also don't think it would hold the interest of a lot of older kids.

[cappuccinosmom]

Interesting, even with the positive reviews here of YBCR, it's clear that other options can work.

If you can get YBCR for free, go for it, try it out.

If not, if your kid is capable of reading at that age, you have a whole world of options for teaching him that are free or cheap. Starfall.com of course.

My two year old "reads". He's got about 8 words down (including "tomato" ). But I think it'll be a slower progression for him to catch on that change a letter here or there and you get a different word, and you find out what it is by saying the letter sounds. How he got to this point was watching his brother's phonics/alphabet videos with them, playing with alphabet puzzles, pointing out letters and then words in the world around him, and later having me available to sit down and write letters and words for him. This was all self-directed on his part. He chose to watch, he chose to pick up interest in the letters, he asked me questions, etc.

[elizawill]

i really dislike this program personally. my issue isn't with whether it works or not, but my belief is that there is no benefit in teaching babies to read. for every article supporting it, there are numerous articles stating otherwise. my biggest issue is that this current trend for pushing early academics & reading (getting younger and younger) pushes kindergarten academic standards to a new level that all children are not ready to live up too. anyway, obviously my opinion is skewed, so my answer would be to let your active little boy move onto other things if he's not interested in the program. hugs.

[Aeress]

Honestly, i would wait for my child to ask to read and follow his lead.

Many of the skills needed to learn to read and write (usually, children learn these in unison) develop naturally through play, exposure to their environment and time. Parents and caregivers pointing out environmental print, making note of the sounds letters make and rhyming games are very valuable to children.

[tnmom66]

Originally Posted by moominmamma

Do you have evidence that it is easiest to learn to read early? I've never seen any. I've seen evidence that if a child is in school and doesn't learn "on time" that there are negative emotional and self-esteem repercussions of being subjected to a curriculum that moves relentlessly forward on the assumption that literacy has been attained. But that's a problem with school's assumptions (one not applicable in a homeschooling situation) and not evidence of waning literacy learning ability. In fact, in Scandinavian and eastern European nations where literacy instruction is delayed until age 7 or 8, literacy rates are higher and literacy-related learning disability rates are lower.

Miranda

Well, sounds like Sweden is doing something right! I don't live in Scandinavia, though, I live in the U.S. and my children are not home schooled--other than in the "pre-kindergarten" years. "Forty percent of 8-year old Americans can't read independently, according to U.S. government statistics," says Robert Titzer in his YBCR "Parent's Guide" He is a researcher, so I'm sure he has referred to many studies regarding infant learning. There are 13 "references" in the back of his "Parent's Guide"

One he refers to in his parent's guide is "A comprehensive and longitudinal (long-term) study (Stainthorp, R. and D Hughes, 2004) contrasted early readers and regular students. The differences between early readers and regular students didn't level out. Instead, early readers improved their skills at a faster pace, causing an increaase in the gap between the two groups in reading and language arts and also led to improvements in other subjects. This is often called the "Matthew Effect," where the "rich" learners get richer and the "poor" learners get poorer.(Stanovich, K.E., 1986)" The accompanying chart is also shown on the yourbabycanread.com website.

Honestly, I put more faith into my own experience than "study results" and I think most people should. If you are getting good results from what you are doing and are happy, why do anything differently? I have seen too many school-aged children struggling with reading to take a chance that maybe my child would be in the 60% of 8-year olds who are able to read independently. It was my choice to take advantage of my children's interest and their neuro-plasticity and I have no regrets, and neither do my kids.

I read David Elkind's "Miseducation-Preschoolers At Risk" 20+ years ago and I agree that preschooler's shouldn't be pressured. That takes all the fun out of learning. I feel, however, that they suffer more from pressure when they are 8, 9, 10 and aren't able to easily do their schoolwork, than they would at age 3, sitting on their mom's lap happily looking at flashcards, pictures, and books, or sitting in front of the tv watching interactive educational video for a half-hour twice a day.


Lydia

[tnmom66]

Originally Posted by NewMom0208

Very active physically so it is difficult to show him cards, or anything else!
I am up to be able to read half a sentence from a book. After that here is is already in next room...sigh.

You might want to take 5 seconds to "flash" (with enthusiasm!) 5 words (maybe body parts or action words-doesn't matter, but try to make them "fun" words) at a time at mealtimes, when he's sitting down for a few minutes anyway. Just get some index cards and a marker and do 5 words 3 times a day for a few days and see how he likes it. Don't fight with him, but I think it's worth trying. I'd do this before I'd get the YBCR program. I thought the biggest advantage over the Doman method was the interactive dvd component, but you don't want to force him to "watch TV".

I do suggest "How to Teach Your Baby To Read" by Glenn Doman--he suggests modifications on presenting the words depending on the child's age and stage.

Also, sing lots of songs, especially those incorporating movement. We love "the Wiggles" and I especially like sing-along videos that have the words at the bottom. Don't know how much it helps them learn to read, but it helps them make connections between the written and spoken words.

Lydia

[moominmamma]

Originally Posted by tnmom66

"A comprehensive and longitudinal (long-term) study (Stainthorp, R. and D Hughes, 2004) contrasted early readers and regular students. The differences between early readers and regular students didn't level out. Instead, early readers improved their skills at a faster pace, causing an increaase in the gap between the two groups in reading and language arts and also led to improvements in other subjects. "

It's a very big mistake, though, to equate the statistics on early spontaneous (i.e. self-taught, self-directed) readers with those who are given copious ongoing instruction and learn to read early that way. The literature that compares early instruction to later instruction doesn't seem to find the same. In those cases the differences generally disappear by the 3rd grade level. Differences persist only when the child is a spontaneous early reader -- likely, IMO, due to the fact that early spontaneous reading can be an indicator of a particular combination of intellectual potential and temperament.

Miranda

[Lillian J]

I have a good friend who's a researcher, as well a professor who specializes in methods of research and statistics, and an associate dean in her college's public health department, and she often mentions that the first thing to look at in any research study is who's doing the research and how it's funded - because so much is slanted to fit the needs of someone selling something.

If so many children are struggling with reading at age eight, whereas there weren't as many struggling with it in previous generations who didn't get taught to read till age six in 1st grade, maybe the early introduction of it is a factor that needs to be scrutinized. This article, Big "A", Little "a", is an excerpt from Child's Work, a book by Vivian Gussin Paley, teacher of close to 40 years experience, winner of numerous awards and accolades, author of 11 books, and someone who's watched the introduction of reading get moved down into lower and lower grades.

And this 61 page article by the Alliance for Childhood (a partnership of educators, health care professionals, researchers, and other childhood advocates), goes into details about what they think is going wrong in early childhood education in the schools that's affecting all the following years: Crisis in the Kindergarten: Why Children Need to Play Here's their Call to Action on the Education of Young Children. The dozens of signatures at the end include many well known professional educators and authors.
-Lillian