Your Baby Can Read

[JoshuasMommy]

I just wanted to share our experience with everyone. On April 4th of this year I attended the Baby and Child Expo with my son Joshua who will be 3 in July. While there I met Dr.Titzer who was promoting his learning to read system. I was very impressed with what he told me and the demonstration of the DVD sytem as well as blown away by the testimonials. Needless to say I purchased the system for my son. My only hesitation was the fact that Joshua won't watch TV unless it Sesame Street. I was afraid he wouldn't have interest in the DVD's. Wow! Was I wrong. He fell in love with the starter video and has now moved on to the second in the 5 part series. He is actually reading words. :thumb I am so amazed. The system is designed to start teaching children to read as early as 3 months. Please check out the web site www.yourbabycanread.com. My son knows his alphabet inside and out and can count to 30 forward and backwards and is now learning to read words. I am overflowing with pride and excitement for him. Sorry this is so long I just really wanted to share with all of you. Tina :)

[applejuice]

I used the Glenn Dolman method a generation ago for my children; he is from the Human Potential Movement in PA .

He sold books for reading and math.

I eventually used both methods, but my children did not learn to read until age 6-7.

[Dar]

Teaching a 3 month old baby how to read? Arrrghh! Why bother? What's the hurry? Why not enjoy smelling little baby heads and kissing their fingers and singing songs... why put them on the racetrack to better-faster-younger as freakin' newborns?

All research that I've seen shows that learning to read later has no effect on reading skill as an adult or adolescent. However, studies do show that teaching children to read at younger ages can descrease the pleasure they take in reading, and how much time they chose to spend reading.

If your child is interested in reading at 2 or 3, fine, play with it, talk about it, whatever. But don't push... and parroting numbers forwards and backwards is pretty meaningless... many kids, IMO, get into a counting thing where they spend a few weeks counting higher and higher, for fun, and they enjoy figuring out the linguistic patterns of our number system... that's fun.

Dar

[Faith]

I don't mean this to be rude at all... I just honestly don't get it. Why would you *want* your baby to read? :confused:

I know about this program. I saw a long TV program on it a few years ago. DH and I agreed that is was interesting and looked 'neat,' but neither one of us understood the point of it at all.

We wanted our babies to be babies, our kids to act like kids, yk? We want their learning to be child-directed and aimed at their interests, when they are old enough.

I guess this is just another 'to each their own' thing.

[TiredX2]

Be ready for problems with early readers, lol.

DD was self-taught before she turned four and came up with some questions that would have better been left til later (what are guns and why can't you have them here? what is an adult superstore? etc...)

DS is just starting to really recognize letters (all on his own, we read a horribly small amt which I feel very guilty about--- its so much harder w/2) and he is 2.5. I think that's great.

If learning to read is something your child wants to do--- great! I would be hesitant to let a child that young (3 months) watch TV/videos/DVDs though due to the AAP warnings regarding that.

[sleeping queen]

Do they teach reading by learning phonics?

[JoshuasMommy]

The video's are fun to watch. They are about children, animals and songs. And they are presented by children and meant to be a shared experience between parent and child. The fact that it is teaching them to read at the same time is an added benfit. Frankly I am taken back by the responses to my post. I was feeling excited and proud when I shared our story this morning. My son loves to learn and experience things. Obviously these video's aren't for everyone.

[SagMom]

Obviously these video's aren't for everyone.

I guess not.

Frankly, your initial post sounded like spam to me--but then I realized that you've posted in other areas of mdc. Really, I thought you were trying to sell this program!
:confused:

But alarm bells went off for me on a number of issues--I don't have a problem with a child watching tv/videos when they're old enough to request them, but I would not park a child in front of the tv in infancy--especially not with the goal of learning to read.

Infants need to be snuggled and held and just loved. What's the point of being able to read if you can't understand what you're reading?

In my own experience, with my kids, reading happened when it was THEIR idea, well after their speaking ability had developed. In fact, it was after they had a large vocabulary and good understanding of abstract concepts. My youngest is not yet reading--he wasn't speaking until after his 2nd birthday and I find it amusing to imagine trying to teach him to read before he was even verbal.

But most of all, I believe that children should direct their own learning--that they learn best when they're interested in the subject matter and when it's something that they want to learn. I'd object to any experience where the parent decides a child is going to learn something. (My oldest was taught to read, before he was ready--it was disasterous.)

That said, I would consider using this program if my 3 month old were to say, "Mommy, I want to learn to read." and if reading alongside me was not satisfying his urge.

[thistle]

I started the Glen Doman program with dd when she was about 19 months, but I actually only did it for like a week and then quit b/c I am lazy. She was enjoying it though. I was really suprised when she found the "Mommy" and "Daddy" cards and could differentiate between the two. This was months later. She just turned 2 and is getting really interested in letters and counting. We read to her all the time and she watches absolutely no tv.

I bought the Doman book used, out of perverse curiosity rather than a real interest in using the methods. I was impressed at how respectful he is toward children though. He insists that you only do it as a fun activity for the child and that if the child doesn't seem to be enjoying it to quit.

He also has quite a little speech about how children shouldn't be confined to playpens.

I don't know anything about this program but I am SURE that parking a 3 mo baby in front of a dvd is a bad idea.

[Maeve]

I completely agree. I *do not* think that parking a child in front of the tv is in any way good for them. Plus, there is a huge difference between word recognition and reading/comprehension. They may be able to recognize the word and point it out, but it's not the same as actually reading and understanding what is read. Kwim?
But then again, I'm really not big on tv watching for kids. I would much rather have them doing something or reading to them myself (though my 6 yr old can read to herself now, I still like to :) . I believe they can learn so much more from parental interaction than from any video. And I also don't see the point in trying to push them at such a young age to read, etc. Too much pressure.

[MamaMonica]

My dd started reading at four when she sat at her magandoodle and I heard her say" C-A-T " and sound it out and then say "cat!" making the link. I think they can learn without programs at their own pace and if you push them, where's the joy in that?

I think kids need to be kids and what's the rush?

[JoshuasMommy]

I am confused...Where is it written in my original post that I advocate parking my child or yours in front of the television or forcing him to learn? My intent was to a express how good I was feeling about my son and his thirst for learning. Which, I might add is self initiated. And to share a product that I have used and think is great. It's a 20 minute video and he enjoys it and is learning something while being entertained. That simple...

[SagMom]

I am confused...Where is it written in my original post that I advocate parking my child or yours in front of the television or forcing him to learn?


Since the product you're speaking of is a DVD, using it would require sitting in front of a tv set, no? You also wrote that it is designed for children as young as 3 months. Since a child of that age cannot ASK to use the program, it must be assumed that this is a parent-led experience. Many of us were pointing that out--that it's not at the CHILD's request that they are using this program.

Personally, my mention of "you" was in a general, collective sense--I was not pointing to you, personally.

There are lots of products and methods out there--what you love or think is great, others won't. People raised some questions about this program and made some good points--you can consider them, or not.

[zealsmom]

Personally, I would much rather have my child outside, exploring life, telling stories, acting them out, dressing up, being creative than him being able to read the words on a given page. They will learn to read, folks. I don't doubt that at all. But when the focus moves from hearing and imagining a story to actually decoding or recognizing the words, then the EXPERIENCE changes. My 3 year old is starting to read, spell aan write words and frankly I would have liked to see him spend more time with the experience of storytelling etc than move so quickly into the decoding. That said, we do regularly take the focus off of the actual printed word and stress the creativity and imaginative end of stories and storytelling, unique vocab etc. Because who really cares if you could read words and count when you were three or whenever? I sure don't think that timeline is anything to brag about if it means the kid is losing opportunities to truly be creative, which can be hard to be if you are focusing on symbols (ie letters, numbers)

[peacenlove]

I think it is great that you have found somthing that you enjoy and you think your dc is learning from! I think children need to be exposed to many different forms of stimulation and learning. My son reads, i read. I read to my son. My son also watches video's, plays board games, computer games, lego. plays at the beach at the park and plays by himself. I would not presume to tell any other parent how to teach their child. I think anything you do with good intentions is all your kids need. I find the tone of some of the posters to be - a bit harsh. Just my $.02

peace kathleen

[Aura_Kitten]

Personally, I would much rather have my child outside, exploring life, telling stories, acting them out, dressing up, being creative than him being able to read the words on a given page.

:nod me too.

my son is just beginning to explore reading. as much as i wanted to teach him to read early (i learned to read when i was about 2), i also understood that maybe that wasn't what was really best for him.

the only way to teach a child that young (3 months?!) to read would be to use the whole-word method... which isn't a good way to teach a child how to read. using phonics leads to better readers and better reading *comprehension*, and a better ability to *think* later in life than the whole-word method. i'd be wary of this program... if for no other reason than it seems very counter-productive to sit a child down to watch TV in order to teach them how to READ. kids that young don't need 20 minutes of their active play time taken up by TV -- they don't need TV at all. read to them, and they'll learn to read. why put so much emphasis on how *soon* they're able to?

(anyone ever read the satire, Learn to read with BOOK?)

[TiredX2]

Okay, I'm intrigued. Going to check it out at the library. DD will probably be *ticked* that I am wasting her video time on a "baby show" lol!

[Dar]

to use the whole-word method... which isn't a good way to teach a child how to read. using phonics leads to better readers and better reading *comprehension*, and a better ability to *think* later in life than the whole-word method.

My experience has been the opposite, both as a teacher and a mom. Actually, whole-word or look-say hasn't been really used in twenty years, but IME whole language creates better readers, and straight phonics leads to kids who think sounding out *is* reading...

Dar

[moominmamma]

I'm with Dar. Some kids need phonics to get started in reading. Those who naturally gravitate to whole-word reading become, in my experience, extremely proficient fluent readers with excellent comprehension. Two of my three independent readers learned (self-taught) using a whole-word approach. They have higher levels of comprehension than their sibling, who used primarily a phonetic approach. The gap is narrowing somewhat as time goes on, but for the first year or two of fluent reading the kids who saw a word and just knew what it was could then think about what it meant, whereas the kids who had to dissect a word into letters and build up the phonemes into a word had already used up a lot of energy just in the decoding process and had less for comprehension.

Of course if you're using flashcards at age 3 months, you don't really know whether your child will "naturally" gravitate to whole-word reading. This is the beef I have with schools too: if you choose an approach for a child or for a population of children, you'll choose the wrong approach a significant proportion of the time, for a significant proportion of children.

