The "Your Baby Can Read! " program - what do you think?

[Mothering]

This seems to be gaining quite a bit of press. Your Baby Can Read! is a video series that encourages parents to put infants as young as three months in front of a screen to teach them to read. The CFCC has filed a complaint with the FTC saying “Your Baby Can Read” is not only false and misleading, the program “poses significant health and safety risks to infants” who are encouraged to sit in front of TVs and computer monitors by parents who hope they can get a headstart on life by teaching their children to read early.

The Today Show video report on this shows clips of the product commercials and their interview with the product's creator, Dr. Robert Titzer.

What do you think? Is this sort of early learning activity beneficial or harmful?

[ProtoLawyer]

I don't know enough about it to know if it works or doesn't work, if it's dangerous or isn't dangerous--but I do think it's pointless.

Sure, some kids want to learn to read early and there's nothing wrong with encouraging that and helping if it's warranted (I was an early, self-taught reader myself)...but I'm not sure there's any real advantage at trying to make all of our babies into prodigies. 

[Rhymeswithgeek]

I admit, we own this. My now 5 yo watched these when he was one. He was OBSESSED with letters. His favorite toys were fridge alphabet magnets. Some kids like trains, some dinos, some cars...for my kid it was letters. So, I picked up a used set of these DVDs, figuring if I was going to let him watch tv on occasion (yeah, watch tv, I know), at least he'd be watching something commercial free and the letters would be right up his alley. He LOVED them. We watched them a couple times a week (not twice a day). He did end up learning to read by age 3. But I think this was more of a natural predisposition than a video. From what we can tell, he now reads at about a 4th grade level; he starts kindergarten this fall. I think for some kids, these videos are perfect, but I can't imagine putting a three month old in front of the toob for a viewing session and have them get anything meaningful out of it.

[MJB]

My now 5 yo learned to read by 3, too, and we didn't use this. Honestly, kids learn to read at their own pace (my other son didn't really get it until 7) and I don't think there's much you can do. I don't think these videos should be illegal (seriously? people think that?) but I think they're a waste of money AND I think wanting your baby to read is a stupid goal. 

[stik]

Seriously?  Those are all the poll options?  Both of those imply acceptance of the idea that the program is effective.  Surely, if one is going to offer a false dichotomy of choices in re. a program's effectiveness, the logical ones are "it works" and "it doesn't work." 

I think it doesn't work.  From what I've seen, the program uses simple behaviorism.  Sure, some kids learn to imitate reading in response to stimuli during a scripted interaction  That doesn't mean they can comprehend textual narratives or information, which is what reading actually is.

The program makes a certain population of parents feel like they're doing something to educate their child and give them an early advantage over other children.  But that's probably the most significant real result. 

ETA: Just to add another REALLY?  Your options are "it works" or "it should be prohibited by the FTC"?  This is the pushiest poll since the first Bush campaign. 

[LynnS6]

Research shows:

1. It's not effective. Kids who use the program or similar programs are not more advanced than kids who learn at more traditional ages.

2. Kids who attend academic preschools start K with higher academics than kids who attend playbased preschools. But, that difference disappears very quickly, and kids who attended academic preschools have more negative attitudes toward school and learning. This effect is long lasting. Much longer than the supposed 'advantage of early academics.

3. The best predictors of reading in 4th grade appear to be general knowledge at kindergarten, not academic or reading skills. (Makes sense -- once you shift from learning to read to reading to learn, it's a lot easier to learn something if you've been exposed to the ideas).

4. Overall, research supports play-based, experienced-based 'education' for infants and preschoolers -- being able to experience the world -- visually, tactilely, kinesthetically, auditorily, etc. Children learn by doing -- from watching others do things to doing them themselves. 

I've got one child who was an 'early' reader (age 4) and one who learned in 1st grade (age 6 1/2). Both have excellent reading comprehension, precisely because they've been exposed to a lot of experiences, and a lot of vocabulary from conversing with us. I didn't 'work' with either one. Dd was obsessed with books, letters and reading. She learned early. Ds wasn't. Following your child's lead is fine. Foisting a dubious program on them is a waste of money.

So, while I agree that there are certainly more options than "it works" or it "should be banned", I believe they are practicing deceptive advertising. You shouldn't be able to lie in an ad, and they're promoting something that they can't deliver.

[katelove]

I didn't vote because none of the options really fit my view. Probably should have picked "other",  I guess  

Anyway, I don't think it's abusive or anything so banning it seems excessive but 1) I don' think there is any benefit (and there may be some harm) to pushing developmental activities onto kids really early and 2) I have real problems with babies and young children watching TV/videos/computer games so that, on it's own makes it a bad idea for me.

[Llyra]

I am a reading specialist. I have 15 years experience in the field of early literacy development, and I am very conversant with the current research on reading and the teaching of reading. I'm not saying that to be all ooh, special me. I'm just revealing which hat I'm wearing.

I think the program is a waste of time and money. I think the primary danger is that children are spending their valuable learning and growing time in front of a screen for no good purpose at all. I think that the research on how literacy develops and can be cultivated does not support this kind of approach, and that the program is an attempt to play on parents' fears and anxieties to make a profit.

