Article in Parents Magazine About Babies Reading
The most recent issue of Parents Magazine ran a story about parents who teach their babies to read. I believe it was the October 2009 issue. Upon my first read I thought it wasn't that biased towards parents that discover how wonderful and fun it is to expose their babies to language early on and see the remarkable results obtained because of this. After discussing it with some of the members of the Yahoo Group Teach Your Baby to Read in 90 Seconds a Day, I realized my first impression was quite wrong.
With all the advertising that Your Baby Can Read is doing these days people will not be able to ignore it much longer. The FACT is that thousands and thousands of babies are learning to read and they think it is a game. They are learning through videos such as Monki See Monki Doo and Your Baby Can Read. They are learning through software such as Brill Kids Little Reader. If it makes other parents feel better to ignore it or believe that those parents that do expose their babies to language early and therefore teach them to read are forcing them to learn, so be it. It may soon be normal for young children to show up at school already reading. What will happen to the children that weren't given such an advantage at an early age.
The parents I know are having a blast and as a result their babies and young children LOVE to read and are able to read well. One of the members of the group has been teaching his son to read for the last 18 months. He is very articulate and has written a response to the article in Parents Magazine. Here is his response posted with is permission.
Review of "Ready to Read?" by Vicki Glembocki in the October 2009 issue of
*Parents*.
The article is very helpful in that it encapsulates, in a relatively short
space, all of the prejudice, confusion, and lack of knowledge that surrounds
the issue of teaching kids to read at an early age. It is basically "the
party line," and will be comforting to those parents who don't want to take
the time to investigate things themselves, and who are philosophically
opposed to much early education in the first place. It comes out firmly
against any efforts to teach children to read before the usual age of 5-6,
quoting Elkind and Hirsh-Pasek. In fairness, I should say that it does have
some useful information about the importance of learning vocabulary for
learning to read--but then, I think that's nothing new to Doman parents, who
are teaching their kids vocabulary words and phrases all the time.
The article implies that the U.S. "space race" competition with the Soviets
is what caused people, in the 60s and 70s, to emphasize academics earlier
and earlier. I don't know how far this is true, but I find it interesting
that Glenn Doman's 1964 book, "How to Teach Your Baby to Read," is not given
the slightest bit of credit. (Yes, *credit*. Not blame.) Of course, this
wouldn't explain why people *outside* the U.S. turned to early learning
programs. Later, the article says, it was competition with other countries
and with our own neighbors that explained it. The whole phenomenon of
teaching kids early is dismissed as mere competitiveness--as if the *only*
reason we might have for teaching our children early is so that they can do
better than other kids. What about simply living up to the child's own
potential? Isn't that what parents *do*? No mention of that whatsoever.
Indeed, not a single parent who engages in this behavior is interviewed in
the article. I suspect that their sincerely held reasons and enthusiasm and
successes, tempered by the realities of what they are trying to do, would
undermine the tone and message of the article entirely. But the result is
essentially an intellectually dishonest hatchet job.
As to videos, "Your Baby Can Read," which arguably is the single biggest
cause of the recent interest in early childhood reading, is not mentioned;
instead, the article speaks in generalities about "educational videos."
(BrillKids is mentioned though.)
The section most directly about teaching babies to read is titled "Drills
for the Diaper Set," which as you can see sets the tone. I am sure that most
of you who are using Doman-type flashcards and computer presentations would
not dismiss these as "drills"; our kids can and do have as much fun with
them as they have with books, which after all everybody agrees are great. (I
believe that books are the #1 most important educational tool at any age,
and that the world is suffering woefully due to waning bibliophilia. So
explain this to me: if it is wrong to use flashcards and flashcard-type
videos with kids, because they are too "educational," then why is it OK to
read books to them?) Besides, drilling implies testing, and most of us agree
that testing, generally, is to be avoided.
Anyway, the article quotes Janet Doman and goes on to dismiss the
Institutes' "How to Multiply Your Baby's Intelligence" course as "the most
aggressive approach to teaching kids to read: Start when they're infants."
