Early Learning... What say you?

[ktgrok]

1. It means they need to use a different approach. I never said that my methods I used with my daughter were the key and only way. Just like all people learn differently so do babies.

 

 

Why do you think a different approach would get the same results you got? What evidence do you have for that? Why do you think most babies can learn to read? And what methods WOULD work then, to change a baby from non verbal to reading?

[Tress]

:iagree::iagree: It's not only a mistake, it's incredibly arrogant. This conversation really reminds me of those young mothers I've encountered who have a single, easy going baby and suddenly are experts on raising children and give out all kinds of unsolicited advice on how to successfully raise teenagers. ;)

 

Although, I suppose since my dd self taught reading at age 4 I should pass on all of my knowledge and expertise you all of you lowly people.

Here's how you do it:

1. Have lots of babies.

2. Have no time to teach your 3.5 year old daughter to read, no matter how often she begs you.

3. Leave said daughter alone with a book.

4. Voila! You have yourself an early reader! :lol:

(Hmmm.... wonder why that system didn't work with my other kids?

:001_huh:Oh well!

Off to go write up a curriculum based on my knowledge and change the education system as we know it...)

 

That is so cool! I have a similar system for potty training. Potty training is VERY easy, if you do it my way :D.

 

1. Get pregnant and very ill (hyperemesis)

2. Decide that you are too ill to potty train your youngest at that time.

3. Do nothing, until some day your 27mo dd tells you that she no longer wants to use a diaper and wants to use the toilet.

4. You take off her diaper....voila...potty trained. No accidents EVER.

 

and because you can....you do it again:

 

5. Get pregnant again, be ill again. Sigh. You might want to skip this step ;).

6. Do nothing, until your 21mo dd tells you that she no longer wants to use a diaper and wants to use the toilet.

7. Take off diaper....voila. Only one or two accidents the first week.

 

 

Coffeetime, I think you and I need to get together and start publishing.

Because if we can do it, everyone can. Because it had obviously nothing to do with....luck....or....our specific kids...or anything. Pure genius.

[bolt.]

I'm still confused as to why you seem to think that what your daughter is doing is called "reading". (Certainly, it's a reading-related skill, perhaps even a pre-reading skill... but, unless I've misunderstood something, it's not actual reading.)

 

I'm also still uncertain why you view this pre-reading skill to be beneficial to a child that age, and why you think it's best for the child to be able to recognize individual words sooner rather than later. (Why is 2 better than 3? Why is 3 better than 6?)

 

Those are the things I'm not sure about. Something I am sure about is that children who pick up an unusual skill at a young age almost never 'continue to progress'. Usually they find they've gone as far as they can, and they stay there until their psychological and congnitive development opens the next door for them at the appropriate age. You seem to have confused 'developmental level' and 'level indicated by demonstrable single skills'. All children are at the same developmental level as children their own age (excepting exceptions such as delays). In fact, for a professional, you seem to have very little understanding of child cognitive development.

Edited March 13, 2012 by bolt.

[stripe]

@ ginger.... Thanks for the reply. Honestly, I think it's all the "coaching" in those first few days of life and continuing that pattern. Coaching meaning the talking sessions, finger reading, and signing sounds. I did some research on brain development that led me to the conclusion that that time would be the best to start "making sparks". I could be totally wrong tho - I'm no scientist, just going off my own experience.

My babies slept a lot in their first few days. I had to wake them up to nurse. So to me, food > reading at day 5.

 

One kids knew all the letters at 24 months with no flashcards. Just asked me and remembered. Another did not know this. They were reading cvc words at about the same time. So I think the alphabet thing made zero difference, and in fact the non-"reader" talked in complete sentences earlier.

 

(Also I don't think a sample size of one is sufficient to prove your method, vs another method, vs her own natural abilities, is the cause.)

 

I read Hothouse Kids by Quart, and except for the math geniuses, they mostly ended up having psychological problems after their exceptional abilities ended up being just like normal kids, only a few years earlier. It didn't result in continued excellence.

 

I asked before about Scandinavian early childhood ed but received no reply. I continue to recommend you consider it.

Edited March 13, 2012 by stripe

[Bang!Zoom!]

Not a single one... We have a handful that attend the early 3-4 pre k in the local school district. They use the same curriculum we do except ours is slightly modified.

 

Goodness sakes alive, I leave to go do life and come to catch up and whoa...anyway...back to where I was looking for some details this morning...

 

I've got that you run a center, 85 kids, no big whoop.

 

I get that you have little experience with caring for disadvantaged populations.

 

But...

 

You said in the quoted above: "They" use the same curriculum we do-

 

I get that the "They: is the local PS....and you use something similar.

 

There are tons of curriculum junkies on this board.

 

Care to share titles, publishers, etc. of your curriculum?

 

You might find some common ground here by exploring that.

[Bluegoat]

My babies slept a lot in their first few days. I had to wake them up to nurse. So to me, food > reading at day 5.

 

One kids knew all the letters at 24 months with no flashcards. Just asked me and remembered. Another did not know this. They were reading cvc words at about the same time. So I think the alphabet thing made zero difference, and in fact the non-"reader" talked in complete sentences earlier.

 

(Also I don't think a sample size of one is sufficient to prove your method, vs another method, vs her own natural abilities, is the cause.)

 

I read Hothouse Kids by Quart, and except for the math geniuses, they mostly ended up having psychological problems after their exceptional abilities ended up being just like normal kids, only a few years earlier. It didn't result in continued excellence.

