Early Learning... What say you?

[GingerPoppy]

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.)

Excellent post. Agreed!

[JeneralMom]

I'm sorry, but my DS7 was walking at 6mos, speaking in full sentences at 16mos, knew how to read at 3yo (but tried to not let on because DS8 has trouble reading), and we did no early learning, just play. I worked at a disability centre at the time which was located right next to a childhood development centre and they sent researchers in to study him. My Dad's wife was a professor of early childhood education and was strictly against all those early baby-learning programs (like Teach your baby to Read). I have a very hard time imagining a 16mo reading at a 2nd grade level unless s/he is an absolute genius. There is no way the average 16mo could accomplish any of those things.

 

And, by the way, it has not made life easier for DS7. He has the same struggles as any 7yo kid, and having been able to tell people that he was "going to the chiropractor to have his subluxation adjusted" at 16mos has not (as of yet) given him a leg up in life. Sure, he has D'Aulaire's Book of Greek Myths memorized and entrances adults with his detailed knowledge of whatever he is interested in, but so what.

[jujsky]

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?

 

Honestly, that sounds like a load of garbage to me. I treated both my children the same. DS (who DOES have issues -- ADHD, sensory issues, and a LD) and DD could not do the same things. DS wasn't even speaking in complete sentences until he was 2. I did the same things with the kids in terms of education, and I'm a big advocate of early education. I started pre-K with them when DS was 3 and DD was 2. DD flew by DS. She was reading CVC words when she was barely 3....

 

BUT, even though DS wasn't reading proficiently until the beginning of last year (2nd grade) he flew past DD in reading ability and comprehension. She learned some of the basics early then hit a plateau, while DS struggled and then had a light-bulb moment.

 

FWIW, when we began school I didn't know if DS had any learning disabilities. I made the assumption he didn't. He could identify shapes and letters early (2ish) but there is no way even at 2 that he could have read cards with words on them. I don't think my early-reader DD could have read cards at 16 months.

 

So no -- what your DD is able to do is not something every kid can do, and I'm afraid you may be let-down if your future children are unable to do the same. It's great that she can do it. It does sound like she's gifted. Not every child has those abilities. I don't think there's anything wrong with early education so long as you don't have any preset expectations.

[Guest]

So... I DO understand that this is a home-Schooling forum, cause I plan on teaching from home, so challenging the public schools when she gets to age ino probably not going to be an issue. My view was simply this... If a majority of the children entering school were already reading and doing those things they are currently learning in Kindergarten, the system would have to change for the new populace.

 

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:

:leaving:

 

Well, probably the OP is not reading this thread anymore, so my thoughts may just be so much cyber-drivel, but I agree with AprilMay. I enjoy sniffing out trolls, but I don't think this is one. I sounded a lot like this when I was 26, in the infancy of message boards, posting on the Gifted board at Parent Soup. :001_smile:

 

To the OP, if you are sincere, as I believe you are, I will say I thought exactly like you when my oldest (now nearly 15yo) was a baby...or before she was a baby. I read all of Glen Doman's Teach Your Baby...books and was on an e-mail loop of other "Teach-Your-Baby" parents. I made thousands of cards with gigantic words on them. I used tons of resources to teach my dd everything you can imagine. I walked her around the house and showed her things, "This is a can-opener. This is a sponge - it's for applying soap and water." I read her hundreds of books. I moved my finger under the words. I used books like "Chicka Chicka Boom Boom" to teach her the alphabet, upper and lower case, and all primary phonetic sounds. We did puzzles with parallelograms and hexagons.

 

She talked very early. I have a video of her at 19 months, looking through the animal atlas and naming animals like, "Armadillo" and "Wolverine." She started sounding out words when she was 3. Before she was 3, she drew an unbelievable picture of a butterfly, which she labeled (improbably) with the name "HOPR" (Hopper). Her pediatrician did not believe it was possible that she actually did do this. She could do many things that I read were supposed to be impossible for her brain to actually allow at such a young age, so I know how it is to hear people say, "Pfffttt! That isn't even possible when they are so young!" I remember her picking up particular crayons off the floor when she was less than a year and a half old, correctly naming them, "Blue," "Orange," etc., and my MIL refused to believe that she did actually know those were the colors. It is supposed to be impossible for a child that young to generalize colors to fit new things that are also blue or orange, yet she clearly could do exactly that.

 

What came of it? Ultimately, she is a very intelligent young lady. She is an extraordinary artist, an inspiring writer, a great pianist and a true bibliophile. I do not think any of my attentive exercise hurt her in any way and I am not sorry I put in the effort I did. (None of this was ever negative; there was never any hand-slapping or performance pressure. I didn't even tell people about it publicly, though some discovered it of their own accord.)

