Blog Article: Your Baby SHOULDN'T Read

Thoughts?


Blog Article: Your Baby SHOULDN’T Read

Why early reading - let alone from a DVD - is a lousy deal for your child.

Published on May 27, 2010 by Marsha Lucas, Ph.D. in Rewire Your Brain For Love

Most often, the bottom-line reason people find their way to my psychotherapy practice is because of relationship issues – struggling marriages, unsuccessful dating, lousy relationships with family and/or coworkers – and of course, their relationships with themselves are also frequently out of whack. Much of this shows up as depression and anxiety.

Rest assured that all of them can read very, very well. I work in Washington, DC, not far from the White House, and none of the patients I see are wanting for intellectual development; almost all of them are highly educated and exceptionally successful in their careers.

It’s the “other stuff” of life that eludes them – loving and being loved, balancing their lives, managing their emotions, living a life of meaning and depth. Almost without exception, their early experiences of connection with their parents – their attachment – looms large in how they got here.

What does this have to do with babies and reading, and those horrendous advertisements for teaching your baby to read?

First and foremost: The fundamental task of early childhood isn’t learning to read, or to “get ahead” for school, or to impress the neighbors, or to give the folks something to brag about. Encouraging children to surge ahead beyond their real developmental needs leaves them with some really sludgy clean-up to grapple with later on.

The most important task of early childhood is experiencing a healthy, secure attachment in which the child’s caregivers are attuned to the child’s inner state and respond in a contingent manner.

Let me say that again. What kids need from the get-go is a parent who “gets” them, who pays attention to what’s going on inside them, and who responds to them in a way that’s actually related to what the kid is feeling.

Healthy, secure, attuned attachment gives kids some much deeper “advantages” in life than whether they learn to read early (and learning to read early doesn’t actually give them any advantages, anyway - which I’ll get to in section II below).

The research on attachment shows that there are a number of benefits which last a lifetime, including but not limited to at least the following dozen:

The ability to sustain attention
Better management of physical reactions to emotions - leading to improved immunity and fewer stress-related illnesses
Less anxiety
Better relationships with childhood peers, and healthier relationships as adults
Fewer behavioral problems
Increased capacity for empathy
Greater ability to regulate mood (for example, calming down from excitement, or not getting caught up in frustration)
Enhanced skills in communicating emotions in healthy ways
Greater confidence and self-esteem (and it isn’t just based on performance and grades, but rather a sense of abiding and healthy self-worth)
Better able to generate alternative solutions to interpersonal conflict
Enhanced insight into themselves, and others
Better modulation of fear, allowing for a willingness to explore and take on growthful challenges
“Well,” a parent (or a video marketer) might say, “letting a baby or a toddler watch an educational video to help them read earlier won’t interfere with healthy attachment.”

Actually, it can. As a psychologist/neuropsychologist who has been practicing psychotherapy and conducting cognitive evaluations for nearly twenty years, as well as having researched the relationship between brain and behavior in both infants and adults – I believe that using television to “teach” young children is a big mistake, with significant costs down the road.

(I’ll say here that reading with your child is a solid, helpful, wonderful thing to do. Explicitly teaching them to read, especially by video, is what I’m grousing about here.)

I’d love it if parents who feel they’re giving their child a “gift” with an early reading DVD would consider the following questions:

What’s the message when (by offering your child a mesmerizing “educational” DVD, and also showing them your pleasure at their achievements) you emphasize the value of learning to read extra early, over time spent with siblings, parents, or friends?
What might your child be learning from developing the habit of spending time in front of a “worthwhile” or “engaging” video, rather than with someone who loves him or her?
What are you telling your child when you’re putting them in front of the TV instead of showing them that you value interacting with them and want to be with them?
How does it help a child to see a screen as their teacher, rather than a real person – what do they do when they have a problem they need to solve, and they don’t have the early, repeated experiences of asking an adult to help them?
What are you saying to your child about the value of learning if you can’t spend the time yourself to do it with them? (In the commercial for Your Baby Can Read, the announcer asks one thrilled parent of three early readers, “And did you have to do anything?” The mother replies with joy, “I didn’t have to do a thing!”)
I understand that parents are overworked, and stressed, and sometimes feel the need to use the television as a babysitter. Maybe they themselves don’t have enough of a repertoire for unwinding or taking care of themselves beyond watching TV (or other types of screen time). Maybe they also have some leftovers from their own childhoods, about how they were or weren’t connected to their parents in ways that allowed them the dozen benefits listed above. (Regular readers of this blog will know that it’s not too late for those parents to rewire their brains and get those kinds of benefits for themselves – and for those of you who are new here, I hope you’ll take a look at some of my other posts to learn more.)