As the mom of one startlingly precocious self-taught early reader, I second the caution others have raised: early reading has its pitfalls. I really wish my eldest had had at least one or two more years of pre-literate existence. There's a precious window of opportunity for the honing of other intellectual skills that closes when a child becomes a fluent reader. There is absolutely no point, IMO, in hurrying that window shut, simply because our society puts such value on reading skills.

Miranda

[lilyka]

I have also heard that teaching children to read, esepcially early, will decrease thier ability to produce and appreciate art. The basic principal was that before we learn to read we see the world as a whole. Samew with art. we look at what is there and draw it or we look at a picture and zero in on different things. Once we start reading though we nconsciencely see the world from top to bottom and left to right which decreases our ability to just look at things. If that makes any sense.

Also there is just so much I wouldn't want my baby oir cmall child reading and so much other things I would rather them be doing than sitting around watching videos or looking at flash cards. I think there are definite benifits to actively delaying reading. granted there are those kids who will read regardless of the amount of instruction we give them or don't. They are fine and natural. but I see no reason to teach a small child and for heavens sake, especially a baby, to read.

[JoshuasMommy]

FYI this program does not use Phonics they use whole words. Has anyone looked at the website? I don't think that these video's are what people expect when you say they are capable of teaching your child to read. My son is a late talker. One nice thing about the video is that it emphasises many of the words we have been learning and using in songs and play. Names of body parts, colors, animals and their sounds, clapping, waving etc. It has helped him a great deal in pronounciation. Plus he loves music and dancing and there are songs like Twinkle Twinkle, Head, Shoulders, Knees and Toes etc. Because of the way they present a word for instance clap: They show the word CLAP, they pronounce it twice while using an arrow left to right to show the direction we read in. Can you say clap? Then they show a child clapping. Can you clap? From seeing the word clap, saying the word clap and clapping my son is now able to recognize the word clap when he see's it written. He looks at the word clap and says clap and he claps. I am sure that when the day comes that he is able to recognize many many words then he will begin to read. I wanted to explain a little since I feel like people aren't understanding what they are so quick to disregard and find fault in. It may not be what you want your children to experience. I just thought it might be a useful tool for some parents and since I posted it under home learning it made sense to me.

[TiredX2]

JoshuasMommy---

Sorry we have all given you such a harsh welcome. :D The people are really nice here, though.

I think your first post sounded a bit like an infomercial, I was afraid you were not a real MDC mom, but someone trying to sell something. I am very much on the child led/unschooling side of the spectrum, so the product didn't intrest me too much. That said, since your DS has enjoyed it and I have a DS the same age (8/01) and my library has it--- what the heck? Its only 20 minutes out of our lives.

Thanks for the recommendation!

Kay

[JoshuasMommy]

You are welcome Kay.

[Aura_Kitten]

Its only 20 minutes out of our lives.

hmm, i guess this is where we differ.

20 minutes is, IMO, a decent chunk out of a child's day.

[eilonwy]

As an early reader, I'm really offended by some of the statements made about kids who read early, and puzzled as well. Yeah, there are studies that say that early readers aren't as artistic as later ones, but there are also studies that say that late readers are less successful in school and life than early ones. You can find a study to say anything you want to believe. :shrug I disagree with the idea that it's always a bad thing to read early.

That said, I'm not in favor of teaching infants to read, especially with videos. I have considered getting Eli some early phonics videos in the past few months, because he's asking to read and showing serious interest in reading but I don't have the energy to deal with it right now (I'm 8 months pregnant). I decided against it because I'd much rather wait two or three months and do the work interactively than sit him in front of the television, even if it's only for 20 minutes at a time. That's just my personal opinion, though. I have very strong feelings about television and young children, and serious doubts about anything that calls itself "educational viewing" aimed at children under two when the AAP says that children under two shouldn't watch any television at all.

Eli hasn't asked for videos to learn to read (because he doesn't know that's an option, without a doubt) but he has been asking to learn to read. I do what I can for now, and I'm hoping he's still interested by the time I have the energy to do what he needs me to do to facilitate his learning efforts.

I read Glen Dolman's book and found it a bit disturbing, though I'm not sure I could put my finger on why. It may be that I'm just way too attached to phonics, or maybe my own issues with teaching infants to read. Maybe it's the fact that the Human Potential place that he runs hasn't produced a single genius in the 40 years it's been around, but he's still telling parents that that's what it does. :shrug You can see lots of children doing spectacular tricks, but there's almost no evidence that actual learning is taking place. And you never see adult graduates being used to sell the program.. why do you think that is?

[lilyka]

Some kids will learn to read early and there is nothing you can do to stop them, but there is absolutely no need to teach a child who isn't pushing that already. let them focus on other things. reading just changes the way the brain works for better or worse and opens up whole new worlds. for better or worse.

but I htink we can all agree that no child should be pushed to read before they are considerable older. Also early reading does not equal any accademic advantage. Chances are most of the kids who teach themselves to read early, learned early because they were academically advanced. not the other way around, becoming accademically advanced because someone taught them to read early.

[SagMom]

I disagree with the idea that it's always a bad thing to read early.


I don't think anyone said this (though I may certainly have missed it.) I think that whatever age the child shows an interest in reading, and subsequently learns to read, is perfectly right for that child. What I object to is children being forced into learning to read before they're ready. (I can't believe that there are any 3 month old infants out there who are ready to learn to read.) Some people get up in arms over the word "forced." What I mean is that they're made, encouraged, whatever, before the child is ready.

[MamaMonica]

Lilyka, ITA with what you said.

[zealsmom]

As an early reader, I'm really offended by some of the statements made about kids who read early, and puzzled as well. Yeah, there are studies that say that early readers aren't as artistic as later ones, but there are also studies that say that late readers are less successful in school and life than early ones. You can find a study to say anything you want to believe. :shrug I disagree with the idea that it's always a bad thing to read early.


Not sure why you would take offense. Noone here is saying that you personally are not creative or whatever. Dh and I were both early readers, quite fluent before entering kindergarten etc. People often comment on our creativity and artistic sense etc. But here's the thing: we both learned to read on our own volition, as will our child, as I guess you probably were. He will hardly be a 'late' reader, if he doesn't really pick it up and have fluency until he is 6 or 7, or even later for that matter. Why I am entering this discussion and what I can gather that people are commenting on, is how VERY early this program touts reading 'lessons'. Unless that 3 month old opens his little mouth and says "Mommy, Can you teach me how to read?" I see no reason for giving a 'lesson'. Read, sing songs, do fingerplays, tell stories, build towers, give them LITERACY, but please, please, please don't recreate a reading lesson before they are good and ready for it.

[Periwinkle]

:Puke


Sorry, I just came across this thread and am just horrified.

Putting an infant in front of the TV to teach the child to "read" (or more accurately, recognize different patterns and images on cue) goes against the very core of everything I believe in. I am going to go out on a limb here and say that it is categorically, without question, NOT AP.

YUCK.

[Periwinkle]

:Puke


Sorry, I just came across this thread and am just horrified.

Putting an infant in front of the TV to teach the child to "read" (or more accurately, recognize different patterns and images on cue) goes against the very core of everything I believe in.

YUCK.


[Edited for spelling]

[TiredX2]

20 minutes is, IMO, a decent chunk out of a child's day.

Oh, ITA. But we usually watch a video once or twice a week and I thought we could just watch this instead. That's why I mentioned that DD will probably be pissed off, I doubt she will like our family movie night devoted to a "Baby" show.

Just wanted to clarify.

[Charles Baudelaire]

My dd is an early reader, as were her father and I, but truthfully speaking, though I'm delighted she loves to read and essentially taught herself (with minimal direct instruction from us), I can't see the value of teaching them to recognize a handful of words.

From what I've read of Glen Doman's program, it's mostly whole-word recognition (like in the description of the video as given by the OP, for instance), but the down side to this is that English is one of the most vocabulary-rich languages on the planet. We have a vocabulary of something like 500,000 words (compared to about 1/5 of that for French or German). If you can teach your kid a few sight words, remember how small a tip of the iceberg that represents.

I guess my question would be this: Why bother? I guess I'm really asking this question partly because of the TV issue, since I can see that doing the parent-led flashcard thing at least necessitates having interaction between the parent and the child. TV doesn't require that interaction, though. For folks who might be inclined to argue that TV teaching children to read is better than most of the other :inthet out there, I'd agree -- but Healy's and the AAP's research suggests that *all* television is bad for the three-and-under set.

Not tryin' to sound like a jerk here :hide: but hey...what's wrong with, uh, reading to your kid? Nothing personal.

[Aura_Kitten]

we usually watch a video once or twice a week and I thought we could just watch this instead. That's why I mentioned that DD will probably be pissed off, I doubt she will like our family movie night devoted to a "Baby" show.

well... to me that's even more of a reason *not* to use this program then. if movies are a treat, and from what you're saying, they are, it seems quite unfair to force your child to watch a "Baby show" to attempt to force her to learn something.

man, that's just not right. let her have her movie night and keep everyone happy and peaceful. you will only accomplish the opposite of what you set out to do if you take away something she loves in order to push this on her.

i think Charles Baudelaire hit the nail well on the head:

Why bother? ... Healy's and the AAP's research suggests that *all* television is bad for the three-and-under set. ...what's wrong with, uh, reading to your kid? Nothing personal

:nod

if you spend a lot of time reading to your child, they will become voracious readers, and love to read. they will spend many more years enjoying books than their peers who are encouraged to watch TV. (this has been proven; i'm not trying to make anyone feel bad here, but this is statistically true. children who are read to, read.)

[Kristine]

I'm a bit startled that so many people have mentioned the AAP's recommendation of no television viewing for children under the age of 2. The AAP also has some interesting ideas about formula and how formula manufacturers should be allowed to have their say about breastfeeding campaigns! So I take EVERYTHING the AAP says with a grain of salt. I would like to know exactly what research was done and see the data for myself before I believe that any television for children under 2 is as bad as they claim it is. Their statements seem quite extreme to me. My husband was a child prodigy and adored Sesame Street at a very young age and it certainly didn't hurt him.

All of that said, we don't watch a lot of TV around our house. There are a few shows that we watch weekly, but that's it. I'm a huge book person and we have bookshelves in every room, and reading and writing are what I prefer to do in my spare time. Regardless of that, I don't think that the occasional bit of television is going to seriously harm my child. In fact, I bought the BBC's Muzzy DVD series for French when my son was a year old and my son adores it! He's learned quite a bit of French already and it hasn't hurt him a bit.

