# Your Baby Can Read - Fact or Fiction?



## springvalley (Jun 23, 2009)

I haven't been watching this forum as closely as I should, but as a new mother, I was wondering if this is a good program or not. I saw an info-mercial on TV with 18 month babies 'reading' or at least memorizing words. Does this program really get children reading at a younger age or is this just a bunch of marketing and hoopla? They have a 'trial offer' but never go into what the REAL price is and I'd rather find out from y'all if this is worth it before even doing the trial. After all, what can you truly see in a couple of days?

Thanks for your info!!
-Catherine


----------



## Jenni979 (Jan 27, 2010)

I was wondering this too...

We are due in a few weeks and I saw the ad for this program on TV... 

I doubt that we will get it, though... I was reading well before preschool and all it took was for my parents to read to me...

GL!!!


----------



## Cyngbaeld (May 20, 2004)

Talk to your baby. Use big words and a variety of different words for the same thing. (Sofa, couch, davenport etc.) A child who has a large spoken vocabulary will learn to read more easily.

Read lots of books to baby. While you read, move your finger under each word as you say it. Use books with very large type.

No need to spend lots of money on a system that you may not have time/energy to use. Then you feel guilty for wasting it.


----------



## Beaners (Feb 23, 2005)

This same program was recently discussed on a different board I'm on. My short response is that this type of learning might have very young children able to "read" but it doesn't actually translate into any kind of long-term educational gain.

I'm actually not opposed to drilling and worksheet type learning for memorizing things like times tables at a slightly older age. Very young children, even up through kindergarten, do better (from what I've seen and the research I've read) learning by playing or experimenting with things. That way the things that they have learned have a certain mental context. It's kind of like the difference between a child being able to count to 10 and a child being able to count that there are 10 objects. The first child knows the skill but doesn't know what it means.

Kayleigh


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

A long time ago, at the Institute of Human Potential, I did see babies be able to see a word on a flash card and pick out the photo that represented it (cat, picture of a cat on a different card, etc).

It is basically done with descrete information presented several times a day, in a flash card manner at first, then very basic books. 
I have seen the 3 year olds reading regular books, not K or 1st grade stuff.

I took the week long course at the "Better Baby Institute", and the biggest thing is don't teach your baby baby talk now, then try to correct it later - teach them correct words now.
Read, read, READ and READ to them, they are absorbing the information and word formations and patterning their brains.
Get exercise to them and deep breathing, it make brain functions much better.
Music is good for patterning the brain. I saw the Suziki method violin players - tots and up learning by ear, later reading music.

But the biggest thing I learned, never underestimate the learning potential of a child. They are sponges that learn whatever you present to them over and over.

My girls at K and every grade after, tested falling off the IQ type tests at schools - they achieved and are smart and interested in life.

So, yes, it can work to the extent you want to work at it.

Angie


----------



## hoggie (Feb 11, 2007)

My DD is still a work in progress. But she had her first "read" words at 17 months old. I read to her and read to her and read to ehr from the time she was weeks old. Lovely picture books, with lots of rhythmic rhyming stories. At 17 months old she started "asking" what the printed words are by pointing at them. That is the most important point because at the stage the child has recognised that that shape on the page represents something. From this point on, I still read to her a huge amount, but I also taught her to read using Ladybird Keywords. The principle behind this is that "12 words make up one quarter of all the words we read and write - and that just 100 words make up one half of all printed vocabulary" So if they get the keywords they are well on the way.

She was readign fluently before she started school at 4. Long term - who knows. But certainly in her first years at school it has been a huge asset. While the other kids are still struggling with their readign DD is reading hundreds of books, absorbing masses of information, and assimilating that information very rapidly as she goes because the reading is second nature to her.

Also - and I hav eno idea whether the two are connected or not - she is now doing music and is picking up sight reading music very easily too.

As a result - I am a very firm believer in keywords - as early as the child wants to learn them. When they are reading - never let them struggle with a word long enough to lose the context and flow of a sentence. Supply the word - soon enough they will remember the word. But if they have to sit and struggle with it, it will lose it's meaning and then there is no fun in reading.

Whatever you decide - the most important point is for you to be enjoying it - have fun and baby will too. If it is a chore for you then baby will pick up on that 

hoggie


----------



## shanzone2001 (Dec 3, 2009)

I would be concerned if the program is simply teaching sight words and not how to actually sound out the words. Many of my students have memorized words, but they lack the skills needed to decode new words. Usually they look at the first letters and guess.
Great suggestions so far...reading to your child, pointing to the words you are reading, and using adult vocabulary.
The sooner they learn the letters and the sounds they make, the sooner they will be able to put those sounds together and actually "read".
Good luck!!!:happy:
Shannon


----------



## ovsfarm (Jan 14, 2003)

But I think you also have to ask the question why? Why do you want your baby to read extremely early? There aren't any age appropriate books for them to read. You certainly don't want them reading the daily newspaper! Other than being able to do this silly pet trick for relatives and visitors, what purpose does it serve? 