However, I don't think it should be banned. Used in moderation, with common sense, by a parent with a healthy sense of humor and sense of perspective, and in the context of an otherwise positive, nurturing, enriching environment, I doubt the program does very much harm at all. It might even be a fun activity for a parent or child to share, in those circumstances. I do think that deceptive and misleading marketing of the program should be prohibited.

[P.J.]

I signed the petition against this program. CFCC is saying is that this program is aimed at lower socio-economic families ~and costs $200! Apparently, if parents follow the advice given with the product, their baby will have 200 hours sitting in front of a screen by the time they are 9 months! 200 hours!!!

In general I think it's a bit crazy the way people are trying to teach babies and young children things they will learn in good time anyway. Early childhood is about playing and learning through play. It's not fair to expect a baby or even a young child to know how to read. Of course, some kids are naturally inclined to want to learn how to read ~but they are in the minority, by far. And I doubt any baby wants to learn how to read!

I think this program is just putting extra pressure on young children. They will get plenty of time to learn how to read once they're in school. This time of their lives goes by so quick and is really precious; it should be left to playing and discovering the world naturally through play. Furthermore, it is not recommended to sit children under the age of two in front of a tv screen. It has been proven NOT to be good for them, no matter what they're watching.

[Knitting Mama]

I haven't used this program myself, so my opinion is formed based on what I have heard about it from the people I know who do have it. It sounds to me like it teaches children sight words. Sight words are an integral part of reading, but they are not the end-all and be-all of reading. So, I believe the program, used in moderation, could help a child learn one of the components of reading, but no I do not believe the program will teach children to be fluent readers.

[katelove]

 I just read an article about these videos today. Not specifically the Learn To Read ones I don't think but the Baby Einstein etc educational videos. The research (which unfortunately isn't linked in the article) found that babies who watched the videos had  8-10 fewer words than babies who hadn't watched them.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1650352,00.html

[megannt]

As a teacher, I personally am not a fan of this program. Reading is a developmental milestone and not a skill that can be 'jump started' in order to put the child ahead. The  younger years are such a wonderful time full of imaginative play and creativity. Why would you want to wile that time away putting your baby in front of a screen and using flash cards? There has been a lot of press lately that challenges the idea that early rigorous academics help little ones get ahead. When they are young, it is such a precious time to cultivate curiosity and creativity -- two skills that will carry your child as they  follow future academic plans and career fields.

Also, are the parents using this program so that their children can be more successful in the future? Or are they trying to "keep up the Joneses" as far as child rearing is concerned? Are they doing it for bragging rights? Or to honestly stimulate the mind of their little ones? I think this program could be abused easily but, if used in moderation, wouldn't be as harmful.

Personally, I think of about a thousand of things I'd rather be doing with my daughter than reading flash cards and watching TV. Babyhood just isn't the time for rigorous academia, it just doesn't seem natural.

[babygirlie]

1. I'm guessing most people voting never tried the program.

2. How is learning evil?

3. The program says no more than 30 minutes a day. Most people let their children watch 15 hours of mindless tv a day but that's ok because it's "fun"?

4. A lot of assumptions that this isn't a "fun" program

5. Who cares if it teaches someone to read if they enjoy it ultimately? Shall we ban Sesame Street for daring to be educational? Same thing.

I actually put all the shows on one dvd so I have like this huge 6 hour loop of baby can read tv (I don't like hitting the play button or listening to the intro and I'm not selling it or anything weird) and this was my child's ultimate favorite show ever since something like 6 months old. When it's on she is glued to the tv and she screams and waves and is happy. I hardly doubt that is damaging her. Now watching it on a 6 hour loop is probably damaging and I'm not saying that's what happens.. His daughter is also a woman now and I would take her opinion over those with no experience and she appears to be a well rounded individual.

Can my 2 year old read? Beats me, she can't even talk but I do know she hates pbs or any other show compared to this dang dvd. She also loves her signing dvd and she can't sign. I'd rather her watch something educational than crud like Manny the construction worker or whatever. I'm very happy she enjoys this and if she didn't she wouldn't watch them. Then again my daughter detests things like toys and people so my kid is "different". She gets an extreme thrill seeing words on tv. We're talking jumping up and down screaming on her tip toes flipping out excited. Cries when barney's on.

And yes, I was going to be a no tv ever at all in my house and well.. things change, sue me. Having a child rock for hours and hours staring at the wall and watching their world change with a simple dvd and have them interact with anything is a big deal and I for one, am grateful this guy made these shows.

[MusicianDad]

Other. I don't know if it's harmful, and I don't care if it works. It's a waste of money and any advanced skills your baby may or may not acquire will no longer be advanced by grade three. It's just a way for someone to make millions off of the "OMGZ!!!! Check how smart my baby is!!!!!!!!!" mind set that so many parents seem to have. I honestly cannot even comprehend why someone would actually buy the program.

