Your Baby Can Read

[Goodallmomma]

Just wondering if anyone has purchased this or plan to. My husband is wanting me to get it for our boys, but $200 seems like way to much money. Couldn't I just use the Ordinary Parent's Guide to Teaching Reading?? Thoughts..Opinions?

[BikeBookBread]

ETA: WELCOME to the Boards!!! SO SORRY! I just noticed you only have 3 posts! I don't want to come across as rude, so please forgive me if I came across as rude. The regulars on this board will vouch for me. I'm really a nice gal! I just get a little passionate about the subject of screen time and babies/toddlers. There's just so much evidence that any screen time before age 2 is quite harmful. There is a lab at the Univ. of Washington that came out with significant research to support this back in 2004.

 

ORIGINAL POST: Knowing NOTHING about it other than the ad, I would say, NO WAY.

 

Why does a 1 year old need to read? I find the idea of putting a baby in front of the TV to teach reading to be....well, not what I would want to do. There has been so much research about the detrimental effects of TV on infants and toddlers. In fact, the makers of Baby Einstein are in a bit of a mess.*

 

Besides, it CAN'T be a phonics-based program (unless I'm missing something), but a whole-word reading/recognition program. You want your kids learning to read using phonics.

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

* ETA: here are links about the Baby Einstein mess:

http://www.commercialfreechildhood.org/pressreleases/babyeinsteinurgedtocomeclean.html

http://www.commercialfreechildhood.org/babyeinsteinrefund.html

Edited January 19, 2010 by BikeBookBread
Baby Einstein info; softening my tone...

[Caribbean Queen]

At your children's ages, I think you would get more results with Teach Your Baby to Read. OPGTR is a real learn-to-read program and your children are probably not ready for it. I saw in the commercial for Teach Your Baby to Read that even babies who can't talk can "read" by making signs to go along with their flash cards. I don't see the point in teaching babies stuff like that. I don't consider that "reading." It looks like something to show a baby off, like a parlor trick.

[kmacnchs]

:iagree::iagree:with BikeBookBread

This has been asked before on this board - since I am all for WTM "method", I do NOT think it is the best way to teach reading mainly b/c it is NOT teaching phonics at all! Also, as pp mentioned, you are not supposed to let your baby watch TV at all until age 1 or 2 (the later the better).

 

I am not against teaching your kids how to read early if they are ready (duh - look at siggy) but I don't see the point of teaching them how to memorize whole words - phonics is so much better down the road (spelling, figuring out words they don't know, etc.)

[MissKNG]

I think just READING to your baby is enough for that age.

[Goodallmomma]

I figured it had been asked before. I searched the thread and couldn't find one though. Sorry for the repeat and thanks for the opinion! ;)

 

:iagree::iagree:with BikeBookBread

This has been asked before on this board - since I am all for WTM "method", I do NOT think it is the best way to teach reading mainly b/c it is NOT teaching phonics at all! Also, as pp mentioned, you are not supposed to let your baby watch TV at all until age 1 or 2 (the later the better).

 

I am not against teaching your kids how to read early if they are ready (duh - look at siggy) but I don't see the point of teaching them how to memorize whole words - phonics is so much better down the road (spelling, figuring out words they don't know, etc.)

[mom2att]

Just wondering if anyone has purchased this or plan to. My husband is wanting me to get it for our boys, but $200 seems like way to much money. Couldn't I just use the Ordinary Parent's Guide to Teaching Reading?? Thoughts..Opinions?

 

I have a friend who has used this program with her toddlers, and she swears by it. All of her kids are decidedly above the curve intellectually and she admits that how far her kids have gone with it is probably way beyond what most will get out of it, but still she thinks it could be of benefit for every child.

 

Me? I can think of a lot of things I'd rather do with toddlers other than a video and flashcards, regardless of whether it has them figuring out words a few years ahead of schedule. I'm glad it has worked for my friend, and apparently her kids get a real charge out if it. YMMV.

[happyhomemaker25]

I saw the program and I don't think it's what I want for my kids, but my friend bought it and worked with her granddaughter on it. She is two now and while not reading yet she has a huge vocabulary and can recognize some words.

I think you can get that through talking to your baby and reading books to him.

[amsunshine]

I think just READING to your baby is enough for that age.

