Your baby can read review? - Page 2

[Lillian J]

Originally Posted by cappuccinosmom

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.

And then you have two year olds like mine was - never had even a passing interest in a letter or learning to read, even though he loved being read to. It was like that even up to the time he learned to read quite quickly over the summer at age seven, right before going into 1st grade at a little school where the 1st graders would already know how to read three-letter words. He used to watch Sesame Street back when it was a lot more interesting and fun, but he didn't pay much attention to the letter parts - he was mostly interested in just the conversations and skits between the characters. He had playmates just like him who had absolutely no interest in letters or reading, and he had one friend whose mom taught him letters at age 2 "just to get it out of the way," but they all ended up reading in due time.
-Lillian

[tnmom66]

I was born in 1966 and I distinctly remember my kindergarten class having a large (and very popular) dramatic play area, art centers--easels with tempera paint, and a large block center. When I worked in the Army Child Development Services teaching preschoolers in the late 1980's-- it was much the same, but we also had sand and water tables-I'd never seen one till then!!! But 8 years ago or so when my oldest went to public kindergarten, I was alarmed to see that there was NO dramatic play area, no baby dolls, no "dress-up" clothes and hats. Also, the new school director eliminated recess!! He's gone, and the kids have recess now, but I don't know how the classroom has changed. Of course, now there are computers in the classrooms. But here it is full-day kindergarten, MANDATORY, and I worry that the kids don't have enough free play. In kindergarten, I'd rather sacrifice the computer corner for a dramatic play area.

I feel good about my children's homeschool/preschool experiences. Lots of free play and exploration, and a little "drill" tossed in during the day. My kids are not deprived of anything. Even if their reading levels "leveled off" in 3rd grade, I have absolutely no regrets about spending a few minutes a day with flashcards. We spend much more time during the day talking about colors, numbers, or letters SHE points out during the day than with flashcards. She goes absolutely crazy over price tags at Wal-Mart and letters on boxes and signs. She even points out random words that she has learned, like "UP". We are surrounded by letters, words, colors, numbers and I'm just trying to encourage her interest. It isn't only her interest in "academics" that I'm encouraging... she also builds with blocks, squeezes playdough, sorts and matches, colors and paints, and plays with dolls and animals. At this age, everything is a "learning experience".

Lydia

[moominmamma]

Originally Posted by tnmom66

I feel good about my children's homeschool/preschool experiences. Lots of free play and exploration, and a little "drill" tossed in during the day. My kids are not deprived of anything. Even if their reading levels "leveled off" in 3rd grade, I have absolutely no regrets about spending a few minutes a day with flashcards.

No, of course you don't, and I don't think you should. It sounds like you've found a terrific balance and one that has worked well for your family and your children. I was merely objecting to the implication that there is some precious early window of ease for literacy learning.

Miranda

[Stacey B]

What worries me about programs like this has more to do with the parent child relationship. Let me see if I can word this right. If you bring this to your child and are excited for it then they might feel pressured to do it to make you happy rather than it occurring naturally. I think that is clear. I'm not sure what the benefit for the child is to be reading so young.

That being said our 3.5 year old loves workbooks, he found one near the train table at a B&N and thought it was the greatest thing. We have it around and when he wants to we use it. I am in no rush to teach him how to read, I think he has a lot more developing to do (mid-line crossing and rhythm) before reading will come naturally.

[NewMom0208]

All right! This is good stuff!

To me, social skillls are much more important for hapines and success than math, reading and any of the academics.
I am also big at following my sons lead

I thougt abouth ybcr as a way topropel talking if he liked it.
But, it is ok if he doesn't read, I have some flash cards for signing languages, but good luck wit that, they are more likely to be used as a boomerang, a pretend phone or a pretend plane. It seems I would be wasting my time and money at least for now.

Ok,so

He is an explorer, learning about his surroundings is his thing.he also likes to be silly, make faces and noises ansd just have fun. He learns that way. He makes a counting sound when we go up or down stairs and for sometime he recognized the number 3 when found in our explorations such a parking lot number or a number on a neighbors door. He no longer points to number 3...oh welll

He loves birds, although he gets unconfortable when they get too close. I am amaze to see him identifying birds even in abstract images that represent birds on a very subtle way. Coh-coh!! He points.

He likes spongebob, tom and jerry and sometimes handy many, no interest in wiggles, barney (thanks God, because I don't like it), no dora. He likes kailan.
No sing alongs, he prefers adult music, particularly rock and clasical, all clasical he calss Mozart. Also the softies.

He watches 30 minutes dvd in the morning while we get ready. Some times another 30 min for me to catch my breath in evening (single working mom)

I will look for mr rogers, leapfrog and sarfall.
What are other things you would do with such a fantastic child? To help him discover his world and himself and, to teach stuff.

Thank you!