 

I asked before about Scandinavian early childhood ed but received no reply. I continue to recommend you consider it.

 

I always think of John Stuart Mill as a good warning against really pushing young kids in an inappropriate way. Yes, maybe they will read Greek at three, but then they may burn out and have a breakdown at 21.

[Mommy22alyns]

Whatever happened to...Reya?

 

:smilielol5:

[AnnaM]

Here is my experience, I have three children. They all grew up in the same environment with the same advantages and disadvantages. Even my oldest was not a single child long enough to have any "perks" of being an only.

 

My oldest learned to draw at an early age. Nothing spectacular but she was drawing smiley faces at 12 months. I thought it was spectacular. She also had an abnormally large vocabulary both signed and spoken. She walked late. She potty trained in 1 day on her own at just over 3 years. She struggles with math and didnt learn to read slowly until last year when she suddenly expoded at age 7.

 

My middle child also had an extensive vocab. She potty day potty trained in 1 day and 3 months later was night trained. She is in 1st grade and is still struggling to read but is excellent at math. Her mental math impresses me to no end.

 

My 3 year old son had to be "bribed" into potty training and it has been a long long LONG process. He still wont poop in there. He has been the only child out of my 3 that has BEGGED me to teach him. He has picked up the sounds of the alphabet with no trouble but doesnt know his ABC's and doesnt recognize the letters.

 

My point is that each of my children are learning in the same environment and each of them has a different set of skills. The only thing about them that is similar is that they all have VERY RICH imaginations and play skills. You are trying to do exactly what the PS does, put every child into a cookie cutter mold, even if an idealistic one. It just won't work.

[AvasMom]

 

There are tons of curriculum junkies on this board.

 

Care to share titles, publishers, etc. of your curriculum?

 

You might find some common ground here by exploring that.

 

That's an awful lot of work to ask of a troll. :glare: Oh well, we'll see if she learned to use google afterall. :)

[Bang!Zoom!]

I always think of John Stuart Mill as a good warning against really pushing young kids in an inappropriate way. Yes, maybe they will read Greek at three, but then they may burn out and have a breakdown at 21.

 

Thank YOU so much for bringing that name up. I've been trying to remember that story for about 3 months now! He was a figure used as a case study in a psych class I had a zillion years ago.

 

That is a fascinating (albeit tragic) example of horse and pony educational tricks.

 

Edit: I dunno about hoisting the pillars at this point; a good friend of mine (virtually anyway) has been telling me over and over and over that Rhetoric and Logic fear nothing, they allow for all points of view to sharpen the contrast in the search for virtue and truth.

 

I'm willing to be open to it...

Edited March 13, 2012 by one*mom

[Coffeetime]

Coffeetime, I think you and I need to get together and start publishing.

Because if we can do it, everyone can. Because it had obviously nothing to do with....luck....or....our specific kids...or anything. Pure genius.

 

We'll be..... millionaires!! :D

[BatmansWife]

I know I'm kinda naive....and trolls have caught me off guard before. Buuuuttt...I think that Jujubeesmama is legit. I think she's a young first time mother who just wanted to discuss early learning and early reading (and if this is the case....I think it's sad that she's been getting the 3rd degree along with such unkind comments). She probably thought this would be a great place to discuss this. I actually think she's being a pretty good sport with all the troll talk and the not-so-nice comments. If it were me.....you all know I'd be cryin' buckets by now and wanting to leave. :crying:

 

Jujubeesmama, I'm thinking maybe a forum dealing specifically with parents of gifted children would probably have been a better place to post about this. You may have a more meaningful discussion. I think your dd is super smart and that you are an attentive mom who is spending a lot of time with her. I'm glad you'll be homeschooling and I hope you won't be run off this forum. You really can learn a lot here....and the discussions don't always get this heated.

 

:leaving:

 

[stripe]

Well, I am not so keen to discuss "implementing tactics," personally.

 

That being said, I am unclear on whether the results have been duplicated with the 85 children in the center or just the OP's own child?

[Rbsmrter]

Whut?

 

Showing flashcards to my 10 month old. Obviously. ;)

[myfunnybunch]

Because I'm a horrible optimist?:001_huh:

 

Or because you are overgeneralizing.

 

It's one thing to have a remarkable child. It's another entirely to make the assertion that all, or nearly all, children can develop the same skills if only things were done the way you've done them. It's not that black and white. Many people have implemented similar techniques without the same results.

 

It's just not as simple as "Let's talk about early childhood learning. If everyone did what I did, almost all children would read early and schools would be great." There are too many cultural and individual factors at play. Not only that, but many parents, teachers and early childhood educators don't believe an emphasis on early reading to be a desirable or developmentally appropriate focus for most children. You've got an interesting idea, but not a practical one.

 

This is a great board, with intelligent people who enjoy discussing education. We learn a lot from one another. (Well, I'll speak for myself: I learn a lot.) For myself, as an early childhood special education specialist, I am interested in the brain research you've read and would like to read it myself. If you stick around you'll often find these kinds of questions and debates. We like it when posters back up their assertions because this group tends to be independent that way--we like to read it for ourselves and draw our own conclusions. Sharing that kind of information furthers discussion. :)

 

Cat

[ladydusk]

2. Are they learning disabled if they can't be taught to read before 2?

 

3. What impact will it have on them later on, to read or not read at such an early age?

 

All (three!) of my children have read with pretty good comprehension around 4-3/4 or so. The two oldest have moved through to chapter books (I still encourage picture books, too) rather quickly ... and you know what I've found? The themes and plots of the books they're *capable* of reading are often inappropriate to their maturity level. I am always asking the librarian to look up reviews of books so I know if they're acceptable or not (we are pretty conservative on that point).

