To be very sceptical about the 'Your Baby can Read' program?

[michaelschumacherismygod]

My MIL has suggested that I buy this for my 7 month old son. Obviously I want to do the best for my son but I am just not sure if this is the best way for him to learn to read, whole word approach rather than phonics, watching TV for half an hour a day and large portions of his day dedicated to this system. However my MIL thinks I am being unreasonable and should pay the £150 for the program.

Would appreciate your opinions/experience, thanks!

My mum taught me to read - I could read at 18 months and was at secondary level by three. I think she just tried phonics.

it was an advantage, but the downside was that I didn;t take English lessons with the rest of the class throughout primary school, and I remember thinking sometimes that it would be nice to join in instead of working on my own projects.

mippy

genuinely curious - has reading early helped you in adult life? for example do you think you have a better job or enriched your life in some way?

It's not about learning to read though it's just recognition from what I can see on the advert, remembering the look of words and connecting pictures.(DC has woken me up at 5am the last few mornings so have seen it on the shopping channel)

DS's reception teacher had more hassle with the "readers" in his class as she had to reteach them phonics to give them a grounding to spell out words they had never seen before. I am a parent reader and you can tell the kids who read from memory and guess the pictures versus the ones that spell out phonetically and "get" the word. Save yourself £146 pound and get the Jolly Phonics CD for DC when they are a bit older.

Am surprised she is laughing at baby signing, we found (Meet the Fockers aside) it to help our son's frustration on many an occasion - and it's interactive fun.

Baby wants to see faces, not telly....

OP my guess is your husband can read despite this program not being available(I assume)when he was a child.

Best remind your MIL of that fact!

There is no correlation between early reading and later sucess in life!!!!

Recognising words is not reading, and it is recognition that most of these products teach.

I can remember my eldest being able to recognise words like McDonalds (grr), Morrisons, JCB etc when he was about 18 months old, and the names of all of his nursery classmates at 2.5. But that wasn't actual reading, that didn't happen until he was 4 or 5.

For babies and toddlers the most important thing is that they learn to love books, that when when they are a little bit older they will want to learn to read, which is half the battle.

The adverts are hilarious though - I watched one, it was jaw-dropping.

Ds started to read at aged 3. He learnt by listening in on his older sister's Jolly Phonics practice.

We then bought some Jelly and Bean phonetically decodable books and away we went.

The toddler reading on the ad may be reading the words but it is obvious she has zilch understanding of it and teachers spend loads of time having to go back over the really simple stuff with good readers becasue they have no comprehension skills and understanding.

A total waste imo.

although my babies both love books (partly as snack, but also to look at) and i think readng with them is v. nice and they enjoy it- spending £150 on some program??

what for?

umme- maybe you should tell her that the american psychological association having thoroughly researced it (you know with academics and the like ) recomends NO television at all for this age group.....

Interesting that Scandi countries don't start "teaching" reading until much later than UK (6 or 7) and yet have the highest literacy rates in Europe by age 10ish... Much higher than Britain where reading is taught from 4...

are you telling me scandi parents don't read with their kids? also comparing apples and oranges - scandinavia v. demographically different.

learing to reacd in Scandi is completely different to English as the languages are completely phonetic

no through / though / bough / trough muddles

mummysaurus, because I read a lot I knew more than my peers and it was really quite hard to form friendships because half the time people didn't know what I was on about. It was a massive advantage in exams etc (I have virtually total recall for prose and I naturally speed-read, meaning I drive my OH mad by carting tons of books around) but did make my confidence falter a bit, because I had to ;dumb down; things a lot just to join in. However i went on to study linguistics and now have a job where comprehension and semantics are key, plus it helped my writing skills a lot (I don;t think I'm the next Dostoyevsky, but when I blogged people were always telling me I should write a book! I've just read a lot of books so I know how to turn a sentence 'til it gleams.) I'm also very good at pub quizzes.

My parents were told they could enrol me in the Gifted Children's Association, but decided not to as they just saw it as being asked to give them money. i wish they had as it would have helped to meet other kids int he same boat. It's nice to be made to feel really clever and special but it's also incredibly lonely.

mummysaurus, because I read a lot I knew more than my peers and it was really quite hard to form friendships because half the time people didn't know what I was on about. It was a massive advantage in exams etc (I have virtually total recall for prose and I naturally speed-read, meaning I drive my OH mad by carting tons of books around) but did make my confidence falter a bit, because I had to ;dumb down; things a lot just to join in. However i went on to study linguistics and now have a job where comprehension and semantics are key, plus it helped my writing skills a lot (I don;t think I'm the next Dostoyevsky, but when I blogged people were always telling me I should write a book! I've just read a lot of books so I know how to turn a sentence 'til it gleams.) I'm also very good at pub quizzes.