On the Glen Doman front, a poster mentioned the fact that his Institutes haven't produced any geniuses. I'm puzzled by this and would like to inquire what his/her definition of a "genius" is. Another Einstein perhaps? Because if you consider somebody with a high IQ a genius, I would venture to say that the Institutes probably have a lot of geniuses on their hands - geniuses who are happy people in their day-to-day lives that just don't happen to be famous. But again, I haven't delved deeply into who has and has not left the Institutes thoroughly, and I doubt anybody else has either. I would hate to think that anybody with a brilliant mind who went on to be a scientist later in life, an author, or whatever they fancied wouldn't be considered important unless they were famous or you had heard of them.

I've been using the Glen Doman bits of intelligence cards with my son who most sincerely begs for them! He knows who all the composers are, the explorers, dinosaurs, etc. It's a simple fact that children memorize and learn things on a daily basis. Drive by McDonalds enough, kids will learn what those golden arches are. Would you rather put junk into your child's brain, or something useful? I say useful.

It seems from reading this thread also that there are a lot of child-led advocates on board. That is great. However, if you introduce your child to something and they love it, is that wrong? Should you wait until your child displays an interest in everything before you even attempt to show him or her it? I don't think it has to be all or nothing. If your child isn't interested in something, simply stop. My child is interested in playing in our car, so I let him play in our car. He likes to water plants with the watering can outside, so he does that. He also wanted to unload the dishwasher when he was 10 months old, so we took out all the knives and sharp objects and let him try to put things away, which he now does with aplomb and actually loves it!

I guess the main point of my post would be to tell everybody that it doesn't have to be an either/or situation. There is a middle ground that can be employed, and nobody has the right answer for everybody, only for themselves. Learning things at a young age will not stunt you for life. Indeed, the acquisition of knowledge is a beautiful thing as long as it is acquired JOYFULLY and your child is happy.

[zealsmom]

My husband was a child prodigy and adored Sesame Street at a very young age and it certainly didn't hurt him.


That's great. I remember Sesame Street fondly myself. However, you do realize how Sesame Street has changed over the years. What used to be gentle programming is now fast paced, sponsored by pharmaceutical companies and just plain weird. I think we often do things because that is the way we had them done for us and we "turned out ok", "it didn't hurt" us, that kind of thing. But TV really is different now, commercials are different. There's lots of research out there on the topic. You may want to contact the New Mexico Media Literacy Project. Thought they are based in New Mexico, they work with people all over. They have lots of stats. or check out the Center for a New American Dream. THey have some good media literacy info too. You might also want to read Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman.


I've been using the Glen Doman bits of intelligence cards with my son who most sincerely begs for them! He knows who all the composers are, the explorers, dinosaurs, etc. It's a simple fact that children memorize and learn things on a daily basis. Drive by McDonalds enough, kids will learn what those golden arches are. Would you rather put junk into your child's brain, or something useful? I say useful.

Spitting out facts is fun for kids, yes. This just may be where we differ on the topic. Because I would rather see my son become a thoughtful, creative individual than be able to spit out facts. People marvel at this 3 year old's ability to look at a globe and name all the countries and many capitals, tell us about different dinosaurs and what period they were on the earth, name concertos etc. That's all well and good that he knows such things, but I value his thoughtfulness in a way that can really be described. btw, this is all knowledge he has gained from us reading to him, listening to music, and acting stuff out. So it is possible without the use of "intelligence cards" (does anyone else think that is a weird name for them?)


It seems from reading this thread also that there are a lot of child-led advocates on board. That is great. However, if you introduce your child to something and they love it, is that wrong? Should you wait until your child displays an interest in everything before you even attempt to show him or her it?

No. I think it isimportant to give your child as many experiences as possible so they can pick and choose what is important to them and run with it. We've tried to do that and the things he's chosen have been, actually, surprising. As I am sure there will be many more things he wants to learn that will surprise us. My son recently latched onto Spanish as something he wants to learn. So we have been listening to tapes, talking to everyone we know that speaks spanish and he has been carrying around a dictionary and saying "Como se dice..." whatever word he wants to know to everyone in the world. It's been a very WHOLE experience. He never did just learning one word at a time. But it's something I wouldn't have thought to introduce to him in a flash card, video, kind of way. That is just yucky in my opinion. I have tried languages and things that way. They haven't been the things that have truly stuck.

In the same way, he began asking to learn violin since just before his 2nd birthday. He had been around lots of stringed instruments but not violin. But everywhere we were he was noticing them. We would be driving down the road flipping radio stations and he would yell from the back "Stop. Go back! That was a violin!" Anyway, he asked for a little over a year before we got him into lessons. We waited for a reason. It instinctually felt wrong to have a two year old in a violin lesson instead of out playing. Because 20 minutes is a very big chunk of a child's day to us too. And now that he has got his exploring stage out on the instrument, he is really doing well with all the little things there are to learn. I'm comparing our violin experience to this because of the 20 minutes and the other experiences one can gain from waiting to learn something, but I do realize they are not the same.


the acquisition of knowledge is a beautiful thing as long as it is acquired JOYFULLY and your child is happy.
Yes! Thank you.

[Gentlegreen]

I guess the main point of my post would be to tell everybody that it doesn't have to be an either/or situation. There is a middle ground that can be employed, and nobody has the right answer for everybody, only for themselves. Learning things at a young age will not stunt you for life. Indeed, the acquisition of knowledge is a beautiful thing as long as it is acquired JOYFULLY and your child is happy.


Nice post, Kristine. I have been a homeschooling mom for a long time. One thing that I have learned quite well over the years is that different things work for different kids in different situations. Rigidity and dogma in any sort of learning mode can be harmful, whether it is structured learning or unschooling.

JM, seems like you and your son are having fun with the reading thing. I'm one of those anti-TV people, but a 20 minute commercial free DVD a few times a week will not impart any lasting harm, and he does seem to be learning. Time will tell if it is meaningful learning, but in the meantime you are delighting in his progress and he is basking in proud mama glow, which communicates a sense of accomplishment (and the self-satisfaction that comes with it) to him. I bet he is a bright and wonderful child.

Follow YOUR instincts, do things YOUR way. And have fun!

[emeraldangel]

JoshuasMommy,
When my now-7-year-old was barely a year old, I posted somewhere once about the Glenn Doman program for teaching your baby to read. I was also enthusiastic and thought it was really neat and was shocked at the horrified responses I received! I was definately doing something I thought was fun, might help academically and was not pressured or anything like that. :thumb

I was very enthusiastic that my children should learn about anything and everything, not in a pushy way, but in a way that says, "Hey! Life is interesting! Let's learn about it!". We read for 30 or more minutes before bed every night. We had tapes in the car all the time on all kinds of subjects and all kinds of music.

I do regret, though, even getting involved with showing videos. I thought of it as another way to add interesting learning opportunities and so I would let her watch a 30 minute Seasame Street or Richard Scarry video each day. (She was around 18 months or 2 years old.) Retrospectively, though, I would rather not use this avenue in the future and don't plan on using it with my next babe. It just turned into too much of a common everyday habit to watch a video and then the videos got longer, and now they are feature-length. I don't value TV watching, so I have had to trim out the movies after the fact, so they don't watch TV for two hours every day. Next time around, I'd rather have that a fact of life from the beginning - that TV doesn't have a place in our every day.

I am also no longer in support of the Doman program. (I know the program you are using is not Doman, but I've seen it before and it's a similar concept, if I remember correctly.) I am 100% for children learning anything they find interesting, no matter how young and for parents exposing them to many things, but "programs" are never as good, IMO, as the parents just investing their own time and attention in the child. Also, learning to recognize some words is quite a different matter from learning to read. My dd could recognize words when she was 14 months old from using the Doman cards, but she still didn't learn to read until I taught her phonics. Once she used phonics to familiarize herself with the words, then the words become sight words.

Incidentally, by the time my son (now 4) came along, I had wised up and I just taught him straight phonics and read to him. By phonics, he is learning to read right now and has been reading simple words since 3.5. The only "materials" I invested in was a set of alphabet flashcards and a magnet board with the magentic letters on it.

I don't know if my experience helps at all, but there ya go!

[Gale Force]

Not tryin' to sound like a jerk here :hide: but hey...what's wrong with, uh, reading to your kid? Nothing personal.

That's actually the method we have used here. LOL. Our son loves books and demands lots of adult interaction, so he knew all of his letter at about 18-20 months. His favorite thing at the county fair at 15 months was a bold sign with As and Es on it. I will admit, though, that if I could get him to watch a 20-minute video now and then, I sure would. It's probably more stimulation than me laying around, exhausted, attempting to be entertaining. He has been known to watch Baby Einstein but we are moving to the mountains and now he's too busy outside with sticks and dirt and water to sit down in front of the boob tube. So I follow him a bit zombie-like on the bad days, yearning for a bit of Baby Einstein. LOL

[eilonwy]

That's great. I remember Sesame Street fondly myself. However, you do realize how Sesame Street has changed over the years. What used to be gentle programming is now fast paced, sponsored by pharmaceutical companies and just plain weird.

:nod :nod :nod This is why I started videotaping Sesame Unpaved (old sesame street on Noggin in the middle of the night). I thought I was losing my mind when I saw a new Sesame Street and wondered if it really was as different as I thought. Turns out it is. Once upon a time, Sesame Street was indeed educational television; now it's a nonviolent alternative to other children's programming, but I would hardly call it educational.

Totally :OT: I saw a commercial yesterday between Berenstain Bears and Teletubbies (my niece loves television... whole different discussion. :rolleyes: ) which was not so much a commercial but a blatant political message aimed at preschoolers. I was shocked, not so much because I disagreed with the statement (I actually do agree with it) but because I thought that that was a totally inappropriate forum for it! Even on PBS Kids, your children will be inundated with political statements, as well as other advertising (my niece learned to recognize "Danimals" and many other logos from PBS advertising). For me, it was just one more argument against children watching television. It's all well and good to say "Watch TV with your child, then!" but lets face facts: most people don't.

I'm a bit startled that so many people have mentioned the AAP's recommendation of no television viewing for children under the age of 2. The AAP also has some interesting ideas about formula and how formula manufacturers should be allowed to have their say about breastfeeding campaigns! So I take EVERYTHING the AAP says with a grain of salt.