This single word, "aggressive," intentionally or not expresses the whole
mindset of our critics. In teaching our smallest children, we are being
"aggressive." Why? Note, it's not because we're teaching them, period; it's
because we're teaching them in a way that is calculated to improve their
academic success greatly. After all, all the critics always hasten to add
that it's important to prepare your child in various ways that anyone would
agree constitutes a kind of "teaching" (e.g., reading to them, talking to
them about what you're doing, playing games and describing what's happening,
etc.). But the author and our critics apparently cannot imagine how we might
teach our kids in the ways we do without being animated by aggressive
competitiveness. How could that be healthy for children? What kind of parent
uses their children for their own vicarious pleasure? Anyone who is so
"aggressive" in teaching their children must be emotionally brutal to their
children. Those are the subtle implications. The little word "aggressive" is
basically a smear that needs to be carefully examined.
Lilian Katz, a professor, is the only one quoted here making anything
remotely resembling challenging, interesting arguments. She says, first,
that if kids learn to read "too early," then "a lot of kids...fail to
develop a love of reading and won't pursue it on their own." One really has
to wonder if she is speaking about Doman-educated kids or, instead, kids who
really did have "aggressive" parents, parents who forced them to learn
against their will. I've finally gotten around to reading Kathy
Hirsh-Pasek's book "Einstein Didn't Use Flash Cards." She has the same
problem: she simply *assumes* that anybody who is using flash cards or
educational videos is "aggressive" and pressuring their children and
probably spanking them if they don't do enough academics, or something. The
repeated admonitions from Doman, Titzer, and many others who say you never
pressure kids, you show them stuff when they're in a good mood, you stop
before they're ready to stop--there is no mention of this. I suppose they
think that that is just for show. Well, some of us take it seriously. I have
taught my boy to be very clear when he wants to stop, and when he wants to
stop, I stop, period. I'm sure other parents are equally sensitive to this
point.
I would enjoin Dr. Katz (and the author of the article, her editors, and her
readers) to think a little about something: if a parent goes to so much
trouble to try to teach their children at a very early age, don't you think
that most of them will be especially sensitive to *turning them off* to the
idea of learning? I mean, it's just a matter of common sense; it doesn't
take a Ph.D. to notice that if you force a kid to do something against his
will, he will want to do it even less. Therefore, if you have any common
sense and you are especially concerned to get your child to learn, then you
naturally won't force him to do so. Obviously there are going to be
exceptions. Of course there are some very competitive and, indeed,
aggressive parents who force education upon unhappy, resisting children. But
it is simply insulting to assume that most parents who do early education
are that way. It's also unjustified and unfounded.
Now, if I'm going to be honest with myself, I'll admit that Dr. Katz's might
seem to have some purchase in the case of my own little boy. He started
learning to read at 22 months or so, and eighteen months later he can decode
(without necessarily understanding) text at the 4th grade level or better.
But he isn't that interested in reading by himself, so for now he "won't
pursue it on [his] own." (I actually would say he's been reading a book
every day, or every other day, by himself lately. I've asked his Mama
regularly lately, and she says he's in there reading away pretty much every
morning. He just doesn't like to read *for me* so much. I think because it's
more entertaining to be read to by Papa.) On the other hand, I think it
takes time for every child to get around to reading a lot for himself, and
of course most children (especially these days) who learn to read at the
normal age of 5-7 *don't* end up loving reading, do they? The question,
which I am quite sure Dr. Katz hasn't got the first clue about because there
are no published data on this, is whether children who begin early have a
greater or lesser desire to read independently when they are older.
Now, I'm not going to uncritically repeat what is said on this point. Doman
and Titzer both imply that these children uniformly mature into enthusiastic
readers and excellent students. As much as I would like to believe that, I
recognize that they have motives that might color their judgment and/or
perfect, pristine sincerity. Similarly, I hear *almost* nothing but success
stories from the parents on YourBabyCanRead and other venues. But I also
know that a well-known effect in science is self-selection bias: who is
going to write to the list and say what a disappointment her child has been?
The worst I've seen are that (1) the kid doesn't like the Doman method (so?)
and that (2) a child who was very advanced at age five eventually became
average in public schools (could it be because school is so depressing and
discouraging and silly for a bright young person?). Anyway, I have to say
that, lacking any convincing data or even some examples, I find the success
stories *plausible*.