And another thing: Early reading doesn’t do much for your child’s success in school, and there’s evidence that it may even be detrimental.

Let’s take a look at a few points in that regard - and note that this list is only a few of many reasons why early reading is a lousy deal for your child.

Louise Bates Ames, PhD, a superstar in child development and the director of research at the world-renowned Gesell Institute of Child Development, stated that “a delay in reading instruction would be a preventative measure in avoiding nearly all reading failure.” Leapfrogging necessary cognitive developmental skills – and asking a young brain to do tasks for which it isn’t truly ready – is asking for trouble with learning.
The brains of young children aren’t yet developed enough to read without it costing them in the organization and “wiring” of their brain. The areas involved in language and reading aren’t fully online – and aren’t connected – until age seven or eight. If we’re teaching children to do tasks which their brains are not yet developed to do via the “normal” (and most efficient) pathways, the brain will stumble upon other, less efficient ways to accomplish the tasks – which lays down wiring in some funky ways – and can lead to later learning disabilities, including visual-processing deficits.
The description of brain development on which the “Your Baby Can Read” program rests its questionable claims is remarkably flawed, confusing language acquisition with reading. They state: “A baby’s brain thrives on stimulation and develops at a phenomenal pace…nearly 90% during the first five years of life! The best and easiest time to learn a language is during the infant and toddler years, when the brain is creating thousands of synapses every second – allowing a child to learn both the written word and spoken word simultaneously, and with much more ease…” There is a huge and unsupported leap here from language acquisition - which is definitely an important developmental task, necessary for connecting to one’s outer world - and reading, which is a very different neurological and cognitive task, and one which is not developmentally appropriate for a baby or toddler’s brain.
Does early training really get you anywhere? There is a classic study of twins which was done by another pioneer in child development, Arnold Gesell, PhD, MD. He studied a pair of toddler twins, who were not yet able to climb stairs. For the study, one of the twins was given daily practice and encouragement to climb stairs, and the other twin had no stairs to practice on. After six weeks of practice, the “trained” twin could climb the stairs, and the “untrained” twin could not. However, within one week of being given the opportunity to climb stairs, the untrained twin completely caught up with the trained twin’s stair-climbing ability.
The whole idea that learning to read early gives children – or our educational system, or our economy – an “advantage” is not based on empirical evidence. If you look at the US and Britain, you see the trends toward earlier reading and increasingly less successful educational systems. On the other hand, the majority of children in Finland begin instruction in reading at age seven – two years later than here in the US (and even later than the folks at “Your Baby Can Read” would have you start). The outcome? Finnish students not only catch up to their earlier-starting counterparts, but they surpass the United States, other European countries, and Asian countries as well, with top overall scores in the world in reading, science, and math. Oh, and the Finnish do attend preschool, but it isn’t “academic” in nature – it emphasizes social development and exploration.
If you want your child to be wired for success in life – whether you measure that by academic and career achievement, leading a meaningful life, contributing to the world, or being an adult who creates loving, healthy relationships with others – give them the gift of healthy, attuned attachment. Let your child know that who they are matters to you more than how well they perform in school. Give them your time and attention.

Related Articles
Find Your Child’s Reading Level in 60 Seconds!
Top 10 Reasons to Teach Your Baby or Toddler to Read
Your Bad Teacher Experiences Can Make Your Child’s Teachers Better
Can Your Dog Read Your Mind?
Teach Your Preschooler to Read!

Find a Therapist
Search for a mental health professional near you.

Find Local:
Acupuncturists
Chiropractors
Massage Therapists
Dentists
and more!

And, equally important, get clear on how your own habits and wiring might be getting in the way of growing deeper, more meaningful connections with others (including your child). Or how they leave you with measurements of your own success which might not be terribly fulfilling or enlivening – which you then unwittingly pass on to your child. As Daniel Siegel, MD says, “How you make sense of your childhood experiences has a profound effect on how you parent your own children.”

Bottom line: If you want to give your children an advantage in life, tune in to them.

Marsha Lucas, PhD is a psychologist / neuropsychologist in Washington, DC. Learn more about rewiring your brain at ReWireYourBrainForLove.com, where she offers a free mindfulness meditation download and a monthly e-newsletter with meditation tips. You can also follow @DrMarsha on Twitter, and join her on her Facebook page.