[NewMom0208]

Forgot to mention, his preschool is filled with dramatic play areas which he LOVES, he doesn't want to leave when I go pick him up, I tipically stay 45 min b4 we head home. Lots of art opp.they go to playground outside twice a day and he LOVES it. I am blessed he is there while I build my way to part time wahm

[CParker]

Originally Posted by tnmom66

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.


Lydia

I'll preface this by saying that I haven't seen the parents' guide or visited the website. One of the things that struck me about this quote is that it may confuse/blur the lines between correlation and causation, as well as not taking into account any sort of compounding variables. Were the early readers placed into that category because of a specific program they used to learn to read, or did they just have a strong interest in reading and picked it up that way? If a child is gifted, for example, they usually will learn to read earlier and will improve their skills at a faster pace than non-gifted kids. This isn't simply because early reading caused them to have greater success; those kids would have likely had more success anyways. Maybe they were just more interested. Maybe they had more ability. Maybe their environment was more enriched. I think there's more to it than this study leads you to believe.

[CParker]

Originally Posted by tnmom66

But 8 years ago or so when my oldest went to public kindergarten, I was alarmed to see that there was NO dramatic play area, no baby dolls, no "dress-up" clothes and hats. Also, the new school director eliminated recess!!

Our neighborhood school spends two hours a day on language arts and an hour a day on math--in half-day kindergarten. At least around here it hasn't changed much! Trying to push more, better, faster, earlier so they can take those standardized tests starting in 2nd grade.

[craft_media_hero]

My partner and I decided that we'd just get the "your fetus can read" program and give our baby the jump on all the other kids, EARLY!

Personally, I think it's developmentally inappropriate. A baby/tot's brain is not meant to read, especially via a TV program. If a 2yo spontaneously learns to read through interaction with family, books, magnet letters, etc. in real every day life, then that's great! But most 2yos will not, and that is NORMAL.

Baby's and toddlers are meant to learn at this stage through interaction with their world, and reading is not even on their horizon. Touching, moving, "talking" with caregivers, those are healthy, developmentally appropriate and natural ways of learning for a baby.

IMO, any time in front of the tv at such an early age, even watching Sesame Street or another "learning" program, is taking time away from their real job of learning in their environment and with their caregiver.

What are the consequences of this early stimulation of a part of the brain that would not usually awaken naturally until much later? I guess we'll find out when all the YBCR babies are older!

Obviously, I haven't used the program. But is it really even "reading"? On the commercials, it looks like, (from the baby's POV) I recognize a shape on this piece of paper, make a response, and Mom goes wild! The baby is not learning phonics, sight words, and context (because he/she IS developmentally incapable of this as an infant); baby is learning how to get that magic response from the parent when Mom holds up a card.

JMO.

[Lillian J]

Originally Posted by craft_media_hero

My partner and I decided that we'd just get the "your fetus can read" program and give our baby the jump on all the other kids, EARLY!

Hey, you jest, but here's a great article by David Albert: Phonics in Utero Lillian

[Kindermama]

Originally Posted by NewMom0208

What are other things you would do with such a fantastic child? To help him discover his world and himself and, to teach stuff.

Thank you!

Let him shadow you at home...fold laundry together, wash and dry dishes, sweep the floors, water the plants, vacuum the rugs, dust furniture, garden...etc!

Read to him!

Sing songs!

Do seasonal arts and crafts

Let him play!

Save the flashcards for much much later!

[craft_media_hero]

Originally Posted by Lillian J

Hey, you jest, but here's a great article by David Albert: Phonics in Utero Lillian

Oh, wow! Thanks, Lillian, that's exactly what we've been looking for

*shakes head in disbelief*

[tnmom66]

Originally Posted by CParker

I think there's more to it than this study leads you to believe.

I think this is always the case. Personally, I embrace "research" that makes sense to me, and I am very skeptical of the others. But I'll listen to anyone's opinion and try to keep an open mind.....

Lydia

[tnmom66]

Originally Posted by craft_media_hero

IMO, any time in front of the tv at such an early age, even watching Sesame Street or another "learning" program, is taking time away from their real job of learning in their environment and with their caregiver.

What are the consequences of this early stimulation of a part of the brain that would not usually awaken naturally until much later? I guess we'll find out when all the YBCR babies are older!

Obviously, I haven't used the program. But is it really even "reading"? On the commercials, it looks like, (from the baby's POV) I recognize a shape on this piece of paper, make a response, and Mom goes wild! The baby is not learning phonics, sight words, and context (because he/she IS developmentally incapable of this as an infant); baby is learning how to get that magic response from the parent when Mom holds up a card.

JMO.