Fair enough! This happens to be one thing I agree with the AAP on, but I concede your point. :wink


Not sure why you would take offense. Noone here is saying that you personally are not creative or whatever. Dh and I were both early readers, quite fluent before entering kindergarten etc. People often comment on our creativity and artistic sense etc. But here's the thing: we both learned to read on our own volition, as will our child, as I guess you probably were.

True; I just had the distinct impression that a lot of people on this thread were just against the idea of kids reading early in general, or that they felt that many/most/all children who do read early are coerced into doing so. I don't think that's the case; Most of the people I know who are/were early readers are/were self-taught/directed. In fact, I can only think of one who wasn't. My mother taught my older brother to read when he was two years old because a) she thought that he might be dyslexic and wanted to teach him to read before his brain had settled into those patterns and b) the school system she lived in was crappy. :LOL

Spitting out facts is fun for kids, yes. This just may be where we differ on the topic. Because I would rather see my son become a thoughtful, creative individual than be able to spit out facts.

I think that most people would rather see thier child develop into a thoughtful, creative individual than one who spew facts... but it's true that children of a certain age like to memorize lists and such, and I think that it's a good and necessary foundation for devloping critical thinking skills. Like giving them something to have an idea *about* before they start arguing about it. Have you ever read The Well-Trained Mind? I felt the way you do about memorization until after I read it.

[TiredX2]

well... to me that's even more of a reason *not* to use this program then. if movies are a treat, and from what you're saying, they are, it seems quite unfair to force your child to watch a "Baby show" to attempt to force her to learn something.

No, the video would be for my son! DD has been reading (self-taught) for about a year and a half. We watch videos as a family, but she usually convinces DS what to watch. I think it would be okay for her to have to watch something that was a little more his speed once! (he is 2.5 years old). We probably won't watch it, though, because it just came into the library and they want to watch Lion King for our family movie this week. Oh well. No big loss, lol

[mollyeilis]

Off topic!

"I have also heard that teaching children to read, esepcially early, will decrease thier ability to produce and appreciate art. The basic principal was that before we learn to read we see the world as a whole. Samew with art."

Interesting! I taught myself to read by the time I was 2 (mom came in and I was reading a NEWSPAPER out loud). I also have almost NO interest in art. It's boring to me, well, sometimes I can look at something and have a "it's pretty" reaction, but beyond that, boring.

Of course, I don't feel my life is any less for it, it gives me more time to read! :)

[Dar]

I think there's a real difference between kids who teach themselves to read early, and kids who are taught to read early. I don't think there's ever a reason to use any kind of reading "program" with a young child. Answer questions, discuss some aspects of written language as they come up, read to your little ones, and when they're ready, they'll read.

Dar

[luv my 2 sweeties]

Of course, I don't feel my life is any less for it, it gives me more time to read!
Good point! :LOL I bet there are plenty of wonderful artists out there who don't read for pleasure much, and many other people who enjoy both persuits. Perhaps it's not so much a cause and effect relationship, but rather a correlation based on individual strengths, brain function, whatever.

I've been lurking on this thread with interest. Joshua'sMommy, welcome to the board. I think it's great that you've found something that your son likes that enriches him. Like many others, I first thought your OP was a sales pitch -- sorry! :shy I think the 3 month old thing raised quite a few eyebrows as well (including mine), but your son is much older. We have a couple of baby einstien videos, which I like, but I do think they go too far in suggesting that they are "educational" for babies. Showing a baby an apple on the TV screen? Umm, how about getting an apple from the fridge, letting the baby touch and hold it, then watch you eat it. (Perhaps an older baby could have a lick of the juice!) *That's* education for a baby, and mostly for toddlers too. Although I can't be self righteous -- my toddler watches some TV, and not all of it is educational. (Want a hint what his fav is? DS sometimes says his name is "Bob" -- as in "the Builder" Eek!)

Anyway, I've been trying hard *not* to slip in education about reading at every opportunity to my almost 4 y.o. She's got *all* the pre-reading signs going, and is even starting to sound out letters and simple words. I love reading so much that it's *really* hard for me to restrain myself, but I don't want to give her the impression that she's not progressing fast enough. She's way ahead of the norm, but she doesn't know that! My quizing her about letter sounds or whatever might just make her think that she's not working hard enough at this reading thing, when in reality, I expect she'll aquire reading on her own (with my help only when she asks for it) before she's 5. I'm not perfect though! I sometimes find myself asking her what she thinks a word says. Why oh why is it so hard for some of us to leave our kids alone? :LOL It's a journey, I guess. :)

[zealsmom]

Like giving them something to have an idea *about* before they start arguing about it. Have you ever read The Well-Trained Mind? I felt the way you do about memorization until after I read it.

Yes, I have. In fact, I kind of have a 'well-trained mind' husband. For those of you that have met him, you know he is able to carry his own on ideas etc. But I still feel strongly about memorizing lists etc. The difference for him is that he is 'well-trained' on his own, because of his own interests, in a very WHOLE sense. While we are reading things like the Greek myths etc. with our kiddo, we are not doing it in a check-it-off-the-list kind of a way. But because we just scour the library, read in every section, and this happened to be something we came upon. So he can already speak of persephone and pandora without it being something that he was told he needed to learn so his mind would be 'well-trained'. Well read and being able to express one's ideas thoughtfully does not neccesarily have to mean that you memorized a bunch of facts. Does that make any sense at all? I feel like I am babbling today.

[Rhonwyn]

I don't mean this to be rude at all... I just honestly don't get it. Why would you *want* your baby to read? :confused:

I know about this program. I saw a long TV program on it a few years ago. DH and I agreed that is was interesting and looked 'neat,' but neither one of us understood the point of it at all.

We wanted our babies to be babies, our kids to act like kids, yk? We want their learning to be child-directed and aimed at their interests, when they are old enough.

I guess this is just another 'to each their own' thing.

I am uncomfortable with the questions my 8 year old asks me from things he has read much less having a 3 year old ask me. Example: Mama, why are the waitresses topless? He is reading stuff he sees out the car window not stuff lying around at home. How do I answer that?

No thank you, I will wait for my kids to be ready and learning to read on their own before I introduce it to them. Also, we don't watch TV or videos or computer games so it shouldn't be a problem.

[Rhonwyn]

:nod me too.

the only way to teach a child that young (3 months?!) to read would be to use the whole-word method... which isn't a good way to teach a child how to read. using phonics leads to better readers and better reading *comprehension*, and a better ability to *think* later in life than the whole-word method.


I took a speed reading course where the instructor said the complete opposite. Phonics slows you down to the speed of sound. Personally, I think a combination is best. Whole word allows for faster reading and comprehension while phonics is great for approaching new words.

[emeraldangel]

You're right, Rhonwyn, about phonics is good for new words and whole words is good for speed. What the anti-phonics camp always seems to miss, though, IMNSHO, is that people who learn phonics don't sound out every word for the rest of their lives! :nod It starts out phonics and picks up speed; once you learn the word, it's a sight word for the rest of your life! But the phonics is still handy when you meet Mr. Thumptrapplekin and you have to do a decent job with his name. :)

[Dar]

I don't think anyone would argue that phoentic decoding skills aren't sometimes used to reading - the argument is over how explicitly they need to be taught. Children who learn to read without explicit phonics instruction develop phonemic awareness and the ability to decode words through reading, naturally.

It's like talking - you can "ba-ba-ba" back to your baby when she starts saying "ba-ba-ba" to you, but you don't have to sit down and teach her to say every sound correctly before she can talk. After she can talk fluently, though, she'll know all of the sounds, although she may not be conscious of them.

I was amazed at 27 or so, when I learned that there are actually two different /th/ sounds... the one in "thin" and the one in "then", But I had been using them correctly and correctly pronouncing words with each for over 20 years...

Dar

[SagMom]

Children who learn to read without explicit phonics instruction develop phonemic awareness and the ability to decode words through reading, naturally.



This is really interesting to see happen. When my dd was 4 she told me she wanted me to show her how to read. Until that time, I'd read to her, alot, but we hadn't done any instruction whatsoever. Since she was asking me to teach her though, I began with some phonics. She bailed on our "lessons" almost immediately. I can still hear her voice telling me, "Mooooooooom! I already KNOW the SOUNDS the letters make! What I want to know is how to READ!"

It was true. She knew the sounds. She refused any further instruction, and a few months later she was reading beginning chapter books on her own, seemingly out of the blue. For whatever reason, there was some missing link in her mind between know the sounds the letters make and actually reading. It was very interesting to me to find that simply knowing the phonics was not the equivalent of reading. (I was taught with "Dick and Jane" and when phonics was introduced, it was THE way to read.)

Learning to read is a very complex thing--I don't mean that it's hard or that it needs to be taught or drilled, but that so many aspects of a child's development need to come together at the same time in order for it all to click. That's why I think it's so important for the CHILD to initiate it--only they will know when they're ready. (It's like walking and talking--you can "teach" it all you want, but the child isn't going to do it until they're ready. AND they will do both even if you don't teach them to!)

I've spoken to many teachers, reading specialists and even an LDS. When I've asked "HOW do we learn to read?" they all shrug their shoulders. They can talk about all the reading "methods" that exist, and they each have their theories about the best ways, but even the "experts" don't really know how reading happens. That should tell us something.

[mollyeilis]

Joan, that's interesting, and makes me think about the previous thinking I've done about reading. :) Having read SO young and being surrounded by people who don't read that early, I think a lot about it. In addition I've had vision issues (and, yes, I do see the link between my rampant novel reading, reading myself to sleep, and near-sightedness...:o) and I think about what the difference between vision, object recognition, and reading is.

For instance, if I recognize a Korean character (I live in a very Korean city and my hubby is half) but don't know what it means, is that recognition or reading? Before the pregnancy brain took over I was teaching myself how to write words and how to "read" words, which meant you could give me a Korean word orally or written out in English letters and I could write it in hangul (the characters), or I could see a sign and sound it out, but I didn't know what it meant. So I guess that's Korean phonics. But not actual reading. Hmm.

My friend has a daughter who is 6 now. When she was about 3, I KNOW she was reading. She could find words in a brand new book (never purchased or checked out before) and say them. When I was watching her, I would say "wow, D, you are reading!" But she'd say "no, I'm not in school, I can't read." Her mom (a former and now current teacher who was being a SAH at the time but does NOT believe in homeschooling) had said over and over and over again to her all the wonderful things she would learn to do in school, and I think it made her DD think she couldn't do those things at home! I KNOW she was reading, I saw it time and time again, but since she wasn't in school the little girl refused to call what she was doing "reading". Too odd.