© 2010 Marsha Lucas. All Rights Reserved

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rewire-your-brain-love/201005/your-baby-shouldnt-read

And for parents to learn how to “get” their children:

http://www.betweenparentandchild.com/

http://www.fabermazlish.com/

http://gottman.com/48995/Parenting.html

http://www.amazon.com/Gentle-Art-Communicating-Kids/dp/0471039969

I don’t have a ton of time to pick this apart right now, but my immediate reactions are:

  1. To compare reading to climbing stairs is non-sense, reading is the “gateway to knowledge” and not learning how to read properly can cause a lifetime of problems. Climbing stairs is an issue of mobility. Apples and oranges IMO.

  2. OF COURSE the other twin learned in a week! If any of the parents here have more than 1 child they can attest to the powerful motivator of sibling modeling. I bet if you put both untrained children in front of a close friend or cousin that could climb stairs, they would BOTH have learned in a week.

  3. Why do nay-sayers think it’s an either/or proposition? That because you teach your child to read you can’t be in tune with them or develop a healthy attachment? Nonsense. I agree with her whole list of “healthy attachment benefits.” But the idea that you CAN’T be attached to your baby because they learned to read, even if they DID spend 20-30 minutes a day watching TV? You don’t need a PHD to see the faulty logic here! I taught my child to read so I don’t/can’t bond with them…really? Try to tell this to the lovely ladies over at Tweedlewink…Pamela and Wennie are ALL about attachment, living by the motto “relationships before results.”

  4. According to Kaiser, 75% of kids under age two have been exposed to “screen time” in some capacity. So why does everyone attack infant literacy screen time and NOT spongebob, yo gabba gabba, even sesame street? With truly educational DVD’s, a child actually walks away with something, versus with purely entertainment screen time your child walks away with NOTHING but a wasted thirty minutes. Now, I will say that this author said to turn off the TV and attacked all TV including (and especially) infant literacy DVDs, but you just can’t tell me YBCR isn’t better than the garbage on broadcast TV. If you are going to attack TV, then broadcast garbage needs to be first in line, even disney movies! But I don’t see them up on the chopping block.

  5. There’s a reason why this PHD is only dealing with well-educated clients in Washington DC, not those who suffer with reading. People who are “unsuccessful” and struggle in reading/life are not at the psychiatrist, they’re standing in line for food stamps. They’re illiterates or “functional illiterates” and many of them don’t even have their basic health care needs being met, or are able to pay their water bill, or have a home for that matter, or have ever HELD a job. Do you really think they’ll be signing up for her psychotherapy services anytime soon?

I have seen what reading troubles can do for a person. Someone personally very dear to me is now 25 years old and has never held a job…all stemming from reading problems that were not caught early on, which turned into trouble with school, self-esteem, I could go on and on. THIS is where the spiral begins. I guarantee it, I was there and saw the whole down word spiral from start to finish. Who knows what life will hold now for him? Had he been taught to read as a baby…I would venture to guess his life would be very different today.

I challenge this author to go down to the social services department, even to the local jail, and offer her psychotherapy services FREE, administered along with a READING TEST. I think she will then be better able to answer her own questions.

  1. It seems this author is against early reading AND against DVD’s. (Which as I said anyway, the majority of parents are ignoring the no-screen time recommendation anyway). She disagrees with showing kids “your pleasure at their achievements”…but what parents don’t reinforce first coos? first waves, first steps, putting pictures on the fridge…what on earth is the difference? Or even praising your child for remembering to use their manners? Those are ALL achievements! And I don’t know WHAT parent on earth isn’t overjoyed and doesn’t hoop and holler when their child first begins to use the potty!!

Infant literacy is insurance against a broken school system. It’s a way to hang out and do something educational WHILE bonding with your child. It’s not all all or nothing proposition and I believe you CAN have your cake and eat it too!

I would say that the author is entirely correct for those parents who work all day and don’t spend time with their kids and then sit them in front of YBCR or similar and put loads of pressure on them to be the best without making time to just play with them and love them.

I certainly doubt that any of the people here on this forum act in such a way. The way that we do early learning here focuses on us spending time sitting down and playing the reading game for a few minutes at a time, as well as spending hours and hours cuddled up with a good book. No pressure, if it isn’t fun we stop. We are teaching communication as much as reading and all the time letting our kids know they are valued and loved. I don’t see anything wrong there!

