Doman's "how to teach your baby to read" - anyone else trying it?

[ManIFeelLikeAWoman]

Has anyone else got any experience of using Doman's "how to teach your baby to read" methodology?

I am currently doing this with my non-verbal baby (11 months) and would be interested to compare notes, especially in terms of having a sense that your baby is "getting it" rather than just liking the colours red, white and black?

I posted this on another thread initially, btw, and got challenged for hot-housing. So. The honest reason for doing it is that my daughter is bilingual but will have little contact with French speakers except me.

I want her to be able to read in French and so have access to a wider range of native-quality French than I alone can give her, the sooner the better.

I agree it could smack of hot-housing but my child seems to like the activities. If she didn't, I would stop instantly. That doesn't mean that they are definitely working - time will tell on that one - only that they might be working and she appears to enjoy it so it seems a no-lose gamble to me.

Views and experience, please.

my view - if your baby likes the game you are playing with her, keep playing it. But I also think that there's little to be gained from attempting to teach a child so young to read. My DS1 didn't talk until 2yo, so you could be onto a loser if her language skills kick in later rather than faster.

Each to their own, though.

Thanks for feedback. What has your experience been so far with Doman's methodology then? Good, bad or indifferent?

no direct experience of it. I have a 3yo, who is learning via synthetic phonics - I read reviews of the various methods, including Doman's whole-word method, and chose synthetic phonics as the evidence seemed to be strongest for it. But even Donan's method is designed for 2yos, so I think 11mo might be pushing it, a bit.

Doman specifically advocates starting as early as possible - from birth if desired, giving clear instructions on how to do so - and is at pains to point out the complete lack of connection between verbal potential and reading potential, going as far as to say that being unable to speak might be an advantage in the sense that there is no temptation to encourage the child to read aloud.

Thank you again for your advice and support, but I am really looking for the advice and experience of others who have attempted to apply the methodology, or who have at least read the book in full before deciding it's not for them.

I used it with both my DDs. DD1 is 30 now - long time ago!

DD1 - can't remember exactly when I began it with her, possibly about a year old - I followed the book exactly - she absolutely loved it - it was 'just another game' which was full of giggles and fun. By the time she was 3 she was a fluent reader and used to sit reading books to herself while I played tennis for an hour. She has always loved books and is now a bookseller :fgrin - wonder if that's Doman's fault?

DD2 - enjoyed it at first as a fun game to play with Mummy but got bored with it incredibly quickly and made it clear she preferred other things, like wrecking the saucepan cupboard and jumping off the settee . Which was fine, so I gave up Doman and didn't bother. DD2 didn't read till later than DD1 and has never loved reading or books the way DD1 does, although she is more academic (currently at Oxford studying science.)

So there you go: the "less bright" (ouch) of my DDs loved Doman, made rapid progress, became a fluent reader very young and loves books and reading to this day: the other one was utterly bored by it and rarely reads for pleasure.

So I can't tell you if Doman 'made' a good reader/booklover of DD1, or whether she had that tendency anyway. But I do say that so long as the baby enjoys it and you treat it exactly as 'a fun game' (which it is, despite its critics) and don't persist if the child is bored or disinclined to participate, and keep the sessions very short and very playful, then it's just another fun thing to do with your baby and no more 'hothousing' than doing silly counting games as you go up the stairs.

Oops, messed up my smile and by "silly" counting games, I meant fun nonsense-rhymey numbery-things you do - not that it was 'silly' to do counting games, of course!

I was an early fluent reader and have always loved reading and books. I learnt by watching Sesame Street.

Question, if your baby can't talk, how do you know whether they are reading or not?

I guess that later, when you think they are reading more fluently and with longer, more involved, texts, then if they laugh in the right places, that's a pretty good indication.

Much the same as an adult reading without moving his or her lips, in other words.

But at this stage of reading single words and two word phrases, you don't.

But hey ho.

I suppose you could say the same about adult mutes. It comes down to whether you feel the need for proof before trying or after trying, I guess.

Bump - anyone else got experience to share?