The time my child spends in front of the TV is time I am otherwise engaged. I am usually alone in the house with her when I'm trying to do chores. I know that to me and other single parents, something that will keep my child entertained (and happily and safely confined in her high chair) while I am cooking or doing other chores that would be difficult or dangerous with a child underfoot is a godsend. I learned the hard way--when I sloshed boiling water out of my spaghetti pot while letting my child hang onto my legs and we both barely avoided being seriously burned, that sometimes it's best for a child to not be in constant contact with the caregiver (and I can assure you that this "caregiver" wishes she had a housekeeper and cook so she woudln't have to engage in tasks that might be unsafe for the child to participate in). My 17 month old is at the point now that she can occupy herself for several minutes at a time with duplo blocks, her pegboard, or simply buckling and unbuckling her high chair harness. But I KNOW I can get 20-30 minutes SOLID, uninterrupted time if she's fed, has had plenty of one-on-one time ahead of time, is diapered, rested, and engaged in some sort of children's video program. I don't know what moms did before TV. I know playpens can be handy, but my child was unhappy in hers, and it stressed me out to let her cry. I do sometimes have my older children at home to help, but they are in school or at their father's a lot of the time.

I read online somethere that someone traveling rural Turkey came upon a toddler with a one end of a rope tied around her waist, the other end tied to some stationary object, and no other human being in sight--I guess the parents were otherwise occupied and were trying to keep the child safe, and had no "electronic babysitter". I relied much more on my sling when my child was smaller, lighter, and less active. It doesn't work so well for us now.

Glen Doman's book "How To Teach Your Baby to Read" came out over 40 years ago, and I have seen several parents who were early readers enthusiastically using the same methods on their children. I haven't heard of any "victims" of these programs sharing horror stories of how flashcards ruined their lives, but I'd like to, if they are out there somewhere...

I know the YBCR program has been improved over the years. I am not familiar with the program when it was first being marketed--seems I saw some negative reviews regarding their quality on Amazon or somewhere. I think the current DVDs are GREAT, well-made and are interactive, give context to the words, and even though it is "sight reading"--it's a "good thing" IMO. I have to say that my child is now bored with the DVD's, but was quite engaged with them for several months.

Lydia

[hippiemommaof4]

Originally Posted by moominmamma

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

MTE

[hippiemommaof4]

[QUOTE=Savoir Faire;15236283]

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.[/QUOTE

MTE on this too

It's not necessary and it's totally weird imo.

[blessedwithboys]

no time to read every post, but i will just add that in YBCR infomercials are the creepiest things i have ever seen on TV! why cant parents just read to and with your children and let them see you reading for pleasure as a model? not to mention all the studies done about how children under 2 should watch ZERO TV, its that bad for them?

i did things the old fashioned way and both my boys were fluent readers by age 4. if they had been slower to pick up on it, there would have been no pressure and they would simply have been fluent at age 6 or 8 or whatever, but as individuals, they were ready at an early age. and we did it with them on my lap, being snuggled, and it worked for us.

i dont doubt a 2 yo can learn to read, i just wouldnt want it to be at the expense of having to be babysat by the boob tube.

i have several friends who LOVE baby einstein, but i cant say i see how their kids are in any way at an advantage academically.

[hippiemommaof4]

I always find it really crazy how so many americans are in such a rush to push academics and things on such young children so soon. Yes their brains are like sponges then but that doesn't mean they need to be burnt out. Why does a baby need to read at that age? Seriously? I see no reason why a baby needs to read, it's more of the parents thing...they want the baby to read. I'm thinking most of them want to do it because it gives them bragging rights, to one up another mom on the play ground playing field or something equally bizarre imo. I am not trying to insult anyone here but most of the people I know irl would use it for one uping another parent because there is no logical reason why a baby needs to read at that age honestly. Unless someone can give me an example of factual info that proves it makes a difference in the *very* long run like into teenhood and adulthood...I'll continue to believe its utterly useless.

[plantmama]

I don't have experience w/ ybcr, though my bias opinion from seeing the ads are it's just a sad product of our super competitive parenting culture.
I just wanted to add my experience to support those feeling like delaying all this is really the way to go.
My sister could sound things out and read but rarely did when she was 5 or 6. She was then unschooled and was read to every day but showed no interest in reading herself until she was maybe 10. I remember her having a period of relearning and then the first book she read was a dense 400 page young adult novel. She has now recently published an essay, she is incredibly creative, has attended art school, won rave reviews on her critical writing at college, knows a great deal about biology and agriculture. Is returning to finish college now in her mid 20s on a scholarship. Everyone's different! If she had attended a regular school she may have been branded with a learning disability when all she needed was time. Give your kids time!

[Lillian J]

Originally Posted by blessedwithboys

why cant parents just read to and with your children and let them see you reading for pleasure as a model?

I remember telling an acquaintance about the delightful time I was having with my son with the Little House books, and she thought for a moment and said, "I think Suzanne read those when she was five." She wasn't even sure - she had little if any personal experience of the books. I actually felt a little sad for her daughter missing out on the incredible fun of sharing those places and people and times with her mom. Our time spent together in books were some of the more wonderful times my son and I spent together. - Lillian