Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Behaviour/development

Talk to others about child development and behaviour stages here. You can find more information on our development calendar.

Flip

Original poster

Help! Miriam Stoppard piece about normal development has left me feeling worse!

18 replies

whattheheck · 04/03/2010 13:39

Has anyone else read the Miriam Stoppard piece in the Mirror today about child development? It was meant to reassure but I am ended up feeling worried about my one-year-old. There's a month by month chart and by 12 months a baby is meant to shake head for no, stack bricks and play clapping games. My baby understands no I'm sure (lip sticks out, cries) but she doesn't shake her head. She doesn't stack bricks up and though she clapped really early, she doesn't really play pat-a-cake. She sat at the right time and says daddy (although only mama when crying) and also didn't crawl properly until just before 11 months. Should I be worried?

OP posts:

Are your children’s vaccines up to date?

Set a reminder

skidoodle · 04/03/2010 13:41

Aranea · 04/03/2010 13:41

No, your baby sounds just perfect. Don't worry. God, I hate Miriam Stoppard

Just try not to read any of her books, they are insufferable.

Iklboo · 04/03/2010 13:42

Nope

CaptianPicardsPineapple · 04/03/2010 13:42

Bin that crap and never look at a development chart again.

BadGardener · 04/03/2010 13:43

hell no, you shouldn't be worried.
These pieces aren't written to reassure, though they want you to think that. They are written to make you paranoid so you buy more books, Baby Einstein DVDs, Miriam Stoppard 'Always Learning' weaning dishes, etc etc.
Your baby sounds absolutely fine

waitingforbedtime · 04/03/2010 13:43

No dont worry. Ds didnt clap until after 12m or shake his head and he didnt babble until really late either. He walked earlyish though and now talks for Scotland. (He is 3)

MathsMadMummy · 04/03/2010 13:46

Don't worry about it.
Swings and roundabouts

Original poster

whattheheck · 04/03/2010 13:49

hahaha thank you. the thing was it was a piece about that research that came out last week about babies that didn't crawl at 9 months were often behind by age 5, and to be fair to Miriam the piece was meant to be 'don't worry about that'. However the 'helpful' chart that accompanied her piece has made me feel worse as so much DD not doing. It's just with her being my first I have no idea what is normal and what not

OP posts:

tummytime · 04/03/2010 13:51

No. It isn't right. If you really want a child development calendar there is one on MN or quite a good one on babycentre which both highlight the enormous variations in what children can do at any particular age.

muppetgirl · 04/03/2010 14:01

I would always remember that child development is not precise but defined by rough time frames. Charts are based on what the average child can do but all children are totally different.

Ds 1 did everything on time but talk. He didn't talk till he was 2. Once he got to 2 he talked in sentences and has a very developed vocabulary at 6. Ds 2 was very behind on any developmental chart! He didn;t hold his head for ages, sit up unaided and he never really crawled as he was a bottom shuffler. He didn't walk till 20 months yet his language is far more developed than ds 1's was.

Ds 3 is nearly crawling at 7 months but can't sit yet and has both his brothers at his beck and call...

Unless you feel something is really wrong don't worry and don;t look at any more charts!!

muppetgirl · 04/03/2010 14:03

re the bottom shffling

really??

dh was a shuffler and certainly not behind at 5 (was billingual) he's also an aug birth so we break all their predictions!!

ds 2 was a shuffler but seems very with it.

lovechoc · 04/03/2010 14:53

IMO ignore her advice and charts etc. I have one of her books, but it's actually not that great. wouldn't recommend it.

cory · 04/03/2010 17:09

Before you start worrying about any piece of research you need to ask yourself how it got there.

So the conclusion is: " babies that didn't crawl at 9 months were often behind by age 5". What does this actually mean? Well, it means that the researchers have divided the sample material into two groups, those who crawled at 9mo and those who didn't. And what their conclusion means is there were more babies in the non-crawling group who were then behind at age 5. In other words, the babies in the non-crawling group were on average more likely to be behind at 5. Now think about it. In any group of babies there are going to be a few with overall slow development and a few with undetected disabilities/SN. Which group do you think they are most likely to be in? But remember, the presence of children with SN this does not affect the likelihood of any other child being behind at 5; it just affects the child with SN- and the statistics.

BlauerEngel · 04/03/2010 17:16

What an annoying old soandso Miram Stoppard is. I bought her preganancy and baby books when pg with DD1 and tbh I should have burned them. Very self-contradictory - in one section she went on about leaving some time for yourself and only doing the bare minimum round the house, then later insists that the kitchen has to be spotless. (I went for the 'bare minumum' approach, obviously).

And development charts always claim to be there for 'reassurance' but have the opposite effect. My DD1 was very early to crawl and late to talk - they can't do everything at once!

Missus84 · 04/03/2010 17:16

The whole ages-and-stages view of child development is really outdated now anyway.

rabbitstew · 04/03/2010 20:17

Ignore all development charts, including those on Babycentre. They are totally unhelpful to anyone other than a mother with a child developing in a boring, average sort of way. I think it is a lot of old codswallop that crawling late causes children to be behind at age 5 - it either has no effect on development because it's completely normal for that child or it is a symptom of a pre-existing problem (or in a very small minority of cases, is the result of child abuse!). Of course some of the children who crawl late or not at all will go on to be diagnosed as dyspraxic or have other learning disabilities, but the majority will not, so anyone who claims that you should be putting your child in some kind of remedial motor-skills programme simply on the basis of their having crawled late or not at all is talking out of their backside. They've probably also developed a money-spinning motor skills programme for you to buy into. And will probably also claim it will help with other areas of your child's development - all on the basis of theories that are unlikely ever to be proved.

ImSoNotTelling · 04/03/2010 20:25

Yes to ignoring the baby charts.

With DD1 followed them closely - as DD1 did everything very early and drew gasps of admiration all round. Walking talking blah blah off she went. I loved development charts.

DD2, on the other hand, is heavily into lying on the floor and doing bugger all. Smiling, she is good at. Moving, nope. Sitting, well she's getting there but still v topply and already 3 months older than when DD1 started to crawl. Hmmmm.

This time I am carefully turning a blind eye to development charts, sticking my fingers in my ears, saying lalala, and mustering much excited enthusiasm when she manages to remain upright for more than about 2 secs

I am sure your baby is absolutely fine, OP.

domesticslattern · 04/03/2010 20:41

As soon as I saw that chart in the Mirror today I thought to myself, there's going to be a lot of worried mothers out there today, whose babies aren't doing everything exactly to the timetable decreed by Miriam Stoppard. My baby never crawled and certainly didn't stack things at 12 months, and she is just fiiiiiiiiiine. I never crawled either and look at me! (ta da!)

Have a glass of wine and forget it.

Flip