Earlier conversation here made me think hard as well. Some have said "why not read to your child", "why watch a video" and so on. But to me, it's all a continuum. If a 20 minute video (which the OP mentioned is meant to be watched WITH a parent) shows a kiddo how to sound something out and shows the entire word and shows what the word means, I'm just not sure how far away that is from reading to a kiddo.

That's how my mom read to us. She would always point to the word as she read each one, which showed us how to track the words, and if it was a long word she would sound it out. That's not that much different, it's all on a continuum of teaching/learning/reading.

That video sounds like the "old school" Sesame Street...C-A-T..."Ku""A""Tu"...CAT...Cat! So it's perhaps something I might not buy, but it's really hard for me to see as horrible, either.

I'll go back to lurking now. :)

[Charles Baudelaire]

Literally, if you take the "speed of sound" comment at face value. :wink

First of all, I don't think it's entirely accurate to say that experts in reading don't have any idea how it is we come to learn how to read. I'm not an expert, but my understanding is that it's essentially a combination of phonics and whole language in English.

Clever as the speed-reading instructors' commentary about mach I reading speed was, he was talking about adult learners in an adult learning context. I contend that children or preliterate adults learn to read -- and actually DO read -- very differently than literate adults or confident child readers.

In English, anyway, we learn the sounds of the consonants and vowels -- ideally in a phonetic context, where short vowels are taught first and in exclusion, and then long vowels are added later. We learn blended sounds (bl, br, st, sh) and so on when those basics have been mastered, and pretty soon, we can "sound out" an unfamiliar word when we run across it and have a pretty fair idea that "polyhydramnios" is pronounced POLL-ee-HI-dr-am-nee-ohs. In other words, the beginning reader isn't seeing "CAT," she's seeing "kuh, ah, t."

That's when whole-language skills start to take over: the beginning reader sees "cat" always gets pronounced "kuh, ah, t" and starts to pronounce it that way on sight: it becomes more similar to a Korean, Chinese, or Japanese character than it does to an English grouping of phonemes, because it gets pronounced the same way every time, whether we're dealing with a kitty, a disaster (catastrophe), a boat (catamaran), or a prison (Alcatraz).

The more a beginning reader is read to, especially with someone helpfully running his or her finger under the words, the more the beginning reader is able to pick up sight words that don't follow the rules of phonics (the, a, to, and others) and add to her personal repertoire of words she recognizes on sight. It also helps phonetically because the beginning reader can see an unfamiliar word with a weird pronunciation (e.g., "orphan," which my dd initially pronounced as "OR-pan") and hear the parent pronounce it correctly. This in turn makes it easier to deal with words that have a similar construction (e.g., words like "telephone" become almost automatically pronounced "TEL-if-own," not "TEL-lip-own" because that "ph" thing in "orphan" has been cleared up.) Finally, I think reading aloud helps with the weirdest and most mysterious part of the reading process, and that's the blending-together of "kuh, ah, t" into CAT. I think it's like following a good choreographer who's broken down the dance into steps, but then turns on the music and runs through the combo: experiencing the dance of reading the way it's "supposed to" sound all blended together helps to make the whole process "click" for the beginning reader.

In other words, whole language reinforces phonics and phonics reinforces whole language. I think ideally a parent should start out reading to their babies, teach phonics, read to their toddler, teach phonics, read to their child, et cetera. Well anyway, that's what worked for us. :book

[SagMom]

First of all, I don't think it's entirely accurate to say that experts in reading don't have any idea how it is we come to learn how to read. I'm not an expert, but my understanding is that it's essentially a combination of phonics and whole language in English.

Except that phonics and whole language are methods of teaching reading, not an explanation as to how a person actually LEARNS to read.


In English, anyway, we learn the sounds of the consonants and vowels -- ideally in a phonetic context, where short vowels are taught first and in exclusion, and then long vowels are added later. We learn blended sounds (bl, br, st, sh) and so on when those basics have been mastered, and pretty soon, we can "sound out" an unfamiliar word when we run across it and have a pretty fair idea that "polyhydramnios" is pronounced POLL-ee-HI-dr-am-nee-ohs. In other words, the beginning reader isn't seeing "CAT," she's seeing "kuh, ah, t."

This sounds very orderly and makes sense until you come across the people who have learned to read WITHOUT phonics instruction. I can't explain how they do it, but I've seen more than one child pick up a book and read it without having been taught. Perhaps they internalize the "rules" while being read to? Kids learn to speak long before they have any formal language classes--why do we assume they won't read without lessons?
[/QUOTE]

[Dar]

Yup. Actually, most of the kids I've known who learned to read on their own began with sight words, and then apparently intuited some rules of phonics unconsciously and began to be able to decode. At least, I know many fluent readers who never had one phonics lesson...

FWIW, the running the finger under words thing really bugged Rain. I tried it once or twice and she grabbed my hand and held it so I couldn't do it anymore. I tried to be low-key but it was distracting to her.

And the idea that Whole Language and Phonics are opposites is erroneous, so talking about whole language vs. phonics is meaningless. Whole Language includes appropriate, meaningful phonics instruction in context, but not phonics drills. Whole language uses authentic literature, not the controlled vocabulary readers used by phonics programs and the old look-say method (that was Dick and Jane). Students are immersed in a world of words and learn many ways and strategies for reading words, including phonics, semantic clues, sight words, and more.

Dar

[eilonwy]

Yup. Actually, most of the kids I've known who learned to read on their own began with sight words, and then apparently intuited some rules of phonics unconsciously and began to be able to decode. At least, I know many fluent readers who never had one phonics lesson...

I taught myself to read phonetically... but I understand that that's weird. :hide: The whole-word (which is different from "whole language") approach would have irritated me; I liked to dissect things, even as a tiny child. And for what it's worth, my mother read to me rarely, if at all. :shrug She spent most of my early childhood (all of my infancy) pregnant. During the times when she was willing/able to read to me, I discovered that I hated to be read to. "Give me the book back, mom. I can read it much faster on my own." I hated reading aloud too, but not because it was difficult for me. It was because reading out loud slowed me down to the speed of my mouth, and that got on my nerves. I only read to my brother and sisters because they begged me too, or because they needed help. I actually taught my brother how to read because I didn't want to have to do all the reading. I tried to teach my sisters, but it didn't work; one of them had severe vision problems so reading physically exhausted her and the other was dyslexic, and I couldn't wrap my little head around that. :shrug

[mollyeilis]

I haven't read much since I posted, but I wanted to mention that Korean is MUCH different than the other Asian languages. My Korean book says it is actually closer to the Turkish languages than to any Asian language.

When you see the characters, each one doesn't mean a set word or idea. Rather, it is made up of individual sounds, and you put the sounds in a certain order, and when you read each character you read it in the same order. So you are sounding out each mini-character within each character (in almost a circle, it's neat), then moving on to the next big character, and so on.

So it's really very phonetic, unlike other Asian languages.

Just wanted to clarify...I'm so surrounded by the culture in my family and city that I forget not everyone knows!!! :D

[moominmamma]

This sounds very orderly and makes sense until you come across the people who have learned to read WITHOUT phonics instruction. I can't explain how they do it, but I've seen more than one child pick up a book and read it without having been taught. Perhaps they internalize the "rules" while being read to? Kids learn to speak long before they have any formal language classes--why do we assume they won't read without lessons?


My eldest was definitely one of these kids. She had no phonics instruction; I had no idea she was even close to being ready to learn to read, and so I hadn't tried instruction yet. All of a sudden she was reading everything: newspapers, novels, computer manuals.

Then at age 5, about 8 months after attaining reading fluency, she was reading "Redwall". It's a pretty substantial kids' novel: maybe at a 5th/6th-grade level. She encountered no difficulty whatsoever and blasted through the first half of the book. But there are a couple of chapters which contain extensive dialogue in the 'Sparra' dialect. My daughter couldn't make sense of it. The words were phonetically spelled with a lot of terminal consonants omitted or substituted. I encouraged her to read what was written and see if the sound of the word reminded her of any real words she knew. She simply couldn't do it. She was fluently reading and understanding thousands upon thousands of real words, but was frustrated by simple dialect like "wanna leetle bitta food-um?" I was amazed. I figured there was no way she could be reading at that level without having intuited the phonetic rules to help her along with unfamiliar words. I don't know: maybe she could do phonetic decoding on a small scale, but it certainly wasn't easy enough for her to want to persist with it word after word. "Redwall" became a readaloud about two-thirds of the way through.

Then about 6 months later she read a simple picture book backwards from the last letter to the first letter. "yenoH tibbaR", as I recall. She thought this was a hilarious trick and repeated the feat several times for a variety of audiences. At that point, she clearly had the phonetic rules firmly internalized.

So for some kids fluid phonetic decoding clearly doesn't have to be explicitly taught or independently intuited until quite late in the learning-to-read process. In my daughter's case it was just a little post-script to her reading skills acquisition.

Miranda

[boysrus]

I didnt read page three, but wanted to comment anyway!! I feel that there is a big change in a child when they learn to read. Before they can read, if you give them a book, they will spend up to half an hour(I am talking about my kids specifically here) just studying each picture in minute detail. Thye will make up a storyline and enjoy the pics. Then they will come over and ask me to read and we will discover the text together. My oldest taugt himself to read at age 5, just by having book fter ook after book read to him. Now, he opens a book and tears through the text, then studies the picture. There is a level of innocence nd imagination that is lost there. It is good and right, but I would never want to push that before tey are developmentally ready

[Charles Baudelaire]

Some responses here...Joan said,

"I've seen more than one child pick up a book and read it without having been taught. Perhaps they internalize the "rules" while being read to? Kids learn to speak long before they have any formal language classes--why do we assume they won't read without lessons?"

I think you're right on the money -- I *do* think children internalize many of the rules without being taught. Hey, I know I was all geared up to explain a bunch of phonics rules to my dd -- I even remembered what the hell a schwa was after all this time -- but I found that other than having to explain the "basics" (consonant sounds, some blends, some vowel changes), I didn't have to do jack. She picked it up largely on her own. I think we assume they won't read without lessons for two reasons:

1. Many of them don't.
2. It keeps schools in business if they convince parents that "lessons" means "formal instruction from a school educator." Sorry to be so cynical...

