#31 of 31
05-28-2010, 12:50 PM
Join Date: Jul 2009
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Originally Posted by swd12422
The few kids we know who do know that stuff at this age are either coached by parents, watch TV all day, or go to "school."
As I mentioned above, some kids are just interested in print.
My DD is one of them. In my DD's case she did not learn letters from a toy or the TV. She does not go to school. She learned them from us, because she would ask us what each letter was. She has done the same for animal and dinosaur species.
It is not fair to assume that children you know who love letters have actually been manipulated into doing so.
As for shapes and colors, that was definately more gestalt. I suppose DH and I use a pretty colorful and descriptive language. When she started talking, colors and shapes were among her first words.
I have a very bright soon to be 2 year old, but when I think of coaching the under 2 crowd I laugh. DD knew all her letter at 18 months or so. But, I have tried to get her to sing
the alphabet for months (for the cuteness factor). Even now, all I get is ABCDEFG-QRSTUV-ABCDEFGHIJK-WXYZ-Now sing with me! Yay! She loves singing it. Sings it all the time. But, I can not get her to sing it right to save my life.
So, in the end, if a 2 year old can learn the abc's, 123's, shapes, and colors, it really says more about them than the parents or the product supposedly responsible for teaching them.
But, IMHO it does not mean these kids are any more bright than ones who we'll say are interested in vehicles and can tell you the make and model of a bunch of different cars. It just means that this stuff interests them, and that should be respected!