 

 

Absolutely! Go to the library and get tons of books and read, read, read! :)

[joannqn]

The more sight words you teach your kids, the greater chance they'll have trouble reading down the road at a proficient level. The program is just memorizing sight words.

 

Read to your kids. Talk to your kids. Discuss the books. Point out the pictures, the names of things on the pages, the colors, count items, etc. ABC books are great for this. I treat the alphabet on the pages like any other picture on the page. They'll learn lots. Once they know all of their letters, you can start on phonics and begin teaching them to be proficient readers.

[Pamela H in Texas]

If I had babies/toddlers again, I would use Doman's program: iahp.org There is a good deal of information on their website, through their youtube videos, etc. And it can cost NOTHING or could be a minimal cost.

 

A lot of people misunderstand what is involved in these things. Though there is a committment necessary in order for it to work, it isn't drilling for 2 hours a day or anything either. I used this program with my ds, not to teach him to read (and I didn't), but....well, it's a long story. But I used it and it was enjoyable and I did it for free.

 

Anyway, JMO...

[Quad Shot Academy]

Here is the other thread. I knew I posted in one a while back!

 

http://welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=110881&highlight=teach+baby+read

 

Welcome!

[Miss Sherry]

I cringe every time I see that commercial.

[Terabith]

What about Signing Time? http://www.signingtime.com We LOVED Signing Time at those ages. I had my second dd when Anna was 17 months, and I admit, it was nice to have television that I felt okay about her watching while I nursed. Anna was a bit speech delayed, so the sign language was SOOOO wonderful for her, and all of us. She had almost 200 signs by the time she turned 2. Signing Time teaches sign language, has fun songs, the entire family got very into learning sign language, and it shows the words on the screen in a very similar way as Teach Your Baby to Read. Teaching reading/ word recognition is NOT the goal of the dvd series, but some kids do start recognizing/ correlating the word with the signs and spoken word. It also introduces finger spellings. I can't say enough good things about Signing Time.

[StartingOver]

We do not use the whole word approach, we are a phonics family. I would not attempt to teach a 1 & 2 year old to read. Read, read, read to them. I do have a 2 year old that knew his letters and sounds, but we didn't start OPGTR till he was 3. Of my 5 children, two did learn to read before age 5 but with a strong phonics base.

[hillfarm]

Before starting a program of early childhood reading or other training, I strongly suggest you read, Endangered Minds, by Dr. Jane M. Healy. Although it is a rather technical read, it really comes down hard on the futility and damage of providing too much screen time or incorrect academic activity at the wrong stage of life. I especially liked that this book was well documented, not merely another self-proclaimed specialist's opinions.

 

I think the most important question you have to ask yourself is, why do you want your toddlers to read? Reading to them creates stronger emotional/relationship bonds. Involving them in creative play will allow them to better learn about the world around them and how to express themselves. There are many other activities which may well serve your children better than reading at such a young age. (This is not directed to those children who have taught themselves to read at a very young age, that involves a completely different set of intellectual processes than being taught/exposed by someone else.)

 

Modern American society may feel that early reading is a sign of intelligence. However, other quite successful schools of educational thought (Waldorf, for example) don't even begin to expose children to the printed word until 7 ot 8 years of age. Some even believe learning to read too soon is damaging to a child's eyesight and depth perception.

 

I am sure that this is not a problem for you, but please double check to make sure that you are basing your educational goals for your children on what is best for them, not what is most impressive to outsiders, not what reflects best upon you as parents, not what follows the current fads and trends, not teaching them academic skills that are out of sync with their emotional development, and definitely not falling prey to the comparison monster (which we have all fought a round or two with and know is the death of contentment).

[ElizabethB]

Don't do it!

 

Yes, use OPG from the white board, my phonics game, talking letter factory and starfall.

 

If you play fun games and teach the syllabary, your children will be much further ahead than with whole word methods...especially if they are in the 60% that can't learn with whole word methods. (Especially since you can't tell in advance, and it takes so much more time to remediate the effects of sight words for those who it doesn't work than to do it right the first time. Also, most people who don't enjoy reading were taught with whole word methods or sight words with some phonics, this is happening more and more as phonics continues to be replaced with more and more sight words and balanced literacy programs. See my article Why Johnny Doesn't Like to Read for a full explanation of how sight words and whole word methods lead to less reading for pleasure and a dislike of reading.)