I totally agree with TMT about the twin thing - my nephew has been walking for months, my son doesn’t walk and every time they are together my nephew starts crawling, something he never does at home. Because he is seeing Nicholas do it! (I just wish it was the other way round :wink: ) And just about every parent will say that a younger sibling seems to do certain things faster because they want to copy the older one.

I very rarely have my son watch even educational dvds alone. Occasionally, if I really need some time to get something done (though I usually use his naps for this) but 90% of the time I sit with him, cuddle him and interact with him while watching. I see his screen time as extra bonding, not the anti-bonding that this PHD suggests :ohmy:

Well said, TeachingMyToddlers, very well said. Couldn’t agree more. You need to post it underneath that article. I wonder what the author would have to say :wink:
I’m so lucky to find this forum, otherwise I would given up on teaching my DD. She is reading at grade 3-4 level (will be 3 years old in a month), books go with us everywhere. She never gets enough (English, Russian, Spanish lately). She reads alone and with me. Reading together and learning is our bounding time. She just loves everything we do together. How can this actually hurt our relationships? And why the author doesn’t say anything about Japan? I bet their academic scores are much higher than those in Europe.

Looks like the excellent replies above covered most of the relevant points. The author is yet another “expert” working in a loosely allied field, who thinks she understands the topic, but really does not. Her highly speculative reaction seems to be rooted fairly directly in her ideology or philosophy of child-rearing, not in experience of the subject, much less any careful, rational analysis of what actual people do and what the actual outcomes are.

I wanted to address one point that she seems to think is clever, but which is not. She says that lots of successful, well-educated people come to her practice and their problems have to do with their relationships (and not reading or education–duh). She implies that education is the easy stuff, and relationships are hard. Well, this is all very glib. All of life is hard–the education, the relationships, the career-building, everything. It’s tragically easy to go wrong, and in so many ways, even if we are being very conscientious. (Sometimes it’s because we’re being too conscientious.) But according to her, these people who need psychoanalysis apparently should have received more quality time with their caregivers; there should have been more “attachment.” She comes out and declares–in response to baby reading, etc.–that success in life requires “healthy, attuned attachment.” I am not sure I buy into the theoretical assumptions involved in “attachment parenting,” but it’s surely true that you’re more likely to be a happy kid and later, adult if you are loved a lot and unconditionally.

But as an argument against baby reading, this is silly. Why doesn’t she simply try to prove that parents who do baby reading and other early education will be less “attached” to their children? That’s her assumption, and when you put it explicitly, it sounds pretty implausible to me. I should think that, considering the amount of face-to-face time spent with a child, and the amount of motivation a parent has to spend on a child, a parent who engages in early education will if anything cause more attachment, not less.

  1. Author is in contradiction to himself.
    He says: “almost all of them are highly educated and exceptionally successful in their careers.”
    later he says: “can lead to later learning disabilities, including visual-processing deficits.”
    People with disabilities become highly educated? OK.

  2. Author does not show any statistics and research. In example with stair climbing, there is not a signifficant age difference. Few weeks is not the same as few years.

  3. Few years earlier, I did some research by myself. I asked my friends and blog friends, at what age they started to read. I found 7 people who started to read at 3.

Of them, two are very successful and happy both in their families and in their careers. Best universities, loving partners, no signs of depression etc.
One I might call happy and successful but maybe her career is not exceptional. Maybe it will be because she suddenly changed her profession.

Two are well educated but unemployed for a long time. Of them, one is happily married and one is alone.
Two are successful in her careers (one exceptional) but rather unhappy in their personal lifes.

I know these last four persons. Three of them are among my best friends. Early education was not wrong. Something was wrong with their parents. For all of them, their mothers were very busy. Some were very demanding and testing. Some did not take their children seriously at all. They did not think on the emotional needs of their children. Grandparents did the education. children were almost abandoned by their mothers and fathers.

Late education is not the guarantee to exceptional success. Something can go wrong both with early and with late learners.