My parents were told they could enrol me in the Gifted Children's Association, but decided not to as they just saw it as being asked to give them money. i wish they had as it would have helped to meet other kids int he same boat. It's nice to be made to feel really clever and special but it's also incredibly lonely.

IF your MiL wants to buy you the programme, just let her! Do it a couple of times and then tell her that your DC seems a bit unready to do this but does want to go and feed the ducks/crawl on the grass/play with toes etc!

Don't stress that she wants to buy you something!

Sorry, double post as I was eating a muffin!

I should point out as well that I am dyspraxic so in some ways was behind the rest of the class - I couldn't use scissors, a pen or tie laces until pretty late. But in later life things even out a bit, I think. It's not like being a science or maths prodigy where early entrance into academia can be likely.

MillyR Thu 10-Jun-10 09:44:46

"Cory - I am interested in your comment that spending on books at 9 or 10 is when it really matters. Why do you think that?"

Because this is an age where children divide into those who are going to go on to more mature, difficult, more extensive reading matter than that supplied by the school and those who are simply going to stick with very basic levels.

This is the start of the pre-teen age where children are desperate to be cool, so are less likely to read just to please the teacher (but if you manage to get them hooked, the urge to read is so strong it will stick with them).

This is also an age where children have lost that first flush of enthusiasm that makes a very young child push and push at something that is difficult and does not give immediate results (like learning to walk and talk). 9yos and 10yos are savvier in a way, they want results if they are to carry on trying. A bookcase filled with really exciting books is a good way to get them that feeling of satisfaction.

And they are more discerning, able to tell the difference between good and bad writing.

MrsBadger Thu 10-Jun-10 18:51:02
"learing to reacd in Scandi is completely different to English as the languages are completely phonetic"

Nope they are not. Danish least of all. Swedish which is my native language has several ways of spelling the same sounds.

More phonetic than English, yes. Completely phonetic, no.

Besides, it should be noticed that Scandinavians are more relaxed about all formal learning than the English. Maths can't possibly be easier to learn in Scandinavia, yet they don't start formal maths teaching until age 6-7 either.

They have a far higher opinion of practical skills and a far greater belief in parents and nurseries being able to deliver those practical skills without the aid of early formal education.

I wouldn't spend the money. That's WAYYYYY too much and they shouldn't really be sat in front of the telly, and I thought research showed they don't learn

I do actually show my 19 month old words -- using a cheapo magnetic board or by drawing them with red pen.

I only have bothered with this because I noticed, then checked that she was reading (or rather, recognising) the odd word, such as 'baby', 'talk', 'fish' and 'kids' a few months ago. If she'd not shown interest in words I'd have not bothered buying magnetic letters and numbers.

I read to her frequently, not just at bedtime and to be honest I think she's getting it from there. Also, I make sure when we play that she leads me and I don't direct her attention -- so I'm in no way hothousing her or really want to do this pointlessly so she can show off.

I have read the Glenn Doman system (my mother taught me to read this way when I was two) but I don't really follow it. I realise it's not best practice these days.

Many kids (including me) learnt through a mixture of recognition and phonics. For example in China they learn really only through recognition -- which is why I found it so hard to learn Mandarin. And english isn't a purely phonic language anyway.

I really wouldn't spend cash on this and wouldn't bother so young and only as part of play if they show a distinct interest. EVEN THEN, playing and reading with them and letting them dictate the pace is the best way to go for most. That's why kids don't learn from telly -- it's really down to the relationship, one-on-one attention, showing interest in what the child is interested in.

As Mippy said, my mother (actually not in the least a hothouser, more a hippy and only 18) taught me to read at 2. So I suppose I've half had it on my mind knowing that I read from an early age.

I also had to have different classes.

I'm slightly tipsy, sorry, but as a teacher are some of you not exaggerating a tad.... I mean... reading secondary level at three.... really??????

Incidently my DH was useless at primary school, then got a science degree from Oxbridge and a phd now so........

Miraculously, we all managed to read the "old-fashioned" way, with a good old book! I don't know why it now requires a 150 quid investment...

Saw this adertised on US televisin last week when on holiday. I was definitely

DFirstly - why does a baby need to be able to read?

And secondly - even if they can read words on a flashcard - they are nt reading. They are simply recalling the look and pttern the lines on the page make. They are not reading in the sense that they are decoding and making sense of words, sentences and paragraphs - and being able to comprehend what they read with expression, understanding and feeling. At that age they don't have the maturity to.