Psychologists have determined that humans have certain windows of opportunity for learning things. During early childhood, babies need to learn more about relationships and exploring the world around them, not about the printed word. Some very well-respected schools of thought, like the Waldorf system, doesn't even believe in exposing children to reading until 8 years of age or so. They claim that it damages visual perception. They do teach letter sounds (phonics) earlier, but only with large 3-D letters. And they turn out some excellent students.

Personally I see no reason to accelerate a child in this manner. When an infant or toddler, embrace being those things. There is plenty of time to read later. Some children pick up reading early on their own. That doesn't mean they are more intelligent than the late reader, merely that their brain is wired well in that direction. By the end of first or second grade there is often no discernable difference. IMO, baby literacy is a fad that cycles back around every decade or so and has yet to produce an abundance of geniuses who will save the world. If it worked so well, we would all know about the results already.


----------



## NEfarmgirl (Jan 27, 2009)

I think it all will depend on the child. I read to DS when I was pregnant and we read him a story every night before bed. He was reading on his own at 2 1/2 yrs old. A friend of ours did the same thing and her son started reading at 5 years. We never forced our child to read--he enjoys it a great deal. We taught him were to find the tools to learn and to get knowledge. He does the rest himself. He was tested at the public school in our district and he blew the staff away. We have gone through life that it is a learning process no matter how old you are and our son sees it and is not afraid to jump in and learn something new. 

I think it would be better in the long run to read to your child, and as you are reading point to words or letters and say them or make the sounds. There are a lot of kids out there that learned to read early and I don't think programs did the work--it was the parents.


----------



## jamala (May 4, 2007)

Yes it will work but why pay for what you can do at home, as a former teacher I saw this many times. If you present "words" and the "picture representation" to your child several times a day they will connect them and "learn" them. You can make up your own flashcard system and use it. BUT read to your child all the time, even before they arrive. If you read to them it will help them to learn, to want to learn to read. It is like teaching sign language to your child, if you start teaching your child the "sign" for words you use they will learn them and lots of kids learn to sign words before they can ever speak them. For example I taught my son the sign for eat as an infant, we would say eat and then sign it to him everytime we fed him. Before he could talk or walk he would sign "eat" to me when I put him in the highchair or when he saw food.


----------



## Shrarvrs88 (May 8, 2010)

I can speak from experience here, we paid for the trial offer, and once it got to us, we loved it so much we kept it. Now, you could make your own, it's not extremely hard, but it was awsome for us. We don't follow the curriculum, DH and got bored with the videos and didn't have that staying power, but my son loves books and genuinly knows that the words have some meaning, even if he can't read. 

I also am confident that, had we followed the recomended guidelines, he would be reading. However, he loves the videos, the sliding word cards, and the books, so we feel it was a decent investment. We have a three week old sopn now, that we actually plan on following it with (that's the other thing, if you start young its easier, because they don't have that all encompassing desire to move). 

As for if it provides long term benefits, I would say yes, definately. Instead of trying to learn everything all at once, readign can be out of the way for your child, clearing the path for other things (math?) and really giving your kid the ability to enjoy books early.

That said, Robert Tizter explains it all very well in one of the DVD's you would get in the pack. All about learning, and everything. Believe me, it's worth it. If nothing else, get the trial, and send it back after you see how to do it yourself.


----------



## offthegrid (Aug 11, 2009)

ovsfarm said:


> But I think you also have to ask the question why? Why do you want your baby to read extremely early? There aren't any age appropriate books for them to read. You certainly don't want them reading the daily newspaper! Other than being able to do this silly pet trick for relatives and visitors, what purpose does it serve?


That was my first thought, too. Is there any evidence that reading earlier is better? Or that reading late is bad? Why would a toddler want to read, anyway? Or even a 4 year old. Maybe better to play with toys and run around....there certainly seems to be enough time in a lifetime to learn to read that we don't need to start before age 2.


----------



## ChristieAcres (Apr 11, 2009)

I taught my children for ten years. My DD was reading at a 2nd grade level turning age 3. She was a gifted child and enjoyed the challenge (must be FUN). Using larger type is important due to eye/brain development. My DS had Epilepsy and learned to read at age 7, which actually blew away all expectations (his medical evaluations...). BOTH my children are excellent readers, have good vocabularies, and are gifted in writing. I offered turn of the century unabridged literature to them, read to them, even though they could read, had them read to me out loud every day. DS is 20, and DD is 22.