 

I'm all for early reading (although late infancy/early toddler-hood seems a bit too early to me). My nephew spontaneously read around 3, which is great ... but what do you give the kid to read that is maturationally appropriate? Do you doom them to early readers for two or three years? Many picture books are difficult reading because they're meant to be read aloud. Generally chapter books are beyond in their world experience and comprehension level.

 

I recently listened to 2011 CiRCE talks (Sophrosune: The Practical Virtue by George Sanker and The Principle of Cultivation by John Hodges) and one of the issues he discusses is from John Senior a so-called "poetic" stage prior to beginning Grammar Stage. And, I think Rosie's philosophy describes it well ... anything that stains a preschooler's clothing. Digging in the mud, playing with worms, etc. I think Charlotte Mason's afternoons in the out of doors is an excellent example, particularly in the "poetic" stage.

[kamom]

I say :lol:

 

I have a 16mo. He points to his diaper and runs to the changing pad when he poops.

 

Despite his enriched home environment, he maybe says 5 words, but not all in one day and not consistently.

 

This topic might have changed by now. But I had to LOL at this. It reminds me of my now 2 yr old. My other two were early talkers and early readers, both read quite well at four. This one...I have a feeling it will be a long while.

[Susan in TN]

Of my 5 kids who have learned/are learning to read, not one has been able to accomplish basic blends easily until they were 5.5 or 6. I suppose it's hereditary - neither dh nor I were particularly precocious. My older kids read well now, and my 5.5 is still learning basic letter sounds. I don't care if they learn early or not, although if they showed early aptitude I suppose I'd encourage them along with it. I want them to learn as well as God made them able.

[LibraryLover]

This sort of conversation always has me recalling an old family story of when were driving to Florida to visit relatives. As we cruise through the Carolinas, I hear my sweet little 4 yo pipe up, "What are adult sex toys?" and, "Oh, all nude girls next exit."

Edited March 14, 2012 by LibraryLover

[Mrs Mungo]

LL, I was driving with my kids, sister, my 5 year old niece and nephew. My niece pointed out how weird it was to have a tattoo parlor next to a toy store-Christie's toybox. I said, "that's not a toy store." My niece said, "aaaaakward." :lol:

[TeenagerMom]

So let me make sure I have this straight.

 

OP states that:

 

She's 28 yrs old with her 16 month old first born DD.

She has had her 85 enrolled child daycare? center for 10 years.

She was diagnosed herself as Autistic until she was in 2nd grade.

She taught her 16 month old to read up to 2nd grade level words by signing, speaking to her, showing her flash cards.

 

 

Well OBVIOUSLY, the situation here is a Child Prodigy raising another Child Prodigy because I know few 18 year old adults who start their own business and are able to overcome & eliminate an Autism diagnosis.

 

It's just fascinating.

[Bang!Zoom!]

It's statistically thoughtful...but hey..

 

Don't go scaring her off. I want a peek at her bookshelves - please?

 

A center with 85 kids is nothing special honestly. She may be doing record/enrolled count, and not daily traffic.

 

And even if it was daily traffic, still not out of the park.

[Pink Fairy]

It's been one of those days, but reading this thread has perked me right up. :001_smile:

[Grover]

That is so cool! I have a similar system for potty training. Potty training is VERY easy, if you do it my way :D.

 

1. Get pregnant and very ill (hyperemesis)

2. Decide that you are too ill to potty train your youngest at that time.

3. Do nothing, until some day your 27mo dd tells you that she no longer wants to use a diaper and wants to use the toilet.

4. You take off her diaper....voila...potty trained. No accidents EVER.

 

Hey, you stole my method! This is exactly how DS trained.

This sort of conversation always has me recalling an old family story of when were driving to Florida to visit relatives. As we cruise through the Carolinas, I hear my sweet little 4 yo pipe up, "What are adult sex toys?" and, "Oh, all nude girls next exit."

Ohhh yes, many of these occasions here too... "mum, what's rape" formthe 2 y.o. while standing in the supermarket queue. Yay for newspaper headlines.

[Joyofsixreboot]

My opinion is that I and my children are dolts. My kids didn't even really talk until past 2 and reading didn't happen until 6 or 7. We should probably be removed from general society.

[jennynd]

Bold, perhaps, but straight to the point. I heard a theory about genius-syndrome a while ago that I think applies to my passion about early learning. No offense to anyone with a DS child, at all before you read on. But when the avg. person might receive news that their newborn child has DS, certain assumptions about the challenges and the special and sometimes stressful accommodations in their new lives with a DS child must be made. When a doctor tells you your child will never speak, or use the restroom independently, you have to make certin mental prepartions to deal with that. But think now about if a doctor came and told you that your child has GS (genius syndrome) in which he would be able to learn and acquire information much more rapidly than the average child. What if he told you most children with GS will begin reading before the age of 18 months? Well, just like the parent with the DS child you would prepare yourself and your environment to give you child everything they would need to accommodate this heightened intelligence. Well my opinion would be that most children are born with GS, but the proper accommodations to enhance those skills are never being accessed. All ideas and theories, what do you think?