Dr. Katz's second point is this: "Worse, if kids don't pick up the concepts
right away, some may start to think of themselves as incompetent. 'Once a
child thinks he's no good at something, once he considers himself "dumb," he
doesn't want to put in any effort,' Dr. Katz adds." This only reinforces my
impression that Dr. Katz and the rest are assuming that Doman/early reading
movement is made up of the sort of pushy and ambitious people, who try to
push, schedule, and control their children at every moment. My reaction to
that is: we're not that way. I don't get the impression, from talking to all
the nice mommies online, that many others are that way. Doman, again,
emphasizes that you don't give a child an opportunity to think that he is
dumb or not getting it. Teaching a young child is not a test, not at all
like homework drills. Rather, it's not that different from play time. If my
boy, for example, doesn't get the right answer, right away, I don't usually
correct him. (I will if I think it will help and won't put him on the spot.
He corrects me when I read to him more than I correct him. Seriously,
because I frequently make mistakes as I read.)
Anyway, I can't go through the whole article at this level of analysis
because it would take too long. But I did want to comment on one other
interesting tidbit: "...it's also true that some preschoolers--maybe 2 or 3
percent of them, says Dr. Elkind--are able to break the code and
legitimately read when they're 3 or 4." Legitimately? What the hell does
"legitimately" mean? That's another very revealing choice of words. The only
way in which Dr. Elkind and his ilk can accept an early reader as
"legitimate" is if a preschooler "breaks the code" for himself. It's not
"legitimate," apparently, if a parent helps to unlock the code. Well, why
not? No good reasons have been offered in this article. Why does it make the
achievement illegitimate to offer gentle unlocking the code by doing no more
than--say--watching YBCR and running one's finger under words as one reads
them?
I know the answer, though, because I've talked to some of these people in
e-mail and via blogs. The answer runs like this: well, *you* of course are
different. You are obviously a smart person (like us, I hear implied--not
like those pushy, uneducated bourgeois parents) and you have given your
child a "language-rich" environment. These other people don't take the
advice that Doman and Titzer give, and Doman and Titzer probably aren't that
sincere in giving their advice about keeping things all happy and fun. They
will start pressuring their kids when they don't "perform" as expected.
When I tell them that they are wrong about the other people in this
movement, that I am not that different, they have nothing to say. They stop
replying, or go back to their other talking points. It doesn't penetrate.
They also completely refuse to tell me how they know these things. Have they
interviewed a lot of Doman parents or users of YBCR? Have they done any
studies? Have they even seen one kid who can read at an early age?
Well, I don't know. Maybe some studies will finally be done, and my own
prejudices will be exploded. Maybe it will turn out that the vast majority
of people who start these programs drop them; that the vast majority who
stick with them have no significant impact anyway; and that too many of the
parents who pursue these programs over the long haul are, in fact, pushy,
"aggressive" types who turn their kids to learning. I could be wrong. I just
don't see any actual *evidence* of all that, and I've been on the lookout. I
mean, I've asked, and I really would be highly interested in hearing stories
(publicly, or privately in confidence) about the total failure of these
programs when conscientiously, correctly used.
So...hatchet job. The "journalist" does not do credit to her profession.
*Parents*.
The article is very helpful in that it encapsulates, in a relatively short
space, all of the prejudice, confusion, and lack of knowledge that surrounds
the issue of teaching kids to read at an early age. It is basically "the
party line," and will be comforting to those parents who don't want to take
the time to investigate things themselves, and who are philosophically
opposed to much early education in the first place. It comes out firmly
against any efforts to teach children to read before the usual age of 5-6,
quoting Elkind and Hirsh-Pasek. In fairness, I should say that it does have
some useful information about the importance of learning vocabulary for
learning to read--but then, I think that's nothing new to Doman parents, who
are teaching their kids vocabulary words and phrases all the time.
The article implies that the U.S. "space race" competition with the Soviets
is what caused people, in the 60s and 70s, to emphasize academics earlier
and earlier. I don't know how far this is true, but I find it interesting
that Glenn Doman's 1964 book, "How to Teach Your Baby to Read," is not given
the slightest bit of credit. (Yes, *credit*. Not blame.) Of course, this
wouldn't explain why people *outside* the U.S. turned to early learning
programs. Later, the article says, it was competition with other countries
and with our own neighbors that explained it. The whole phenomenon of
teaching kids early is dismissed as mere competitiveness-
reason we might have for teaching our children early is so that they can do
better than other kids. What about simply living up to the child's own
potential? Isn't that what parents *do*? No mention of that whatsoever.