Anyway, as far as how the learning takes place, why it won't "stick" with one child and comes as effortlessly as smiling to another child, I can't say. It's not just reading, though -- does anyone know how we learn anything? Best answer I can give you is that cognitively, we're structured to be symbolmaking creatures: we can see that as far back as our ancestors who lived in Altamira and Lascaux. Sorry I can't give a more thorough answer.

[applejuice]

I've spoken to many teachers, reading specialists and even an LDS. When I've asked "HOW do we learn to read?" they all shrug their shoulders. They can talk about all the reading "methods" that exist, and they each have their theories about the best ways, but even the "experts" don't really know how reading happens. That should tell us something.

This is very true!

I tutored arithmetic for a very long time. I am very confident when I help a student with their arithmetic lessons. Arithmetic is simple - you learn the basic rules and simply apply them logically. Over and over!

Reading, especially in English, is full of rules that get broken time and time again since English has made it a habit to absorb words from around the world and make them English. No one method is going to work for everyone, and the theories are as varied as the people teaching and learning to read. Everyone is different. That is why I did not feel confident tutoring reading to others or teaching my older children to read in their early years. I decided to just go for it and I taught my youngest to read. He did not have the problems that my older children had. They went to school in the mid-1980's when the whole word, whole language movement of the Goodman's was afoot. I agree this method will work for some, but you need phonics to build your reading vocabulary.

To make things even more difficult, I had returned to grad school as I was teaching my youngest to read. All of the profs were whole word/whole language advocates and they made all kinds of fun of phonics - calling the phonics advocates "phonicators". Name calling is immature IMO and serves no purpose other than to make the speaker appear small.

I taught my DS the best way I knew how to - by reading to him, showing him words, creating our own books, using phonics, creating lists, cutting out pictures from the magazines and newspapers, making letter montages, - I simply used every method I had to make reading enjoyable. My Son would see DH and I read to each other and share what we had read enthusiastically, and we encouraged him to share with us the things he had seen in a book.

Anyway, my DS is now a twelve year old student who is learning very well and is very self-motivated. He is a learner for life. The ultimate goal.

[JoshuasMommy]

One of the things that Dr.Titzer talks about is the window of opportunity for learning reading effortlessly. After 4 yo the brain changes and although you can obviously learn how to read after 4 it is much more difficult. I have watched specials on brain development in infants and one thing that they have discovered is that infants use a larger portion of the brain than adults do. Also that they have access through these "strands" in the brain that are all connected at birth to use an even greater amount of brain. If certain strands aren't used they simple break off or die. That is why it is so important to expose babies and toddlers to a large variety of things in life. It is also suggested to expose babies to different languages prior to 11 months old. Apparently they have the ability to hear all the sounds that we as adults can't hear in other languages. This exposure makes it easier for them to learn other languages. I live in AZ and I see many children who can speak fluently in both English and Spanish with complete ease. Now keep in mind that I am trying to explain something that I do not remember the correct terminology for...so bare with me. :hammer You can get the idea! I just recently read that children who learn another language as a child actually has a large part of the brain that contains both languages in one spot. Where in an adult who learns 2 languages later in life the brain stores the languages in 2 different locations. I hope you can make sense of what I am trying to repeat. I just read what I wrote and had to laugh at how poorly I explained it :hide:

[Dar]

One of the things that Dr.Titzer talks about is the window of opportunity for learning reading effortlessly. After 4 yo the brain changes and although you can obviously learn how to read after 4 it is much more difficult.

No offense, but this is a crock, and this alone is reason to stay away from Dr. Titzer's videos. I'd love to see a shred of research-based evidence for this statement - there isn't any. Reading is like walking - with some concerted effort you can "teach" a child to do it early (and I've seen scary movies of 4 month olds being taught to walk) but it's much easier if you wait for the child to be developmentally ready. And for some kids, teaching before they are developmentally ready will turn them off the process altogether, because they won't be able to achieve fluency. When I taught special ed, many of my kids could recognize a handful of sight words and decode phonetically regular CVC words, and then they stopped. I'm convinced that that's the amount of "reading" someone can learn without being developmentally ready for the process. A few pre-four year olds are ready, but the vast majority are not - and it has nothing to do with intelligence (half of all gifted students were not reading at 5), or the program used, or anything - they're just not ready.

The bilingual thing is interesting, because it conflates two different issues. It is true that at birth children can distinguish all different sounds, but as they get older they lose the ability to distinguish and make the sounds that do not occur in the language they are hearing. So, if you want a perfect accent in a foreign language, learn it young.

OTOH, adults can learn a language faster than children can. Just compare a first year Spanish class at a university with a class aimed at 3 year olds, and you'll see. The thing is, kids generally learn in a relaxed environment with other kids, and it's much easier to learn enough Spanish to communicate meaningfully with a 3 year old than to communicate with a 30 year old. I've been subbing in a kindergarten where many of the kids are ESL Spanish-speaking students, and it's become clear to me that I speak enough Spanish to communicate effectively with them, even though I'm in no sense fluent, with adults anyway. I'm 5 yr old fluent, though...

Rain used to speak great Spanglish, when we lived in an apartment complex where most of her buddies spoke Spanish fluently and were learning English at school. Consciously, she only knew a couple words in Spanish, because she didn't know that the other words she used and responded to *were* Spanish.

There is research about children who learn two languages as a primary language, and a primary language is stored differently in the brain that a secondary language.

One of the saddest things I've seen is Spanish speaking parents who want their children to learn English from the start, so they can be good Americans and have fewer problems in school , at least that's what all the propaganda says... but the parents themselves aren't fluent in English. So they do the best they can to speak only English to the child, and at 5 the child goes to school without being fluent in any language :( These kids have real problems.,.. the best indicator of second language proficiency is first language proficiency, and 5 is late for developing first langauge proficiency.

I'll stop babbling now... I've been waiting for the Neopets Wheel of Monotony to stop so I can play spell or starve, but it keeps going... and going...and going...

Dar

[mollyeilis]

Off topic again.....


While I really don't think this kind of thing is a crock (thinking as I do that reading and learning is a continuum, and watching a video isn't going to force something on a kid, just expose them to the ideas), I do agree with this:

"One of the saddest things I've seen is Spanish speaking parents who want their children to learn English from the start, so they can be good Americans and have fewer problems in school , at least that's what all the propaganda says... but the parents themselves aren't fluent in English. So they do the best they can to speak only English to the child, and at 5 the child goes to school without being fluent in any language :( "

That's my hubby, only switch Korean for Spanish. His dad was always away at sea so he didn't have much exposure to English, his mom thought it would be bad for the kids if she spoke much Korean so she spoke her (then) extremely broken English, and what resulted was kids who were fluent in neither Korean nor English. Their spoken English is pretty good because they had friends, but the actual *communication* factor is still pretty bad. The oldest brother was born in Korea and was completely fluent in Korean and he still is to some extent, but as for the communication, within the family it's just awful.

If she had just spoken Korean to the youngest kids they would have been MUCH better off.

[JoshuasMommy]

No offense, but this is a crock, and this alone is reason to stay away from Dr. Titzer's videos.

Have you even botheres to look at the web site? Maybe read Dr. Titzer back ground, the testimonials, or the tips section? I find it fascinating that you can draw such a conclusion with so little knowledge about the man or his program. Like I've said before... I started this thread because I was feeling so proud of my son's accomplishments. I mentioned the program because I met and talked to the Dr. and I was impressed with what he said and his program. I also see how it has helped my son put together all things he has learned so far. I have been so shocked by the negetive response my innocent post has received. I think it is perfectly natural as a parent to have an opinion on early reading. But what surprises me is how easily this program has been dismissed and other than me no one here has used it? Tina

[SagMom]

Tina, perhaps you're taking this thread too personally. No one has attacked YOU, but this HAS turned into a rather interesting (at least I think so) discussion of reading, "readiness" and teaching methods.

I'd like to see it continue.
==============

I think that the issue of multi-lingualism is different than reading. Most children who are bilingual have learned the languages because of their family situation, (either their family is bi-lingual or they have moved to a place where their native language is not the primary language ) not because they are sitting in a class. When you're immersed in a language and *need* to use it to communicate, you'll learn it much faster than if you're sitting in a classroom a few times a week and never hear the languge spoken otherwise, regardless of your age.

There is much debate about these so-called "windows of opportunity" and whether or not they exist at all. As for Dr.Titzer, as the developer of these videos, he certainly has a vested interest in their sale! Of course his research will back them up. And, call me a skeptic, but a testimonial, by definition, is a recommendation--I wouldn't expect that someone trying to sell a product would have drawbacks and negative input about the item listed on their website. It's a sales pitch, plain and simple.

[Maeve]

That's not true. I was given a tape with my first child and I did watch it. Personally, I just feel that my daughter was better off being read to, playing games, etc rather than watching a video. But that is just us.

[JoshuasMommy]

Tina, perhaps you're taking this thread too personally

I don't understand what I said that would make you think that I am taking this personally? I guess I just digest information differently. I went and read the articles that other mothers referred to like the APP( is it) that talked about TV viewing for children under 2 and I looked at Phonic to see what it's all about. I've started looking into unschooling, homeschooling etc. And of course I have opinions on some of the new things I've read and I am still deciding and learning about the others. As far as the language thing goes I was just explaining some of the things I learned in the program I watched on brain development in babies. And I have been in sales for longer than I have wanted to in life, so I am very aware of how it works. My point in the last post I made was simple...I find it interesting that someone can make such a blanket statement about someone/something they have no first hand knowledge of. What I gave in my original post was a recommendation from first hand experience. I am the kind of person who appreciates that. You know when someone goes to a great restaurant or buys something they really like and tells me about it. I also like to research things a bit too. So, if someone other than me posted the same letter I did. My first reaction would have been to hit the link and read about it. Then either ask more questions if it intrigued me or maybe I would have had enough info to decide for myself that I didn't want to use it for my child. All of this said...I am sure that a lot of Mom's on this board who have been Mommies longer than I have and who have researched things I haven't, who have already used and experienced a variety of things...they have opinions, have stories etc. And I welcome that. Some of the post just don't feel objective. And other than my recommendation I feel no need or desire to defend this product. But I am eager to learn more about a lot of things brought out in this thread...

[SagMom]

I don't understand what I said that would make you think that I am taking this personally?

Perhaps I misinterpreted the "tone" of your posts. It seemed defensive at times. It sounded to me that you were offended that people were questioning and citicizing this program. I'm sorry if I mispoke.

I find it interesting that someone can make such a blanket statement about someone/something they have no first hand knowledge of.