:confused:

Because my husband and my education background and my coworkers knew both of us for years, My kids were born assumed they will be extremely bright by many of my friends. They were even offered jobs by my boss before they were born to be engineers.

BUT No, I don not do flash card with them, I didn't formally teach my son until he was 6. My DD was taught at age 3.5 because she won't stop asking and start to imitate what my son was doing.

DS picked up his reading before he turn 2 and surprised us all since he was never taught. DD picked up her letter/sounds through watching her brother. DS was not taught to read and with DD, I started months after she started sounding out words

 

My point is, if they are capable, you can't stop them. and It is very different from a kid with DS. And if they are NOT genius, you just waste your time and make the kid miserable

 

You should read this

http://www.amazon.com/Einstein-Never-Used-Flash-Cards/dp/1579546951/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1331724473&sr=1-1

Edited March 14, 2012 by jennynd

[Pamela H in Texas]

Okay, so whether or not the OP is a troll or stretches the truth or is legit.....

 

I find it *very* interesting that so many people on a homeschooling board, where many (most?) of us don't agree that kids can learn only what little schools share with kids and the way they do it is best, would be so vehemently opposed to certain types of early learning (I fully get most people still agree with reading to kids, letting them explore in the playground, etc).

 

I mean, I can see saying that one family chooses to follow TWTM whole-heartedly while another family chooses a more laid back approach. Of course, it doesn't mean that the WTM mom isn't doing plenty of the more laid back learning activities. Same with early learning. One mom chooses to do flash cards (ala iahp.org) several minutes per day as well as Teach your Baby to Read. Another chooses the more common mudpies and reading Dr. Seuss. Of course, the mom actively teaching reading (or math or presidents or Spanish or...) is also reading Dr. Seuss and enjoys the park, daily walks, and wooden blocks. She might skip the Blues Clues since she is already doing the other video.

 

Anyway, maybe I'm misunderstanding. I just find it interesting people are SO opposed. Plenty of people think teaching Ancients or chemistry to elementary kids isn't necessary either. Doesn't mean there aren't some benefits to it, that it isn't fun, etc. Obviously, plenty of us think there *is* something to it :)

[Mergath]

Videos starting at three months? :001_huh: You should look into some studies on how bad that is for the developing infant's brain. There have been studies showing that putting a child that young in front of the tv causes activity in the brain similar to a seizure. So, you know, thanks and all, but I don't think I'll be using your methods for any children I might have in the future.

 

Of course, if you had really studied so much about early development, I imagine you would know that already. Strange...

[Lily_Grace]

Okay, so whether or not the OP is a troll or stretches the truth or is legit.....

 

I find it *very* interesting that so many people on a homeschooling board, where many (most?) of us don't agree that kids can learn only what little schools share with kids and the way they do it is best, would be so vehemently opposed to certain types of early learning (I fully get most people still agree with reading to kids, letting them explore in the playground, etc).

 

I mean, I can see saying that one family chooses to follow TWTM whole-heartedly while another family chooses a more laid back approach. Of course, it doesn't mean that the WTM mom isn't doing plenty of the more laid back learning activities. Same with early learning. One mom chooses to do flash cards (ala iahp.org) several minutes per day as well as Teach your Baby to Read. Another chooses the more common mudpies and reading Dr. Seuss. Of course, the mom actively teaching reading (or math or presidents or Spanish or...) is also reading Dr. Seuss and enjoys the park, daily walks, and wooden blocks. She might skip the Blues Clues since she is already doing the other video.

 

Anyway, maybe I'm misunderstanding. I just find it interesting people are SO opposed. Plenty of people think teaching Ancients or chemistry to elementary kids isn't necessary either. Doesn't mean there aren't some benefits to it, that it isn't fun, etc. Obviously, plenty of us think there *is* something to it :)

 

 

Perhaps it is because research shows over and over that pressing young children into "academic" situations can not only be harmful long term, but short term as well. Learning through play and exploration is the most developmentally appropriate way for those in the 0-5 crowd. Creating unnecessary and exceedingly high expectations for them to boost a parent's ego is wrong. I am all for putting a child down in front of a roomful of diverse items from musical instruments to tactile letters and letting them explore. I am not for sitting a toddler down and making them look at flash cards because that is what a parent wants them to be able to do.

[stripe]

Scandinavia! Scandinavia!

 

I have now seen two movies of Scandinavian preschools and they are really excellent, although their meals inspire me to investigate the Scandinavian countries' food pyramid, as breakfast consisted of milk, yogurt, cheese, lunch meat, muesli, and bread. (My heart beats for thee, land of the noonday moon.)

[ktgrok]

Okay, so whether or not the OP is a troll or stretches the truth or is legit.....

 

I find it *very* interesting that so many people on a homeschooling board, where many (most?) of us don't agree that kids can learn only what little schools share with kids and the way they do it is best, would be so vehemently opposed to certain types of early learning (I fully get most people still agree with reading to kids, letting them explore in the playground, etc).

 

I mean, I can see saying that one family chooses to follow TWTM whole-heartedly while another family chooses a more laid back approach. Of course, it doesn't mean that the WTM mom isn't doing plenty of the more laid back learning activities. Same with early learning. One mom chooses to do flash cards (ala iahp.org) several minutes per day as well as Teach your Baby to Read. Another chooses the more common mudpies and reading Dr. Seuss. Of course, the mom actively teaching reading (or math or presidents or Spanish or...) is also reading Dr. Seuss and enjoys the park, daily walks, and wooden blocks. She might skip the Blues Clues since she is already doing the other video.