 

With the syllabary and Webster's Speller, children went from learning phonics and spelling directly to the 12th grade level Bibles available at the time, mainly the KJV, but also other versions at a high grade level. After working through Webster's Speller in K, my daughter was able to read out of the KJV Bible.

 

I've remediated so many children that have been taught sight words with some phonics and even more (percentage wise, not total numbers) who were taught pure whole word methods like those taught in teach you baby to read, to me it's just not worth the risk.

 

I've tested hundreds of children through our many moves in our 16 years as a volunteer phonics tutor and have found that almost all of the children I've tested who were taught with a phonics method with few sight words were reading at grade level, and about 90% of them were reading above grade level and enjoyed reading. About 30 to 40% of the children in schools taught with a mix of phonics and sight words had reading troubles, but 60 to 70% from schools that taught with 100% whole word methods.

 

Here's why and how not to teach sight words, and how to teach all but 5 of the most commonly taught sight words phonetically:

http://www.thephonicspage.org/On%20Reading/sightwords.html

Edited January 20, 2010 by ElizabethB

[dangermom]

I can't see any reason why a toddler should learn to read. Spend time reading together and enjoying each other. Sing nursery rhymes and play with sticks and blocks. Really, there are plenty of wonderful, age-appropriate things to do that will lay the right foundation for a love of reading and academic achievement when the time comes. But I'm really against programs like this.

[LibraryLover]

I would never buy this, but I know two people who have and their kids adore it. They seem to have a lot of fun, and they are not put- the- kid- in -front- of- the- TV people. They use it like a game, a few minutes here and there; the kids are really bright and open and intelleigent. Not that TYBTR made them all that. lol But, as I said, I wouldn't buy it, but I have actually seen loving & fun people playing with this, and the kids seem to be be having fun. I thought the animal video wasn't horrible. (I see the spears flying, i really do! I sorry! Stop!)

 

Of course, don't tell anyone I posted this. ;) Most people who know me would be a bit angry at me for saying any of this. I really need a disguise now. I know that it's considered a money-making scheme, and that it is damaging to children.

 

It's so easy to hate the entire concept of it! Why would a baby need watch any video, to read or play word games? They have to walk, play in the mud, take baths, get read to, sing etc. Would people who do TYBTR do any of this other stuff as well? Or would they consider their work done with a video? (Does anyone know of any research on who buys this and how the kids turn out? It's been around for awhile now). Plus it costs a bundle, right?

Edited January 20, 2010 by LibraryLover

[abbeyej]

If I had babies/toddlers again, I would use Doman's program: iahp.org There is a good deal of information on their website, through their youtube videos, etc. And it can cost NOTHING or could be a minimal cost.

 

A lot of people misunderstand what is involved in these things. Though there is a committment necessary in order for it to work, it isn't drilling for 2 hours a day or anything either. I used this program with my ds, not to teach him to read (and I didn't), but....well, it's a long story. But I used it and it was enjoyable and I did it for free.

 

Anyway, JMO...

 

Yes, *if* I were going to do a program for reading with babies, I would stick to Doman's materials (used very flexibly). Cheap (the cost of a book and some paper or cardstock and printer ink at most), and while I've seen people complain about his materials, what he emphasizes more than anything is 1) the relationship between the parent and child, and 2) that young children *love* to learn (and that the best way to honor that is through giving them lots of input and not boring or frustrating them).

 

And yes, you can begin doing some phonics with very young ones as well. You have to be prepared to adapt heavily (and probably just "do your own thing" with letter magnets and cornmeal in a cookie sheet and sidewalk chalk, etc, etc), and know that some kids will read very early, and some won't. I don't think that you can go wrong if your primary emphasis remains on your relationship to your children and the delight you take in each other.

 

I wouldn't spend $200 on a "program" to do that. And I would avoid any dvd or screen thing that claims to be educational for very young children.

[EthiopianFood]

It kind of reminds me of people who claim to potty train an infant. There is still the issue that it requires a lot from the parent because infants can't exactly pull their pants down and get onto a toilet themselves. So then one has to wonder what the point is.

 

So you're not training them to get used to "going" on themselves, and then having to train them all over again in a few years. ;)

 

Nothing to add to the thread, it's all been said already (I'm in the "don't buy it" camp). :D

[Caribbean Queen]

It kind of reminds me of people who claim to potty train an infant. There is still the issue that it requires a lot from the parent because infants can't exactly pull their pants down and get onto a toilet themselves. So then one has to wonder what the point is.