I don't think I need to have first hand knowledge of this particular video in order to question its value. I don't need to see the video in order to ask, "Are they really reading or are they simply responding?" Likewise, one can raise the question as to the value of training an infant to "read" without having viewed the video. These are issues of learning theory and child development. I would have the same response if someone recommended flashcards for infants.

You, yourself, brought up the doc's research and the testimonials as proof of the video's worth--I only pointed out that this was simply advertising, and not research.

So, if someone other than me posted the same letter I did. My first reaction would have been to hit the link and read about it. Then either ask more questions if it intrigued me or maybe I would have had enough info to decide for myself that I didn't want to use it for my child...

That's what's happened in this thread, I believe. I suppose we all could have read your note, made our decisions and not responded to your op at all, but some people are opinionated around here.

:W

Some of the post just don't feel objective.

Humans are not objective.

[CAmomto1]

I was amazed at 27 or so, when I learned that there are actually two different /th/ sounds... the one in "thin" and the one in "then", But I had been using them correctly and correctly pronouncing words with each for over 20 years...

Dar

OT...
I recently learned this as well b/c DD pronounces words with 'th' in them differently depending on the word. I sat there one day and figured out what her rules are. Words like "thin" and "think" get pronounced as "fin" and "fink", while words like "the" and "that" get pronounced as "duh" and "dat".

[Dar]

I did look at the site. He has absolutely no research-based evidence to support any of his claims. No cites, no studies, just stories about his own two kids and some "testimonials" . His whole idea of a "window of opportunity" for reading that ends at age 4 is completely unsupported.

That's the part I called a crock, FWIW...

dar

[Charles Baudelaire]

Well, and the thing with opportunity windows for certain cognitive skills is true for SOME skills -- for example, there is a "window of opportunity" to learn language. If you don't learn / aren't exposed to language before then, the best you'll be able to muster -- regardless of your IQ -- is basic communication (at best). Studies on feral children have demonstrated this pretty effectively.

Secondly, there are second-language learning "windows" as well -- generally speaking, if you learn to speak a second language before about age 12, you will be equally fluent in both (and have no accent in either). However, with the rare, rare exception, if you learn after age 12, you'll usually speak with an accent of some kind.

However, to apply this to reading is an entirely new ballgame. If there's a childhood "window" for reading...uh..how did reading develop in the first place? Are they saying little caveman children could read and their parents couldn't? This is silly. Take Frederick Douglass, for example -- he taught himself to read by dribs and drabs, long after he was four. Granted, Douglass is one of the smartest Americans in history, but still...there's no "window," to the best of my knowledge.

[IdentityCrisisMama]

:lurk:

[Rhonwyn]

...

Secondly, there are second-language learning "windows" as well -- generally speaking, if you learn to speak a second language before about age 12, you will be equally fluent in both (and have no accent in either). However, with the rare, rare exception, if you learn after age 12, you'll usually speak with an accent of some kind...


If you learn a language from a native speaker you will have no accent or their regional accent but if you learn a language from someone who learned the language after 12 you will pick up there accent.

Example: Native spanish speaker will pass on their accent but if you learn from an American english as first language spanish speaker you will speak spanish with an American accent. My child is learning Spanish and Japanese from native speakers. Whenever there is a substitute for the class, they can hear the American accent. They are not too kind to the substitute teachers that aren't the real thing as far as they are concerned and have to be reminded to mind their manners.

[BusyMommy]

After 4 yo the brain changes and although you can obviously learn how to read after 4 it is much more difficult
I'm sorry because I know you're passionate about this, but that statement really and truly scares the cr*p out of me. PLEASE do more research into early childhood development and developmental reading because this is simply not true. I've been teaching primary for 14 years which means going to classes on reading acquistion and skills, etc etc ad nauseum. This just flies in the face of all the current studies I've ever encountered. Unfortunately, I'm on leave right now and my books/articles are boxed and I'm dealing w/a little guy who's turned into a cranky cyclops by a mosquito bite or I'd try to help you out w/some links.

It HAS to be developmental. I've seen so many kids who can "read;" ie decode but have little comprehension. Or, once the decoding is over what they've drilled, they're lost.
When I have beg of the year kindergarteners who can look at the pictures and then make up a matching story, I'm thrilled!

okay, time to tend the kids.
It's a really really tough issue and many more folks getting paid a lot more $ than us are debating the same issues:D

[atypicalandrea]

After 4 yo the brain changes and although you can obviously learn how to read after 4 it is much more difficult
I'm sorry because I know you're passionate about this, but that statement really and truly scares the cr*p out of me. PLEASE do more research into early childhood development and developmental reading because this is simply not true.

I'll have to second that, and with a big ol' case of personal experience. I taught *myself* how to read between the ages of 4 & 5, plus I still remember how I did it. Lots of people in my life read stories to me, and eventually I made the connection. One day it really did "click" and that was *after* I turned four.
I don't think it was because there was a lack of exposure before that.

All that being said, there's not much difference between a child who read at two, and a child who learned how to read at 12, when they are both 20.

Just a reminder that sometimes the "experts" don't always know what they're talking about. :)

[zealsmom]

Maybe because the 'experts' are not really that at all!

[Charles Baudelaire]

[QUOTE=atypicalandrea
All that being said, there's not much difference between a child who read at two, and a child who learned how to read at 12, when they are both 20.

QUOTE]

Sorry -- really NOT trying to be a pain in the :moon here, but if someone's child learns to *really* read at two, that's an indicator (often) of prodigious intelligence -- and yeah, they might be different from someone who learned to read at 12. FWIW, so I'm not completely misunderstood...

1. Yes, kids who learn to read at 12 can still be highly intelligent

2. By "read" I don't mean "decode," I mean "decode and comprehend paragraph-length text."

I'm putting on my asbestos undies so I don't get flamed. :firedevil

[Britishmum]

"All that being said, there's not much difference between a child who read at two, and a child who learned how to read at 12, when they are both 20."

Umm, no. Generalizations like this are not useful imo. If you reword eg:

"All that being said, there's sometimes not much difference between a child who read at two, and a child who learned how to read at 12, when they are both 20."

you might be right.

Because there is often a big difference at 20, 30, 40 and 50 between people who learn to read (and other things) at two or twelve. Not always but often.

The argument that 'it all evens out in the end' may sometimes be true, but it is not always true. I'm not talking about hothoused children, but about children who are gifted and grow up to be gifted adults.

Sorry to interject, but this sort of statement can be truly frustrating for either gifted adults or parents of gifted children.

As for the programme, I have seen it, and so have my dds. I don't think it is as terrible as people here are imagining if they havent seen it, although I would never use it with a baby. To be honest, if you use Baby Einstein, this is different but no worse or better imo. Except that there is more emphasis on the print. My dds were interested in the animals and facts about them. It could be improved greatly imo, but same goes for Baby Einstein which are rather amateurish and psuedo-science-ish.

If you are going to do TV, and if you balance this programme with lots of whole language activities, reading etc, then it is not necessarily a bad thing imo. It's just another tool for literacy development, nothing more, nothing less. Now, if you're anti TV, it stands to reason you'd be anti this programme along with all the others.

I also think that it is wrong to assume that a parent who uses something like this as an activity and a tool is somehow forcing their child into something. I wsa interested in the programme so got hold of a dvd and put it on to see what my kids did. They are both early readers and very interested in reading both whole words and phonics at 21 months and 3yrs. They both liked it, and were shouting out the words. Like they shout out words from books or signs when we're out.

So, my feeling is that if you believe that a little TV isnt a terrible thing, and if your child enjoys doing it, go ahead. It's not going to be harmful and can be enriching if part of a whole language enriched environment . It doesnt have to be all one thing or all another.

All children learn to read at different ages, in different ways. No one way is right for all children. (Someone said here that to learn without phonics was terrible, can't recall who. That's not true. There are millions of self-taught whole word readers who are clueless about phonics. Many of them are writers with exceptional langauge skills. I personally had to learn phonics at an age of 23 in grad school. It was meaningless to me as I didnt need it to learn to read). I believe that there is a normal curve for learnign literacy, and it is no more 'wrong' to do it at two than at twelve.

Off my soapbox now. To the OP, I say, go ahead if you and your dc enjoy it. But this has been discussed here before, and it was not likely to gain many fans here. ;) I'd be more concerend about the amount of TV that someone uses than the type. And I'd choose this programme way above Scooby Doo or any other such rubbish that millions of babies are watching right now as we talk. :)

[Charles Baudelaire]

. And I'd choose this programme way above Scooby Doo or any other such rubbish that millions of babies are watching right now as we talk. :)

I' m not a big fan of television -- especially when parental interactions that could work *better* are sacrificed -- but all I have to say to your idea above is :clap :clap :clap

[eilonwy]

ITA with what you said, Britishmum. I think it would be fair to say that reading at 2 or at 12 isn't necessarily an indicator of how successful a child will be later in their life, but there is definately a difference at 20/40/60 between people who read early and people who didn't.

Television... I have to say, right now I find myself in a position where I wish my son had been "trained" to sit in front of the darned box and not move. :LOL Being eight months pregnant has let me see that television watching might be an advantage for me. Overall, I'm still glad that he doesn't watch a lot of tv of any kind, but I have my moments of weakness. I suppose an "educational" video would be better than some of the crap that's out there, but I still hesitate to call it "learning"; I guess I feel like it'll never be more than second best. :shrug

[Dar]

I think it would be fair to say that reading at 2 or at 12 isn't necessarily an indicator of how successful a child will be later in their life, but there is definately a difference at 20/40/60 between people who read early and people who didn't.

What do you think the difference is? And what evidence do you have to support this? Jeff McQuillan reviewed the available US research on early reading in 1998, comparing children who began school reading with those who did not, and found no difference in reading skills at age 8. Many educational systems (Waldorf, the Moores) intentionally wait until 8 or later to teach reading, and their educational outcomes, by standardized testing, are equal to or better than those of traditional US schools.

I actualy know kids who have learned to read at 2 and 12, naturally and without pressure or "teaching" - do you? I know what they're like now, years later.

Some kids who read at 2 are gifted. Some kids who read at 12 are gifted. Some kids who read at 2 are mentally retarded (hyperlexia). So are some kids who read at 12.

And when kids are placed in a system that expect them to read at a certain age - not before or after - it's hard to tell how much the results you get are due to the manipulation of the system and how much they're due to something instrinsic to the child. Someone who is developmentally to read at 10 but pushed to read from the age of 5 is going to have a whole lot more baggage than someone who is ready to read at 10 and allowed to begin reading at 10.