 

HOWEVER - I have two younger children besides. I was still fully in the groove of doing these exercises when I had my second child. He is smart enough and reads adequately, but he showed none of the high-level super smarts that I thought would surely be the outcome of my efforts. My views have changed almost 100% since I was 26. A child's intelligence and skill with words (or art, or music, etc.) is mainly genetic inheritance factors, once you move beyond obvious neglect or malnutrition.

 

My daughter's skill set is very representative of my genetics as I also have strong language skills, art, and musical ability. Two of my siblings were extraordinary readers and all were highly intelligent. My son's skill set is very representative of my husband's genetics. They both have strong spatial skills and mathematical skills, but weak language skills with some dyslexic tendencies. (My husband's dyslexic tendencies show more strongly than my son's, which I think is partly due to the way my son has been taught, but neither has a gift for language.)

 

(My youngest son - it's hard to say. He seems to be a mix. He is artistic and musical, but more mathematical than language-oriented.)

 

So, there's my view, for what it's worth. I don't think loving, attentive, positive teaching of babies and toddlers hurts anything and it could be beneficial, but it's not going to revolutionize all children into super-intelligent beings, even if it were possible and practical to enrich all children's environments to that extent.

[scrappyhappymama]

Myself specifically.... OK. When Julie was first born I would do 30 minute interval talk sessions up to 3 times a day. It was easy for me cause I breast fed, but 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. This is how I would put her to sleep sometimes. I also noticed she loved to watch my hands so I would do the alphabet sign language song as she would stare. Sometimes instead of saying the letter I would say the sound alon with the signed symbol. We did use videos (won't mention the name for fear of being accused of promoting a product) when she turned 6 months. Kind of like video flash cards which we would show 2xs per day at no more than 15 min. Intervals with NO other television watching. Since birth I have read chapter books following the words with my fingers as we read. When she was But 8 months she became very verbal, and we were still, at this point, only doing the series of videos and the daycare teacher did the flashcards with all the kids daily. She was able to say and recognize over 200 words by the time she was 12 months. Now she can read most of the short books we have if I point at the words as we go. I would say that reading and finger following has probably had the bigger impact than anything else. It was just a week or two before this forum post that I realized she might be reading phonetically cause she was able to read words that weren't in any of the videos or flashcards we had done so far. Now her thing is the IpAd. She can unlock it, open the "kids app" folder and use all of the apps we put therefor her, including the puzzle games.

 

I would be VERY interested in hearing how you've implemented these same principles in your daycare center, and what the results have been. Because I cannot imagine being as enthusiastic as you are about how these methods would garner the same results for other parents, and not taking advantage at that very opportunity right in front of you. Are you seeing the same level of precocious reading in your daycare? If so, and your sample size is larger than one child, I think you'd find people will take your testimony more seriously.

 

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.

 

LOL. My 3rd child potty trained by this EXACT same method just after his second birthday! It was ridiculously awesome. (If he was my first child, I might have thought I was a potty training genius. Or, I mean, that HE was a potty training genius. ;))

 

For some reason, my current 31 month old refuses to self potty train. He's very stubborn like that. And his mama is very stubbornly avoiding the issue as well. It's not pretty. Obviously, I have lost the gift!

 

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

 

:iagree: From a behavioral standpoint, my first child was a *dream.* He was compliant and obeyed most of the time and only had to be told "no" once and he'd stop whatever it was. I was pretty impressed with my parenting skills and my consistency, let me tell you, and I also looked around at all the other two and three year olds pitching fits and refusing to obey the first time and mentally clucked at those parents who could have compliant, easy children if only they'd do it right!

 

Then... I had my second child, who happened to be very strong willed. And then my third, who had another personality entirely. and then my fourth.... It didn't take long to realize that each child is their own person, with their own needs and aptitudes and abilities.

 

To the OP, if you are still reading, I think it's wonderful that your child has flourished with your methods. She sounds like a very precocious child. I have a good friend with a son who is reading approximately on the same level as yours, also at 2 1/2, so I'm not discounting the possibility at all. But, until you have a sample size larger than 1 to present, it is pretty well impossible to derive a generalization from your experience. You must realize that it is much more likely that your daughter is advanced or gifted and not that all these women here with all their years of experience are so completely wrong.

 

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).

 

While there are certainly some folks who consider non-organic "early learning" of any type to be harmful, I would venture to say that most folks here are not opposed to the idea of early learning so much as they are opposed to the idea that ALL children would benefit in the same ways as the OP's child from the OP's methods. That was the contention that was made, and what I think has caused so many hackles to be raised.