Indeed, not a single parent who engages in this behavior is interviewed in
the article. I suspect that their sincerely held reasons and enthusiasm and
successes, tempered by the realities of what they are trying to do, would
undermine the tone and message of the article entirely. But the result is
essentially an intellectually dishonest hatchet job.
As to videos, "Your Baby Can Read," which arguably is the single biggest
cause of the recent interest in early childhood reading, is not mentioned;
instead, the article speaks in generalities about "educational videos."
(BrillKids is mentioned though.)
The section most directly about teaching babies to read is titled "Drills
for the Diaper Set," which as you can see sets the tone. I am sure that most
of you who are using Doman-type flashcards and computer presentations would
not dismiss these as "drills"; our kids can and do have as much fun with
them as they have with books, which after all everybody agrees are great. (I
believe that books are the #1 most important educational tool at any age,
and that the world is suffering woefully due to waning bibliophilia. So
explain this to me: if it is wrong to use flashcards and flashcard-type
videos with kids, because they are too "educational,
read books to them?) Besides, drilling implies testing, and most of us agree
that testing, generally, is to be avoided.
Anyway, the article quotes Janet Doman and goes on to dismiss the
Institutes' "How to Multiply Your Baby's Intelligence" course as "the most
aggressive approach to teaching kids to read: Start when they're infants."
This single word, "aggressive,
mindset of our critics. In teaching our smallest children, we are being
"aggressive.
because we're teaching them in a way that is calculated to improve their
academic success greatly. After all, all the critics always hasten to add
that it's important to prepare your child in various ways that anyone would
agree constitutes a kind of "teaching" (e.g., reading to them, talking to
them about what you're doing, playing games and describing what's happening,
etc.). But the author and our critics apparently cannot imagine how we might
teach our kids in the ways we do without being animated by aggressive
competitiveness. How could that be healthy for children? What kind of parent
uses their children for their own vicarious pleasure? Anyone who is so
"aggressive" in teaching their children must be emotionally brutal to their
children. Those are the subtle implications. The little word "aggressive" is
basically a smear that needs to be carefully examined.
Lilian Katz, a professor, is the only one quoted here making anything
remotely resembling challenging, interesting arguments. She says, first,
that if kids learn to read "too early," then "a lot of kids...fail to
develop a love of reading and won't pursue it on their own." One really has
to wonder if she is speaking about Doman-educated kids or, instead, kids who
really did have "aggressive" parents, parents who forced them to learn
against their will. I've finally gotten around to reading Kathy
Hirsh-Pasek'
problem: she simply *assumes* that anybody who is using flash cards or
educational videos is "aggressive" and pressuring their children and
probably spanking them if they don't do enough academics, or something. The
repeated admonitions from Doman, Titzer, and many others who say you never
pressure kids, you show them stuff when they're in a good mood, you stop
before they're ready to stop--there is no mention of this. I suppose they
think that that is just for show. Well, some of us take it seriously. I have
taught my boy to be very clear when he wants to stop, and when he wants to
stop, I stop, period. I'm sure other parents are equally sensitive to this
point.
I would enjoin Dr. Katz (and the author of the article, her editors, and her
readers) to think a little about something: if a parent goes to so much
trouble to try to teach their children at a very early age, don't you think
that most of them will be especially sensitive to *turning them off* to the
idea of learning? I mean, it's just a matter of common sense; it doesn't
take a Ph.D. to notice that if you force a kid to do something against his
will, he will want to do it even less. Therefore, if you have any common
sense and you are especially concerned to get your child to learn, then you
naturally won't force him to do so. Obviously there are going to be
exceptions. Of course there are some very competitive and, indeed,
aggressive parents who force education upon unhappy, resisting children. But
it is simply insulting to assume that most parents who do early education
are that way. It's also unjustified and unfounded.
Now, if I'm going to be honest with myself, I'll admit that Dr. Katz's might
seem to have some purchase in the case of my own little boy. He started
learning to read at 22 months or so, and eighteen months later he can decode
(without necessarily understanding) text at the 4th grade level or better.
But he isn't that interested in reading by himself, so for now he "won't
pursue it on [his] own." (I actually would say he's been reading a book
every day, or every other day, by himself lately. I've asked his Mama
regularly lately, and she says he's in there reading away pretty much every
morning. He just doesn't like to read *for me* so much. I think because it's
more entertaining to be read to by Papa.) On the other hand, I think it
takes time for every child to get around to reading a lot for himself, and
of course most children (especially these days) who learn to read at the
normal age of 5-7 *don't* end up loving reading, do they? The question,
which I am quite sure Dr. Katz hasn't got the first clue about because there
are no published data on this, is whether children who begin early have a
greater or lesser desire to read independently when they are older.