I taught my son to read when he was four years old. It was quick and easy and we used the Jolly Phonics manuel. Infact Jolly Phonics produce a French version. He was able to read simple three letter words after 6 weeks and was reading simple stories within six months.

www.amazon.co.uk/Manuel-Phonique-Jolly-Phonics/dp/1870946987

However I believe that even attempt teaching children to read before the age of three or four is waste of time. Infact many four year olds are not ready or interested. Provided the child recieves good quality teaching its OK to leave teaching reading to as late as six or seven years old.

I believe there are French produced schemes that use synthetic phonics, but I don't know anything about them.

I think that during babyhood aquisition of good language skills is more important reading. Talk, play, read to and sing with your baby. There is more to life than being able to read super early.

Prehaps you need to do some research on the most sucessful methods of teaching children to read rather than attempting the impossible.

Thanks for the advice.

I already speak to, sing to, play with and read to my baby and always have. Because it's fun.

And of course there is more to life than being able to read super early. If I thought there wasn't, I would force her to do reading activities when she was ill, unhappy, hungry, or just not interested. And I don't.

And of course it's OK to leave reading till 6 or 7. But I am not teaching her to read because I want her to be able to read super early per se. I am teaching her so she has a broader access to native quality input in what will probably be her weaker language. I sense your motivation was very different and, while I respect and understand that, it does reduce the relevance of your situation to mine.

I want to try this method because there is a certain body of evidence, albeit via testimonials, that it works, and a forty year track record to back it up. And because my child enjoys it. Whether it's working or not for her, I don't know. Time will tell. But she enjoys it. So we do it.

I haven't done extensive research because her reading is not the be all and end all. A respected writer in a relevant field (George Saunders) whose situation is very similar to mine recommended it, so I thought I'd give it a go. It is an experiment that would be very useful if it worked - useful, as I have said, for very specific, language acquisition, reasons - but no loss if it didn't.

However, I would be amazed if a phonics method was indeed the best for learning French because French, like English, is very far from being a phonetically spelt language.

As for attempting the impossible - what, apart from your gut instinct, leads you to believe that it is impossible? Are you speaking from any kind of experience at all or are you guessing?

I don't mean to be rude, but I don't know how to put this more simply. I am looking for people with experience of Glenn Doman's method, best known from the book "How to teach your baby to read", to compare notes. Or, at a push, someone who has tried an alternative methodology with a baby of, say, one year old, especially in French, which has its own issues distinct from English.

Thanks again for taking the time to answer.

Message withdrawn

Thank you for this, Christiana - even if it's exactly what I was hoping NOT to hear.

Will need to have a serious think now.

Bugger.

Still, better to hear this sort of thing now than find it out later.

I hope you are getting over the effects yourself, too.

Thanks again.

S

Message withdrawn

I think I might leave it alone for a year or two and then reconsider ...

Hi,

I have a newborn and read 3 of the Doman books and felt it made common sense and it appealed to me.

I searched these fora for arguments against and found lots of mums saying things like "let a child be a child", "kids don't need to read, crawl early, do maths....etc" Well that's their opinion, but its just an opinion, and was backed up with nothing, so I ignored it.
My thought at this time was if the kid enjoys it, why not do it, Doman has shown its of benefit, so if its doing no harm, why not take as much good from it as you can - makes sense right?
Well now I learn Doman is widely discredited in much of his work, which throws into doubt all his claims, and also rubbishes my own argument that doing will be of some benefit.
I'm not going to be doing this programme, despite having bought books and built materials and am writing this post to give a proper negative argument for people like me who may be looking for a concrete against argument before deciding to go ahead.
Do what you like with your kids, but if you are thinking of this please read the following links, including one from the American Academy of Paediatrics. In short:

"The Doman-Delacato patterning technique is pseudoscience because it is premised on a bankrupt and discarded theory and, more importantly, has failed to demonstrate any significant effectiveness under controlled conditions, and yet it is being purveyed as an innovative and effective treatment, and even possibly a cure. The IAHP and NACD cannot support the claims that they make, and are therefore guilty of fraud. Current regulations should prevent such abuse, but unfortunately such institutions as the FDA lack the manpower and the teeth to properly enforce such regulations and fulfill their role to protect the public from the snake-oil salesman, dressed up in the modern clothes of alternative medicine, that increasingly prey upon the vulnerable, the sick, and the desperate."

pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/104/5/1149.full

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Institutes_for_the_Achievement_of_Human_Potential#_

www.srmhp.org/archives/patterning.html