[MeganWoods]

I personally think it can be very damaging to a young mind to learn to read so early. From my personal research into this argument, I have to say I'm with Rudolf Steiner, Joseph Chilton Pierce, and several others who recommend waiting till a child is closer to 7 years of age before teaching them to read. If they pick it up on their own somehow prior, fine. But the idea is that a child under the age of 7 is almost entirely in their physical body, not in their intellectual reasoning mind. They need to be learning things they can see and touch and feel; not how to conceptualize words on paper. They need to be moving and exploring - when we try to get them into their reasoning minds so early they miss out on vital experiences.

Just because a child can repeat words or letters... well, it means nothing of their intellectual capacity frankly.

The fact that the program is then played on a television is just adding insult to injury. What is the rush? What is a young child supposed to do with this ability anyhow? Do we truly think they'll use this 'ability' to then read all the classics, study philosophy, write a book by age 5?

I am very curious to know what the early reading proponents' real goal is. So we have all these toddlers reading - how is their life better for it?

[katelove]

Originally Posted by babygirlie 

1. I'm guessing most people voting never tried the program. I can only answer for myself but, you are correct, I have never tried the program.

2. How is learning evil? Learning isn't evil and I wouldn't describe the program as evil. I don't think it's healthy or developmentally beneficial though.

3. The program says no more than 30 minutes a day. Most people let their children watch 15 hours of mindless tv a day but that's ok because it's "fun"? I said I wouldn't answer for everyone else but I would hazzard a guess that most MDC families in fact do *not* allow their children to watch 15 hours of TV a day. Speaking for myself , my 11 m.o. has only ever watched incidental TV. By that I mean that we do not watch TV at home when she is awake (when she's asleep we watch on the computer with headphones) hae have not done so since she was born. However, there have been TVs on in shops or waiting rooms sometimes or in other people's houses and I haven't been able to control that. So I can't say she is 100% TV free but she is at home.

4. A lot of assumptions that this isn't a "fun" program. To be honest I don't care if it's fun or not. I don't think it's beneficial so I wouldn't use it. The most fun my baby can imagine at the moment is standing on my lap while I drive the car. Am I going to let her? Of course not. And no, I don't think the program is as damaging as going through a windscreen. My point is that fun doesn't automatically mean beneficial.

5. Who cares if it teaches someone to read if they enjoy it ultimately? Because I don't think it's good to force or "hothouse" learning when they aren't developmentally ready.

Shall we ban Sesame Street for daring to be educational? Same thing. Not quite the same though is it? Because Sesame Street isn't being sold to us. It isn't being aimed at the under 1s. And, while it has educational content, it isn't specifically trying to "hothouse" children to learn a particular skill super early. That said, I don't think kids would be disadvantaged if they didn't watch Sesame Street either. 

 His daughter is also a woman now and I would take her opinion over those with no experience and she appears to be a well rounded individual. TBH, this means nothing to me. The creators daughter thinks it's good? So no bias there at all in that sample group of one  I'm not sure if you had a chance to read the article I linked but it was reporting a piece of research which actually found that babies who watched BE educational programs (although not specifically this reading one we're talking about) had fewer words than babies who didn't. That means more to me than anything the creator's daughter may do or say or appear.

And yes, I was going to be a no tv ever at all in my house and well.. things change, sue me. Having a child rock for hours and hours staring at the wall and watching their world change with a simple dvd and have them interact with anything is a big deal and I for one, am grateful this guy made these shows. Well I think it's a bit different if your child has a special need of some sort. In that circumstance then the benefits may well outweight the negatives and it would be up to the parents to assess that for their own child as you have clearly done. And I certainly don't criticise you for that. But I don't think that changes the fact that, overall, these programs are not what they claim to be and shouldn't be trying to suck parents into buying something that is not only *not* beneficial but in fact may be harmful to development and requires children to watch TV at an age when most of the relevant authorities and experts recommend that they be watching no TV at all.

[Shaki]

Originally Posted by MusicianDad 

Other. I don't know if it's harmful, and I don't care if it works. It's a waste of money and any advanced skills your baby may or may not acquire will no longer be advanced by grade three. It's just a way for someone to make millions off of the "OMGZ!!!! Check how smart my baby is!!!!!!!!!" mind set that so many parents seem to have. I honestly cannot even comprehend why someone would actually buy the program.

Yep, this is my perspective as well.

[mom2happy]

Originally Posted by MusicianDad 

Other. I don't know if it's harmful, and I don't care if it works. It's a waste of money and any advanced skills your baby may or may not acquire will no longer be advanced by grade three. It's just a way for someone to make millions off of the "OMGZ!!!! Check how smart my baby is!!!!!!!!!" mind set that so many parents seem to have. I honestly cannot even comprehend why someone would actually buy the program.

Exactly what I think.

It's a show- to put on a show about what your baby "knows".

If you want to put the tv on for the baby once in a while, there is no reason to spend $200.

[Adaline'sMama]

I didnt vote, because I dont think they should be illegal, but I also think its a pointless waste of money. I cant believe people would care if their baby could read.They are babies, they arent supposed to be learning to read. I wonder if it takes away from their ability to process things they are actually ready to learn. Now that DD is walking, she isnt saying new words everyday anymore  because shes focused on something else. So, i wonder if these videos would be confusing tp a babe.