 

 

Off topic: True, Baby needs help to go potty, but that is easier than changing and washing diapers, especially in some places where people have to wash diapers by hand (no washing machines).

[stripe]

I would also like to mention that it can be VERY handy to have your children NOT know how to read when they are very little. All privacy bets are off once they know what's going on, and many things become much more complicated. I am not saying that one should keep one's children in the dark intellectually, but there are some social skills that must be learned (for example, respecting someone else's privacy) when one knows, for example, most of the words in the title of a book on a parent's beside, what the label says, and can (for example) read captions on the TV even if you've muted it ("Ten people killed overnight!"). Having a child able to read without appropriate maturity to handle the content can be an issue.

 

Just something to consider.

[lynn]

You can buy a lot of great books for your children to enjoy for years for that same $200.

[abbeyej]

I would also like to mention that it can be VERY handy to have your children NOT know how to read when they are very little. All privacy bets are off once they know what's going on, and many things become much more complicated. I am not saying that one should keep one's children in the dark intellectually, but there are some social skills that must be learned (for example, respecting someone else's privacy) when one knows, for example, most of the words in the title of a book on a parent's beside, what the label says, and can (for example) read captions on the TV even if you've muted it ("Ten people killed overnight!"). Having a child able to read without appropriate maturity to handle the content can be an issue.

 

Lol, too true! Though I found the questions get complicated when a child learns to read (so much more information than they ever had before!) whether that child is five years old or three! ;)

[Guest mrs. logic]

Just wondering if anyone has purchased this or plan to. My husband is wanting me to get it for our boys, but $200 seems like way to much money. Couldn't I just use the Ordinary Parent's Guide to Teaching Reading?? Thoughts..Opinions?

You might want to check out Glenn Doman's "How to Teach Your Baby to Read" at www.rainbowresource.com

My mother taught me to read using this particular book in mid 1960's. Interestingly enough I taught my Dd to read using the same book nine years ago. I have written a review of the book at www.rainbowresource.com if you would like to read it.

:)

[Guest janainaz]

The more sight words you teach your kids, the greater chance they'll have trouble reading down the road at a proficient level. The program is just memorizing sight words.

 

Read to your kids. Talk to your kids. Discuss the books. Point out the pictures, the names of things on the pages, the colors, count items, etc. ABC books are great for this. I treat the alphabet on the pages like any other picture on the page. They'll learn lots. Once they know all of their letters, you can start on phonics and begin teaching them to be proficient readers.

 

:iagree:

 

When your kids know the letter sounds and understand the concept of sounding out a word, you can use the Ordinary Parents Guide To Teaching Reading. It's an excellent phonics based curriculum (I used it with my older son and am currently using it with my younger son).

[Brigitte]

Just wondering if anyone has purchased this or plan to. My husband is wanting me to get it for our boys, but $200 seems like way to much money. Couldn't I just use the Ordinary Parent's Guide to Teaching Reading?? Thoughts..Opinions?

 

We used to market Your Baby Can Read at Usborne Books. I was never really able to get behind it, but do know a lot of people who swear by it. I have seen the creator speak twice about the program.

 

Yes, it starts as a sight word program, but works into a phonics based program. I think it can be effective, however, I don't really see the need for a baby to be able to read. My feeling is if you already put your baby in front of the TV, they buy the program as it does have some merit and the images are not flashing by (better than most other baby products out there). But, if you don't put your baby in front of the TV now, I would not start.

 

If your dh is bent on buying it, check with your local Usborne consultants to see if they have a leftover copy or if they know of someone who does. We sold that program for $79.99 not $200.

[Terabith]

You can teach toddlers the phonograms pretty easily. Whether or not they can blend them into words is largely a factor of maturity, but both my kids knew the major sounds of the 26 alphabet letters by 18 months, and were aware of some multiletter phonograms shortley thereafter. Neither of them did anything with that knowledge; they didn't make the leap and I've taught them to read around 4.5 - 5, but they knew their sounds. Learning the phonograms is largely a factor of memory, and most toddlers have that in spades. Not a ton different than looking at a picture of a cow and saying "woof," imo.