 

Anyway, maybe I'm misunderstanding. I just find it interesting people are SO opposed. Plenty of people think teaching Ancients or chemistry to elementary kids isn't necessary either. Doesn't mean there aren't some benefits to it, that it isn't fun, etc. Obviously, plenty of us think there *is* something to it :)

 

I think the reason we are so opposed is that MOST children are not capable of learning to read at that early age. So the parent is trying to make the child do something they are not capable of, which leads to stress in the relationship. It would be like trying to teach your 3 year old calculus.

[beaners]

I think the reason we are so opposed is that MOST children are not capable of learning to read at that early age. So the parent is trying to make the child do something they are not capable of, which leads to stress in the relationship. It would be like trying to teach your 3 year old calculus.

 

Yep. My 4 year old reads phenomenally well. She spoke very well at a young age. She didn't have 200 words at 12 months, and she wasn't reading at 16 months. My husband and I are both very intelligent. She has been in an environment filled with language and reading from birth. I absolutely believe that a very few extremely young children can recognize many words. I don't believe that most children would be able to at that age.

 

Goodness, my family thinks my 18 month old is practically a genius for saying "pasta...in nose" after he shoves food up there. I suppose I could say he is studying physics when he uses peas and then shoots them out of his nose laughing. Ah yes, trajectory for the toddler crowd.

[Haiku]

the system would have to change for the new populace.

 

Wow. How very ... um ... 1984.

 

Tara

[Mrs Mungo]

Pamela, it is the method that I am opposed to.

 

When my dd was about 15 months old I had a mom (he dd was about the same age) with a philosophy similar to this who lived across the way in our apartment complex. She had formerly been a teacher.

 

I would build a block tower for dd to knock over. She would want her dd to build a tower and slap her hand if she knocked it over.

 

My dd knew the names of animals and the sounds they made. She would tell baby "jokes" when we read farm animal books. I would ask, "what does the cow say?" She would say, "meow, bwahahahahaha!" That actually takes some fairly advanced cognitive ability. My friend showed her dd flash cards and, again, smacked her hand if she got answers wrong.

 

My dd learned her letters at the fridge while I cooked. What letter is this? What letter is this? I taught her the sounds first, the Montessori way. We read Bob books. She was quickly putting together words and spelling them out by 2 1/2. She was reading well by 4 and was reading chapter books at 5. But , the truth is what someone said above-good parents give their kids opportunities to learn, but those who are ready to learn will. And certainly you could never make the claim that X method will result in babies reading.

 

My other kids did not read as early, even with the same influences. They were happy to let me or big sister(s) read to them for quite some time. Did they learn to read? Yep. Did being an advanced reader mean that my eldest was always way ahead? Nope. Although she tests in the 99th percentile in most subjects, it actually puts her at a tiny disadvantage. She thinks everything should come to her easily. But, not everything does. My other kids are more willing to work hard, and I think that is the more valuable attribute in terms of learning.

 

We are not opposed to early learning. We are opposed to claims that are patently false.

[catz]

Pamela, it is the method that I am opposed to.

 

When my dd was about 15 months old I had a mom (he dd was about the same age) with a philosophy similar to this who lived across the way in our apartment complex. She had formerly been a teacher.

 

I would build a block tower for dd to knock over. She would want her dd to build a tower and slap her hand if she knocked it over.

 

My dd knew the names of animals and the sounds they made. She would tell baby "jokes" when we read farm animal books. I would ask, "what does the cow say?" She would say, "meow, bwahahahahaha!" That actually takes some fairly advanced cognitive ability. My friend showed her dd flash cards and, again, smacked her hand if she got answers wrong.

 

My dd learned her letters at the fridge while I cooked. What letter is this? What letter is this? I taught her the sounds first, the Montessori way. We read Bob books. She was quickly putting together words and spelling them out by 2 1/2. She was reading well by 4 and was reading chapter books at 5. But , the truth is what someone said above-good parents give their kids opportunities to learn, but those who are ready to learn will. And certainly you could never make the claim that X method will result in babies reading.

 

My other kids did not read as early, even with the same influences. They were happy to let me or big sister(s) read to them for quite some time. Did they learn to read? Yep. Did being an advanced reader mean that my eldest was always way ahead? Nope. Although she tests in the 99th percentile in most subjects, it actually puts her at a tiny disadvantage. She thinks everything should come to her easily. But, not everything does. My other kids are more willing to work hard, and I think that is the more valuable attribute in terms of learning.

 

We are not opposed to early learning. We are opposed to claims that are patently false.

 

:iagree: Great post. And both my kids are much like your oldest. We did no formal academics young and my kids went to preschool. I just followed their lead.

[Susan in TN]

Okay, so whether or not the OP is a troll or stretches the truth or is legit.....

 

I find it *very* interesting that so many people on a homeschooling board, where many (most?) of us don't agree that kids can learn only what little schools share with kids and the way they do it is best, would be so vehemently opposed to certain types of early learning (I fully get most people still agree with reading to kids, letting them explore in the playground, etc).