I came across these statistics in the lastest NIEER update today which support everything I previously said above…

Research from ProLiteracy Worldwide finds that one half of all adults in federal and state correctional institutions in America cannot read or write at all, and reading problems are seen in 85 percent of juvenile offenders. Health costs for individuals with low literacy skills are four times higher than those with individuals with high level literacy skills. Students with poor literacy skills may struggle in a number of subjects and some will eventually drop out before high school completion, a grim outcome when the income gap between those with a bachelor’s degree and those without is ever growing.

http://preschoolmatters.org/2011/09/08/words-around-the-world-celebrating-international-literacy-day/

Many of the above posts have great points to defend early learning. Here is what I’d like to add:

There are some countries that reward the ‘individual’ for working extremely hard. The rewards can be financial, promotional (Moving up the corporate ladder), or maybe even an accomplishment (inventing something, building something, or even improving the Worlds standard of living). I feel that some of these people that are highly successful may put so much of their energy into work that they may be neglecting important issues (Such as leisure time, family time, personal time). Today’s society can be hectic, and this is the environment that many of the successful people are in all the time. I personally wish that I could make a six figure salary and only work 20 hours a week. I wish that I didn’t have to put in the 80 hours/week on occasion just to satisfy my job requirements. There are times when I can’t relax because work and everyday stresses are over-running my mind.

In my profession, people come ask for a recommendation for something such as an ointment, something for pain, or even a supplement. After I have enough information about they need, I’ll offer suitable product of choice. Several times a month, these same people will ask me to show them where the item is because they can’t read. Some of these people are uneducated and living on government entitlements. They don’t need to stress out because they know somebody will take care of them. They don’t have to worry about deadlines, accountability, or even success because they most likely have never had any aspirations in life. Sometimes highly successful people have issues that a psychotherapist may be able to help with. I would bet that all but a couple of this doctor’s patients are in the successful group. I would also bet that this doctor wouldn’t be taking new patients if someone came along that didn’t have the money to pay for psychotherapy.

I also believe that the school system in the U.S. has been a disappointment. Teachers are more stressed out about students passing some state exam that will show that the school system is getting minimum requirement results rather than spending quality time correctly teaching the concepts and information. If a student isn’t getting the concept, then extra time should be invested in that student until they understand the material.

I personally feel that most (if not all) of parents that do early education do give the quality time that their child or children need. I personally go out of my way to talk to my twins, cuddle with them, give them hugs and kisses (I personally tell them that each day I have 10,000 kisses for them. If I use those kisses up, then I have 10,000 more kisses for that that same day).
I do cause / effect with them, I do swimming lessons with them 3-5 times/weekly, Little Math, shichida, Little Reader, Sign language, English and Spanish lessons, and I give them personal time that I’m sure helps to build bonds with them that will last a lifetime. I’ll be focusing on emotional IQ somewhere around years 8-12.

Perhaps this psychotherapist needs to be asking more pertinent questions-- Like: Why is it that some uneducated or undereducated people overcome their childhood deficiencies? Why is it that some families are allowed to abuse their children, give them drugs, neglect them physically and emotionally without having to seek professional help.

I feel that this author would be out of a job if society wasn’t so demanding for most of us. I think if we all worked 20 hours a week and spent the extra time with families, this world would be a much better place. This psychotherapist would probably be out of a job.

Modified: Concerning the advertisement for YBCR and how the lady that said she didn’t have to do a darn thing-- That is an advertisement only. Many companies will try to glorify their product in order to make it more appealing. This situation just happens to be a catch-22 for YBCR. The author should have already determined that out.

My 2 cents!

I think most of the arguments put forward by the author of this article has pretty much been taken apart - TMT covered it pretty well and everyone else has added valuable points as well.

I don’t have much to add that hasn’t already been said, except that it really surprises me to hear the “experts” saying “Early reading doesn’t do much for your child’s success in school, and there’s evidence that it may even be detrimental.” This isn’t the first time I’ve read this. The funny thing is that I have never read any real “evidence” that this is so. In fact, the evidence I have read seem to indicate that early literacy is beneficial and that children who learn to read early stay ahead and are generally more successful later on. Nowhere have I read evidence of the “detrimental” effects of ealry reading.

Secondly, her pool of examples consists of her patients none of whom are, as she puts it, “wanting for intellectual development; almost all of them are highly educated and exceptionally successful in their careers.” Honestly, does she even know who are the kind of people who would even realise that they need to get psychotherapy? Aside from being able to afford it, to even consider getting psychotherapy they have to be aware that they need it and not be put off by the social stigma associated with needing psychotherapy. There is enough uneducated comments about psychotherapy floating around as it is, such as “it’s for crazy people and I’m not crazy”, “I just need to snap out of it, I don’t need to see a shrink for it”, so who do you think will be the ones more likely to end up in her chair even if she did give treatment for free?

I will like to see some scientific proof to back up “her personal opinion”. Pretty poor statement!!