As a product of a variety of different "gifted" programs throughout my schooling, I have some strong feelings about the label, and about some of the implications of the label for some people. Although Rain is pretty much "Mini Me" as far as her learing styles and abilities go, it hasn't been necessary or useful for me to label her...

Dar

[BusyMommy]

when kids are placed in a system that expect them to read at a certain age - not before or after - it's hard to tell how much the results you get are due to the manipulation of the system and how much they're due to something instrinsic to the child. ...going to have a whole lot more baggage than someone who is ready to read at 10 and allowed to begin reading at 10.


:clap

[atypicalandrea]

Thank you Dar, for eloquently expressing exactly what was on my mind. :)

but there is definately a difference at 20/40/60 between people who read early and people who didn't.

Actually, I would have to qualify that further by saying " but there is definately a difference at 20/40/60 between people WHO READ and people who don't."

The only difference in adult readers that I have seen are the ones who were pushed before they were ready have an aversion to reading and do not read well. The ones who enjoy reading and do it often generally read better, yes, but I suspect it has less to do with *when* they were taught and more to do with *how*.

I'm not a fan of generalizations myself, but in this case (reading level of the adult population) it fits. And I come to this as an early self-taught reader, labelled and tested endlessly as gifted in school, and after having taught most of my own kids to read.

For my last child, we're mostly going by her cues. Sure, there's some words she can read right now at 3, but I'm not pushing it until *she* is ready. (and indeed, earlier in my morning internet rounds she was on my knee watching me leave a comment. "Mommy, you wrote Emma's name!")

Of course, this is also just my opinion based on my own experiences. :D

[eilonwy]

What do you think the difference is? And what evidence do you have to support this? Jeff McQuillan reviewed the available US research on early reading in 1998, comparing children who began school reading with those who did not, and found no difference in reading skills at age 8. Many educational systems (Waldorf, the Moores) intentionally wait until 8 or later to teach reading, and their educational outcomes, by standardized testing, are equal to or better than those of traditional US schools.

Okay, I can't find the study online (probably because I suck at internet searches) but I remember reading somewhere that people who read earlier are more likely to read for pleasure than people who don't, and that they're more literate... that is, they've read more books, have a more extensive working vocabulary, and are better writers. This is true well beyond "school age".

The people I've met who taught themselves to read between 18 months and 4 are very different from the ones I've met who taught themselves later on. I'm not one of those people who believes that all gifted children read early or that every child who reads early is gifted, but I've definately seen a differenece just in the people I know. I've also seen a difference between people who were taught to read very young and people who were taught to read later. I've come to my conclusions in large part from my own experiences, as well as from the research I've read regarding educational theory.

I'm not saying that everyone should teach their child to read, or that every child under 2 is ready, willing or able, but I have to tell you I continue to be baffled by the hostility here towards children who are. There's a running implication that somehow it's a better schooling method if you wait until your child is 4/6/8/12 to teach them (or let them learn) how to read. I disagree with that implication, and I take issue with it. That's all I'm saying.

[Daffodil]

Jeff McQuillan reviewed the available US research on early reading in 1998, comparing children who began school reading with those who did not, and found no difference in reading skills at age 8

This conclusion seemed unlikely enough to me that I did a search trying to find out more about this study. I didn't find any detailed information on it, but I did find a paper that discusses it briefly. Here's a quote:

I have drawn evidence on age of starting reading from two sources: an article by Peter Blatchford and Ian Plewis describing research with a sample of children in London (Blatchford and Plewis, 1990), and an overview of US research on reading by Jeff McQuillan (McQuillan, 1998). Both demonstrate that children who can read early do better later. According to McQuillan, children who can read before they start school usually come from homes where books are available and where parents read books. Although parents of these early readers supported their children’s reading they do not ‘push’ them to read, nor do they use most of the formal strategies used in schools. So if early readers do better later, is it not a good idea to teach children to read early on? McQuillan reviews the evidence from a small number of experimental studies of US children taught to read ‘early’ (at age five). These showed that any advantage was short-lived: the later readers had caught up by around age eight. He concludes that early interventions to teach reading are unlikely to combat disadvantage, but that early access to reading with supportive adults is a key factor.


So it sounds to me like the studies show early reading is good when your parents teach you (or you learn on your own), and you're raised in a home where reading is valued - but if you don't come from such a home, it's not particularly helpful to be taught reading in a school setting slightly earlier than the typical schoolkid.

[BusyMommy]

So many diff. definitions of reading, too.
My dh and I read all the time.

Nights, all 4 of us sit in bed and read to ourselves. Dh and I have novels. 3 y.o. and 18 mo. old have their own pile of books. They turn the pages, touch the pictures, talk about them.... They're reading, too:D And, they can do this for a very very long time.
So, I agree, it's very important to grow up in a home that values books.

[Charles Baudelaire]

What do you think the difference is? And what evidence do you have to support this? Jeff McQuillan reviewed the available US research on early reading in 1998, comparing children who began school reading with those who did not, and found no difference in reading skills at age 8.

***But Dar, I'd like to point out that the children who "began school reading" may have been five or six years old, not two. Moreover, what does "reading" in this context mean, really? Recognizing a handful of sight words, or (as I was narrowly defining it) reading paragraph-length text?

I actualy know kids who have learned to read at 2 and 12, naturally and without pressure or "teaching" - do you? I know what they're like now, years later.

**Yes, Dar, I do. That's partly why I made the observation. As much as it would in many ways be helpful to the prodigiously gifted child who reads paragraph-length text at two to "even out" by the time they're in third grade, or eight, or twelve, or twenty, or whenever, it doesn't happen.

Some kids who read at 2 are gifted. Some kids who read at 12 are gifted. Some kids who read at 2 are mentally retarded (hyperlexia). So are some kids who read at 12.

***True. That's absolutely what I was trying to communicate by pointing out earlier that kids who *don't* learn to read at 2 can also be gifted.

And when kids are placed in a system that expect them to read at a certain age - not before or after - it's hard to tell how much the results you get are due to the manipulation of the system and how much they're due to something instrinsic to the child.

***To a certain point, ITA. I would say that it depends on the degree of difference from the norm. That is, if you have a child who enters kindergarten with few or no prereading skills at all, and another child who enters kindergarten knowing a few sight words, those kids (neither of whom is vastly different from the norm) will "catch up" because they're being given equal treatment. They'll regress (or advance) to the norm. However, a kid who is profoundly retarded will NOT "even out" and neither will a kid who's profoundly gifted, and for the same reason. Nor should either one be expected to: both of them need to be treated individually and given teaching appropriate to their needs.

Someone who is developmentally to read at 10 but pushed to read from the age of 5 is going to have a whole lot more baggage than someone who is ready to read at 10 and allowed to begin reading at 10.

***That's why I love homeschool!
;) ;) ;)

[Lo Innocente]

It sounds to me like most of the poeple here who are so angry about Doman and his Teach Your Baby To Read book haven't actually read it. Maybe you aren't such big readers yourselves? :)

I'm a new father who grew up reading voraciously since as long as I can remember, most of which I attribute to having been read to a lot as a baby...but who really knows right?

Anyways, based on my own personal experience of having learned most of what I know through books, not teachers in a classroom, I readily admit to having a bias to sharing my love of reading with my son. Naturally, the Doman's book peaked my curiousity.

I came away with high impressions of Dr. Doman, both with his philosophy towards children and his many achievements in helping brain injured children.

His argument is very simple actually:

Reading is a skillset more akin to talking, rather then a learned subject, such as history. We don't teach "talking" in school. It is something that is learned simply because our children are exposed to talking all the time. They pick it up naturally. If you take your 3 year old kid to China, in a matter of months, he is going to be speaking Chinese.

What Doman discovered in his work, is that children can learn to read in the same way that a child learns to talk. The key, is that the type needs to be big enough for a child's eye to read it. Most kids who learn to read naturally do so because of the commercials they see on TV, where the type is big enough for the youngster's eyes to see it and make the associations.

Doman has come up wtih a simple program of showing large words to your child and then transitioning them to books with extra large type. He makes it clear its NOT a rigid program to be followed and that the number one goal is to make it fun for both you and your child.

I think we all know that something changes in our brain that starts to make learning much more difficult after a certain age. Certainly, learning a foreign language is one of them. I started learning to speak spanish in high school, took 4 years of college, spent a year abroad in Spain, and I still struggle with the language and its not for lack of brainpower! Yet I have friends who learned Spanish when they were young and now speak it fluently without having to crack a book.

If I can do some simple and fun things to give my kid the natural ability to read without having to go through the struggle that many first to third graders do, then I plan to do it. Doman's bottom line approach to improving childhood intelligence is simply one of opportunity. Giving your child the best opportunity to quench his young natural thirst for knowledge. I think he is merely pointing out that the ages between 1 to 5 are much more conducive to quenching this thirst then the ages from 5 to 15.

I wouldn't get caught up in the 3 month old reading thing. That's taking it to an extreme. For me, I think starting to give my child exposure and opportunity to absorb the written language alongside the same opportunity he his getting to absorb the spoken language makes a lot of good sense.

Regardless of the choice you make, I think its foolish to make a judgement about something without at least making a fair attempt to understand what it is you are judging.

Happy Reading!

-Lo I.

[MamaMonica]

I'm not a fan of programs. I was not an early reader- I learned to read on my own at age five. My mom read to me and one day I just started reading. It was natural, I was ready and to this day I love to read. I want my kids to have the same opportunity to develop at their own pace.

[laralou]

I'm not saying that everyone should teach their child to read, or that every child under 2 is ready, willing or able, but I have to tell you I continue to be baffled by the hostility here towards children who are. There's a running implication that somehow it's a better schooling method if you wait until your child is 4/6/8/12 to teach them (or let them learn) how to read. I disagree with that implication, and I take issue with it. That's all I'm saying.

I don't think that anyone here is hostile towards children who learn to read early. I can see though that suggesting that children who learn to read later in life are less gifted or less smart is insulting. When posters assert that they can see "a difference" and it seems to imply that the early readers are better in some way. I think that is what you are seeing people get upset about.

No one advocates that you should refuse to teach your child to read when he/she is ready, just that you shouldn't push your child to do things before he/she is ready. Unschooling is about following your child's cues.


I also wanted to (edited to finish this thought) say, Dar, awesome post! :clap

[JoshuasMommy]

Just a littl