Now, I'm not going to uncritically repeat what is said on this point. Doman
and Titzer both imply that these children uniformly mature into enthusiastic
readers and excellent students. As much as I would like to believe that, I
recognize that they have motives that might color their judgment and/or
perfect, pristine sincerity. Similarly, I hear *almost* nothing but success
stories from the parents on YourBabyCanRead and other venues. But I also
know that a well-known effect in science is self-selection bias: who is
going to write to the list and say what a disappointment her child has been?
The worst I've seen are that (1) the kid doesn't like the Doman method (so?)
and that (2) a child who was very advanced at age five eventually became
average in public schools (could it be because school is so depressing and
discouraging and silly for a bright young person?). Anyway, I have to say
that, lacking any convincing data or even some examples, I find the success
stories *plausible*.
Dr. Katz's second point is this: "Worse, if kids don't pick up the concepts
right away, some may start to think of themselves as incompetent. 'Once a
child thinks he's no good at something, once he considers himself "dumb," he
doesn't want to put in any effort,' Dr. Katz adds." This only reinforces my
impression that Dr. Katz and the rest are assuming that Doman/early reading
movement is made up of the sort of pushy and ambitious people, who try to
push, schedule, and control their children at every moment. My reaction to
that is: we're not that way. I don't get the impression, from talking to all
the nice mommies online, that many others are that way. Doman, again,
emphasizes that you don't give a child an opportunity to think that he is
dumb or not getting it. Teaching a young child is not a test, not at all
like homework drills. Rather, it's not that different from play time. If my
boy, for example, doesn't get the right answer, right away, I don't usually
correct him. (I will if I think it will help and won't put him on the spot.
He corrects me when I read to him more than I correct him. Seriously,
because I frequently make mistakes as I read.)
Anyway, I can't go through the whole article at this level of analysis
because it would take too long. But I did want to comment on one other
interesting tidbit: "...it's also true that some preschoolers-
percent of them, says Dr. Elkind--are able to break the code and
legitimately read when they're 3 or 4." Legitimately? What the hell does
"legitimately" mean? That's another very revealing choice of words. The only
way in which Dr. Elkind and his ilk can accept an early reader as
"legitimate" is if a preschooler "breaks the code" for himself. It's not
"legitimate,
not? No good reasons have been offered in this article. Why does it make the
achievement illegitimate to offer gentle unlocking the code by doing no more
than--say--watching YBCR and running one's finger under words as one reads
them?
I know the answer, though, because I've talked to some of these people in
e-mail and via blogs. The answer runs like this: well, *you* of course are
different. You are obviously a smart person (like us, I hear implied--not
like those pushy, uneducated bourgeois parents) and you have given your
child a "language-rich" environment. These other people don't take the
advice that Doman and Titzer give, and Doman and Titzer probably aren't that
sincere in giving their advice about keeping things all happy and fun. They
will start pressuring their kids when they don't "perform" as expected.
When I tell them that they are wrong about the other people in this
movement, that I am not that different, they have nothing to say. They stop
replying, or go back to their other talking points. It doesn't penetrate.
They also completely refuse to tell me how they know these things. Have they
interviewed a lot of Doman parents or users of YBCR? Have they done any
studies? Have they even seen one kid who can read at an early age?
Well, I don't know. Maybe some studies will finally be done, and my own
prejudices will be exploded. Maybe it will turn out that the vast majority
of people who start these programs drop them; that the vast majority who
stick with them have no significant impact anyway; and that too many of the
parents who pursue these programs over the long haul are, in fact, pushy,
"aggressive" types who turn their kids to learning. I could be wrong. I just
don't see any actual *evidence* of all that, and I've been on the lookout. I
mean, I've asked, and I really would be highly interested in hearing stories
(publicly, or privately in confidence) about the total failure of these
programs when conscientiously, correctly used.
So...hatchet job. The "journalist" does not do credit to her profession.
Posted by Krista G. at 10/1/2009 6:04 AM 
Categories: Reflections
Tags: Article in Parents Magazine teaching babies to read article
Categories: Reflections
Tags: Article in Parents Magazine teaching babies to read article
Comments