 

I mean, I can see saying that one family chooses to follow TWTM whole-heartedly while another family chooses a more laid back approach. Of course, it doesn't mean that the WTM mom isn't doing plenty of the more laid back learning activities. Same with early learning. One mom chooses to do flash cards (ala iahp.org) several minutes per day as well as Teach your Baby to Read. Another chooses the more common mudpies and reading Dr. Seuss. Of course, the mom actively teaching reading (or math or presidents or Spanish or...) is also reading Dr. Seuss and enjoys the park, daily walks, and wooden blocks. She might skip the Blues Clues since she is already doing the other video.

 

Anyway, maybe I'm misunderstanding. I just find it interesting people are SO opposed. Plenty of people think teaching Ancients or chemistry to elementary kids isn't necessary either. Doesn't mean there aren't some benefits to it, that it isn't fun, etc. Obviously, plenty of us think there *is* something to it :)

 

I'm not sure that we're necessarily against early learning, just against early teaching of certain things when a child is clearly not ready. I think this is what SWB and WTM also recommend. It has more to do with knowing your child than depending on a particular timeline.

 

I know that my primary educational focus is on my teenagers. Their study is rather intensive, and just doesn't leave me a lot of time or desire to spend time showing my 3yo flashcards in the hopes she'll be a genius. ;)

[SKL]

I'm not against people having new / different ideas about early learning. However, I just get a vibe that this individual is either doing this as part of her "entrepreneurship" or is fishing for complements for herself and her kid.

 

If I had the ideas she had and wanted to share them, my very first post on this thread would have said "I just wanted to share something I've used that seems to have worked with my child. I thought maybe it would be useful for others. I started reading to my kid on the day she was born and running my hand under the words and encouraging her to look at them. (Etc.) I think that conditioned her mind for above-average visual recall." I would not have waited until post #137 to share the first bit of substantive information. I therefore sense an ulterior motive, and that usually involves less-than-objective reporting.

[ma23peas]

I think it is more on what one values...being able to 'read' does not make one a critical thinker, I do not look at education as an ability to repeat facts, but an ability to process information on many levels. I also look at education as a very thoughtful process....I think it is wonderful if this child enjoys doing those things....my children would not have...therefore, requiring a specific technique and trying to apply it to all children is short sighted and not realizing the unique differences between children. That is why I prefer homeschooling over traditional..we don't all fit in a neat box...what is good for one is not good for another.

[Embassy]

Okay, so whether or not the OP is a troll or stretches the truth or is legit.....

 

I find it *very* interesting that so many people on a homeschooling board, where many (most?) of us don't agree that kids can learn only what little schools share with kids and the way they do it is best, would be so vehemently opposed to certain types of early learning (I fully get most people still agree with reading to kids, letting them explore in the playground, etc).

 

I mean, I can see saying that one family chooses to follow TWTM whole-heartedly while another family chooses a more laid back approach. Of course, it doesn't mean that the WTM mom isn't doing plenty of the more laid back learning activities. Same with early learning. One mom chooses to do flash cards (ala iahp.org) several minutes per day as well as Teach your Baby to Read. Another chooses the more common mudpies and reading Dr. Seuss. Of course, the mom actively teaching reading (or math or presidents or Spanish or...) is also reading Dr. Seuss and enjoys the park, daily walks, and wooden blocks. She might skip the Blues Clues since she is already doing the other video.

 

Anyway, maybe I'm misunderstanding. I just find it interesting people are SO opposed. Plenty of people think teaching Ancients or chemistry to elementary kids isn't necessary either. Doesn't mean there aren't some benefits to it, that it isn't fun, etc. Obviously, plenty of us think there *is* something to it :)

 

Some types of learning are developmentally appropriate and some are not. Learning through play is the most effective way to teach a young child. I question the effectiveness of flashcard usage in young children. It may appear effective in the short term, but what are the long-term results on brain development?

 

I am all for early learning, but believe it should be done through play. Children learn how to speak about 1000 words by the time they are 3. This isn't done through flashcards, but through hearing and hearing those words used in a natural context. The natural context for children is play. My daughter (almost 4) has shown a need for some formal instruction of late, but I still like to approach it through play. Kids learn best that way.

 

Here is a research article that talks about the link between play and cognitive development.

 

Play skills are important to language development as well as cognitive skills. By play skills I mean it is important to help a child develop pretend play skills that become complex and time-consuming. For instance, if a child prepares a tea party by setting a table with snacks and drinks, welcomes guests, pours drinks, gives snacks, clears the table, spends time talking, bids farewell to guests, cleans up the tea party, goes to bed for the night.... you have a child that is able to engage in extended pretend play sequences. Being able to engage in activities like this that can last for hours (preferably with someone else to adapt and change the play sequences) is important for future academic skills and brain development.

[SKL]

For the record, I do not think there is anything wrong with introducing academics early and seeing whether the child is able to do anything with them. I did that. My kids were adopted, so there was no "starting at birth / in the womb," but I did start to introduce a few letters shortly after they came home as older infants. They were big plastic letters that doubled as building blocks. I also wrote their first initial on their drinking cups so they could tell them apart. They were surrounded by every kind of learning toy and enriching sound you can imagine, though we rarely did videos. I read with them for hours daily and took them almost everywhere I went.

 

However, my main tool was observation of what did and didn't click with each of them. Had either of them shown the desire or ability to take off reading so young, I would not have stopped them. But our reality was that neither of my kids was particularly verbal. My early reader in particular took her sweet time about communicating verbally. And no, I don't think this would have been different had I spoken lists of words to her from birth. She has relatively low muscle tone, was not breastfed, and underwent a language change at age 9 mos. She also tends to be a quiet, contemplative soul. And in her innocent baby wisdom, maybe she did not view talking as the most important thing at any given time.