----------



## Pony (Jan 6, 2003)

As already mentioned, children have developmental windows during which they are really set to learn certain things.

When they're little bitties, they're all about exploring their environment, themselves, and the people around them.

Using a good vocabulary, being patient with them, and reading to them will help them to develop into who they are. It's grand if they pick up reading at an earlier age, but it's certainly not something that should be foisted on a child. 

Simple exposure to sound vocabulary and GRAMMAR (please, please, PLEASE!!!) will help your child to develop part of the necessary communication tools needed to function in society.

My concern is that people (no one on this thread) push their children in ways that are developmentally inappropriate. From my experience, when parents start out pushing their infants to excel, they wind up having DayTimers by the time they're in 3rd grade. (I am honestly not making that up.)

Enjoy your children. Speak to them like human beings. Set appropriate boundaries. Set the bar at an achievable yet challenging height, BASED ON YOUR OWN CHILD'S NASCENT ABILITIES.

Most of all, love them and have fun. They are our children for such a short time... It flies far more quickly than you'd even begin to imagine...


----------



## Pony (Jan 6, 2003)

offthegrid said:


> That was my first thought, too. Is there any evidence that reading earlier is better? Or that reading late is bad? Why would a toddler want to read, anyway? Or even a 4 year old. Maybe better to play with toys and run around....there certainly seems to be enough time in a lifetime to learn to read that we don't need to start before age 2.


Exactly!


----------



## ChristieAcres (Apr 11, 2009)

> Simple exposure to sound vocabulary and GRAMMAR (please, please, PLEASE!!!) will help your child to develop part of the necessary communication tools needed to function in society.


Okay, LOL to the extreme on this one (respectfully as I did it completely the opposite). Here I was, a young mother in her early twenties, who baby-talked to her children (cartoon voices mainly), nicknamed the dickens out of them, and made up silly names for all kinds of common things. I adopted whatever they liked to call things and we had a lot of fun with this. I sang, a bit off tune, but sang silly songs, made up silly stories, and was truly happily goofy with them. When I taught my DD, age 2.5 to read? It was because she was gifted and seemed to need the challenge. She was a 2nd grade reader by 3. That wasn't because I pushed her. So, knowing all this, you would think my children don't speak proper English and have poor vocabularies. That is incorrect on both counts. We still baby-talk (cartoon voice) to each other at times, but both speak well. DS has the voice of a broadcaster and DD is a singer/songwriter. 

I sure agree that you shouldn't push a baby or toddler. Everything should be fun and happy at that age. I do not agree, that it is in any way harmful to speak in cartoon voices, occasionally, to your children. My childrens friends would come over and ask me to read to them in "that voice" my kids told them I had. This meant, I would take on the characters who were speaking and read, "in character."  When my daughter is having a bad day? One of my silly "Mim" messages will snap her out of it! I will leave short silly badly sung songs in one of the voices on her voicemail. She tells me that it makes her day (age 22).


----------



## Shrarvrs88 (May 8, 2010)

I wanted to mention, as well, that I while it is important to not push your child to is equally important to support them and encourage them. I gave a daughter for open adoption as a teen, and the little girl is clearly gifted. At four she is doing second grade work. Her teacher (in an alternative private school) is pushing to advance her into the first grade already. Her adoptive mom is holding back. I tend to think they are both wrong. If I were still her mommy, I would want her in homeschool, so she could do work she WANTS to do (she cries because she can't do the older schoolwork) while letting her be around kids her age. Of course, I am not her mommy, and the mommy she has is clearly doing a wonderful job with her. But I cringe when I think about the poor thing not being allowed to do the work she wants and is ready for. Her little brother, my son, is diffrent. He is much more free spirited than her, and LOVES to read, but where she has ALWAYS loved work book stuff, he would rather be doing something. cooking, aquishing bugs, ect. But, he does love the your baby can read program, and I am convinced it has done good. when he was younger, he was real fidgety, and we didn't make him watch it, but now he LOVES the whole system. Plays with it, loves it.


----------



## pheasantplucker (Feb 20, 2007)

I am very skeptical of those commercials and their claims. Don't get me wrong, parents and children should spend as much time as possible learning to enjoy the company of books. Reading is essential, but I think there is no substitute for simply reading together, taking turns, showing skills and demonstrating "problem solving" and decoding skills without a slick marketed program, that one purchases. These programs, remember, are out for one thing...to make money. I don't believe they truly care whether your child learns to read by a certain age or with a certain degree of skill. They are in it to make money. You can accomplish the same thing without a program. Parents have been doing so for hundreds of years.


----------