 

I have zero regrets about not making my kids earlier readers. They've had a pretty rich childhood and are pretty well-rounded, as well as being academically proficient compared to their peers. Nothing to stress about in that department, which is good enough for me.

[Pamela H in Texas]

Thank you for your answers.

 

Mrs. Mungo, I most certainly would be turned off by that also. However, I guess I think there is an inbetween. I see *nothing* wrong with teaching littles academics. Of course, my assumption is that they are playing, running around, etc more. Okay, Little Bit is 9months old and based on what I can tell, she is awake 10-12 hours per day. I seriously doubt that 5-15 minutes per day of read and math instruction is going to hurt her. And if I'm going to put SOMETHING on tv for 15 minutes (even though it is highly not recommended), it may as well be Sparkabilities or some other baby learning program rather than Looney Tunes or House, MD. If she learns the quantity 12 in the process, GREAT.

 

I have sent two kids home, at 19months, who knew either all or most of their letter sounds. A 3yo I had learned all her letter sounds in the two weeks she was here (she knew all her letters before she got here). My son learned to talk BECAUSE OF the 1960s version of Teach Your Baby to Read. My daughter learned to read last summer before Kindy. My next son is learning to read these days and loves it. My littlest may or may not do it early (my first dd was reading chapter books and doing multiplication at 3. My first ds learned to read late, didn't do very well at formal mathematics, but had an amazing intuition math-wise).

 

All kids are different. I would never say any different. But we have a LOT of fun learning to read, finding OHio and Mexico on the map, and playing with MUS blocks. My kids enjoyed the Little Reader and Little Math programs when we did the trial and I'm sure they'll like it doing it with Little Bit. But that is just a small part of things. Most of our days are filled with other things. I just can't imagine cutting OUT those things just because they are 'too young.'

[Catwoman]

Am I the only one who has noticed that 34 out of the 35 total messages the OP has posted so far have been in this one single thread?

 

Maybe I'm just being ultra-suspicious because we have had so many trolls here lately, but this just seems odd to me. :confused:

 

And once again, this is a non-homeschooler posting for the very first time on a homeschool forum with a topic that is known to cause debate. :glare:

[Slipper]

I wish the OP would youtube her child reading. I'm finding it hard to visualize a child that age reading proficiently and comprehending.

 

All of my kids were late readers (though not for lack of trying!). My middle and youngest are very strong readers. My oldest (with autism) is considered a wonderful reader simply because others consider it a miracle she learned to read at all. She reads at a 1st or 2nd grade level.

 

My personal belief is that children learn to read when they are ready. For mine (dd 10 and 7) it was like a switch flipped. They burned through early readers for a month, then moved to simple chapter books. Now they read (and comprehend) harder books. I don't think they have suffered because they were late readers.

 

To the OP, schools will not adjust when smarter kids come in. Instead, they will make class sizes larger since they now have 'smart' kids who can help others. After my daughter learned to read simple chapter books (prior to my pulling her out of PS), she was allowed on the computer during reading lessons since she knew how to read. She was also allowed on the computer during math since she knew how to add/subtract. Then of course, allowed on the computer as a privilege since she was well behaved. If she wasn't on the computer, she was reading to other students.

[astrid]

Am I the only one who has noticed that 34 out of the 35 total messages the OP has posted so far have been in this one single thread?

 

Maybe I'm just being ultra-suspicious because we have had so many trolls here lately, but this just seems odd to me. :confused:

 

And once again, this is a non-homeschooler posting for the very first time on a homeschool forum with a topic that is known to cause debate. :glare:

 

Nope; I noticed it this morning and almost posted the very same thing but got called away from my desk and had been auto-logged out by the time I got back to it.

 

BTW, the only post other than this thread is in the Bigfoot thread. Must have an interest in mythical beasts. ;)

 

astrid

[6packofun]

Well, just like the parent with the DS child you would prepare yourself and your environment to give you child everything they would need to accommodate this heightened intelligence.

 

No, I really wouldn't do that much "prep". I would wait to see what child God gave me and his/her abilities, personalities, desires, etc. *before* finding a theory to hang my hat on and regardless of any label. All DS are NOT the same; they function differently, are differently capable in all sorts of ways and don't have the same personality. I just couldn't put my child in a box like that before even meeting him or her. :)

[Rivka]

I find it *very* interesting that so many people on a homeschooling board, where many (most?) of us don't agree that kids can learn only what little schools share with kids and the way they do it is best, would be so vehemently opposed to certain types of early learning (I fully get most people still agree with reading to kids, letting them explore in the playground, etc). [...]

 

Anyway, maybe I'm misunderstanding. I just find it interesting people are SO opposed. Plenty of people think teaching Ancients or chemistry to elementary kids isn't necessary either. Doesn't mean there aren't some benefits to it, that it isn't fun, etc. Obviously, plenty of us think there *is* something to it :)

 

For me, it's because people who follow the "teach your baby" path are typically replacing a more effective learning environment with a less effective learning environment.

 

For example: The OP claims that that when her child was a newborn she listed words to her for 90 minutes a day. "these sessions just consist of listing words and short phrases clearly in a conversational tone.... I.e. Mom, dad, nana, love, home, Joe, eat.... And just make a list of words you know a child will be bound to hear." I'd have to think for a pretty long time before I could come up with a more useless method for teaching the child's native language. Lists of words, completely devoid of context? Nothing to attach the verbal label to? Useless!

 

Now, talking to your baby - that's useful. Babies learn a ton from words that appear in sentences, in context, connected to real things that you're seeing or hearing or doing. Talking to other people in front of your baby is also valuable. Babies learn from being exposed to rich language as it is actually used.

 

Research shows that the way most people instinctively speak to babies - a high voice, exaggerated variations in pitch, lots of repetition, responding to the baby's faces and random noises as if they are contributions to a conversation - is highly beneficial. It's called "Motherese," and its exaggerated qualities help babies figure out how speech and conversations work.

 

The mother who is crooning high-pitched, repetitive nonsense to her baby about how the baby's toes are the cutest and tastiest toes in the whole world is providing better language education than the mother who is reciting word lists. Seriously. There is tons of research to back this up.

 

The early learning industry works very hard to convince people that videos, CDs, "learning toys," flash cards, programs, and special routines are how babies and young children learn best. That's the opposite of the truth. Explicit instruction isthe least effective way to teach babies and young children. It's better than ignoring your kid entirely, sure - but it's not as good than 1001 other things that you could be doing.

 

Ahem. Sorry. I have opinions. :D (I posted my Early Learning Manifesto on my blog a little while back, if anyone is interested.)

[LittleIzumi]

For me, it's because people who follow the "teach your baby" path are typically replacing a more effective learning environment with a less effective learning environment.

 

For example: The OP claims that that when her child was a newborn she listed words to her for 90 minutes a day. "these sessions just consist of listing words and short phrases clearly in a conversational tone.... I.e. Mom, dad, nana, love, home, Joe, eat.... And just make a list of words you know a child will be bound to hear." I'd have to think for a pretty long time before I could come up with a more useless method for teaching the child's native language. Lists of words, completely devoid of context? Nothing to attach the verbal label to? Useless!

 

Now, talking to your baby - that's useful. Babies learn a ton from words that appear in sentences, in context, connected to real things that you're seeing or hearing or doing. Talking to other people in front of your baby is also valuable. Babies learn from being exposed to rich language as it is actually used.

 

Research shows that the way most people instinctively speak to babies - a high voice, exaggerated variations in pitch, lots of repetition, responding to the baby's faces and random noises as if they are contributions to a conversation - is highly beneficial. It's called "Motherese," and its exaggerated qualities help babies figure out how speech and conversations work.

 

The mother who is crooning high-pitched, repetitive nonsense to her baby about how the baby's toes are the cutest and tastiest toes in the whole world is providing better language education than the mother who is reciting word lists. Seriously. There is tons of research to back this up.

 

 

:iagree:I have also read that it would be better for a baby to watch American Idol than Baby Einstein videos, because then they would at least be exposed to full language in context.

[Embassy]

Research shows that the way most people instinctively speak to babies - a high voice, exaggerated variations in pitch, lots of repetition, responding to the baby's faces and random noises as if they are contributions to a conversation - is highly beneficial. It's called "Motherese," and its exaggerated qualities help babies figure out how speech and conversations work.

 

The mother who is crooning high-pitched, repetitive nonsense to her baby about how the baby's toes are the cutest and tastiest toes in the whole world is providing better language education than the mother who is reciting word lists. Seriously. There is tons of research to back this up.

 

:iagree: Motherese helps the baby become an active participant in conversation. The mother/father responds to baby's movements, facial expressions, and noises using Motherese making the baby a conversational partner before he/she can say a word. The sing-song voice and cutesy phrases all serve an important function in language development.

[SKL]

I have a friend whose daughter is the same age as my youngest. The family visited over Christmas and they seemed almost horrified at the fact that my dd is doing so much academically and that I accelerated her in school. Their mom teaches at a Waldorf preschool, so I guess they have been convinced that later is better. However, I don't believe there is any one rule that fits all kids or families. I don't believe kids are ruined by early exposure and early opportunities to use academic tools. I also don't think a normal child is hurt by postponing that, as long as the overall environment encourages creative thought and learning.

 

I think that for me, the biggest reason I at least try the early learning stuff is because I don't want to leave it up to a teacher with a roomful of kids to teach. (I realize most of you didn't do that at all, but I had no plans to homeschool.) We all know how common it is for kids to not get the type of help they need in school, and the result is often a poor attitude in addition to delay / confusion. I guess if you're planning to homeschool anyway, you don't have that concern.

[Embassy]

I have a friend whose daughter is the same age as my youngest. The family visited over Christmas and they seemed almost horrified at the fact that my dd is doing so much academically and that I accelerated her in school. Their mom teaches at a Waldorf preschool, so I guess they have been convinced that later is better. However, I don't believe there is any one rule that fits all kids or families. I don't believe kids are ruined by early exposure and early opportunities to use academic tools. I also don't think a normal child is hurt by postponing that, as long as the overall environment encourages creative thought and learning.

 

I think that for me, the biggest reason I at least try the early learning stuff is because I don't want to leave it up to a teacher with a roomful of kids to teach. (I realize most of you didn't do that at all, but I had no plans to homeschool.) We all know how common it is for kids to not get the type of help they need in school, and the result is often a poor attitude in addition to delay / confusion. I guess if you're planning to homeschool anyway, you don't have that concern.

 

Academics for an interested 3-4 year old, IMO, is quite different than academics for an infant. Some 3 year olds are ready and eager to read, but I would not say that it was typical.