http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/oct/14/childhood-stimulation-key-brain-development

Some quotes:

Farah’s results showed that the development of the cortex in late teens was closely correlated with a child’s cognitive stimulation at the age of four. All other factors including parental nurturance at all ages and cognitive stimulation at age eight – had no effect. Farah said her results were evidence for the existence of a sensitive period, early in a person’s life, that determined the optimal development of the cortex. “It really does support the idea that those early years are especially influential.”

Andrea Danese, a clinical lecturer in child and adolescent psychiatry at the Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London, said … that this kind of research highlighted the “tremendous role” that parents and carers had to play in enabling children to develop their cognitive, social, and emotional skills by providing safe, predictable, stimulating, and responsive personal interactions with children.

It’s a bit of a pity that the study only started on the children when they were 4.  Do we need to wait for another 20 years for science to do another longitudinal study to prove what we already witness ourselves all the time – that early learning for babies and toddlers will also have a long term beneficial impact?

—
Feel free to discuss this blog post in the comments here or in this Forum post:
http://forum.brillkids.com/general-discussion-b5/latest-research-showing-long-term-benefits-of-early-learning/

KL Wong is the Founder and CEO of BrillKids, and also father of Felicity, aged 6. He can be contacted at KL(at)brillkids(dot)com.

Cultural shifts in society usually happen over decades. Then along comes new technology and everything changes overnight. That’s exactly what seems to be happening in the world of baby/toddler reading. Lap reading alone is “out,” and software-driven reading lessons are “in.”

Good parenting skills include instilling babies and toddlers with a life-long sense of curiosity and exploration. What about a life-long sense of curiosity and exploration of words and reading? Wouldn’t it be nice if more kids loved reading from the beginning? Many new parents who are pressed for time and who embrace technology themselves are welcoming babies and toddlers into a new world for experiencing words and language in addition to the tried and true comfortable world of lap reading.

I bumped head-on into the world of baby/toddler reading technology myself mostly after the publication of my book for parents and caregivers, Raising Confident Readers: How to Teach Your Child to Read and Write—From Baby to Age 7 . (The book made me a “go to” person for baby/toddler reading products such as Your Baby Can Read, Little Reader, WatchKnow and others.) Now, only two years after the book’s publication, I get tons of questions from parents and caregivers about baby/toddler readers and new technology. Here are five most frequently asked questions with answers.

1) Can babies really read and is it natural?

Most parents and even some educators don’t understand that the young child’s brain is hard-wired for early reading, but advances in brain imaging are changing that misconception. Scientist Patricia Kuhl, co-director of the University of Washington Institute for Learning & Brain Sciences, and her colleagues have shown images of white matter in the 9-month-old brain connecting areas used for talking, grammar, reading, and social interaction with areas for listening and understanding. Dr. Kuhl reports that the track that connects areas of the brain used for reading is present in infants before 12 months of age.1 The first stage in baby/toddler reading is learning to read words without knowledge of letters and sounds. Many toddlers can read by decoding new words by 2 or 3 years of age. Four-year olds can read chapter books. A change in the culture in schools is already needed to accommodate early readers.

Baby/toddler reading is as natural as language learning. These early readers aren’t just geniuses with special capacities; every child’s brain appears to be wired for early reading, just as it’s wired for learning language. The window of opportunity for acquiring languages is understood to be between 0 and 7, when virtually any language you put in front of a child can be acquired with great skill. In fact, babies and toddlers can learn languages better and more easily than adults. Beyond age 7, the language-learning skill diminishes. While a new language can be learned after age 7—just as one can learn to read later in life—it’s learned differently and not automatically or with the same ease of production. When a parent or caregiver stimulates the reading brain through social interaction, babies and toddlers who crack the reading code likely use special brain-based computational skills similar to the way they crack the speech code and build concepts and vocabulary.2

2) What’s wrong with learning to read in school?

Waiting until age 6 to learn to read presents problems, especially in America where 88% of poor readers in first grade will be poor readers in fourth grade.3 The root of the problem is that one third of the kids entering kindergarten aren’t ready for success with reading. They haven’t reached a pivotal benchmark for beginning reading: They can’t write their names, clap out syllables, name some letters, recognize even a few words in print, or tell about a favorite book that has been read to them over and over.4 This year in America, 33% or about 1.5 million children entered kindergarten without these preschool skills. Why? Because nobody taught them. Sadly, many kindergarten and first grade teachers are not well prepared to teach beginning reading and in poor communities they often have too many students who come to them underprepared.

3) Why not just lap read?

Reading aloud and talking to preschoolers is fundamental, but lap reading or bedtime stories may not be sufficient to enable young children to pick up reading. Longitudinal results from a recent study show that drawing attention to print in explicit ways during book reading to preschoolers enhanced the child’s reading, comprehension, and spelling scores two years later.5 The point of the study was that during lap reading, the child’s attention had to be drawn to how words work.

So the lap reading question becomes “Where are your baby’s eyes looking?” It’s well established that children don’t learn to read by looking at the pictures or at Mommy’s or Daddy’s face during lap reading.6 Some of the new soft-ware driven reading tools use overt means to evoke the child’s visual and verbal attention to the printed word, making this important quality of first good teaching easy for parents because attention to word properties is built directly into word games. For example, the programs use subtle and informal introduction of letter-sound correspondence and left-to-right directionality of spelling. Parents make sure the child’s eyes are in the right spot for reading simply by pointing to a curser that tracks a word’s spelling from left to right on the computer screen in concert with vocal presentation of the word.

4) What about phonics?

Some software driven programs order word presentation and sequence easy-books so that the reader can “pick up” knowledge of phonics patterns. How toddlers do this is not well understood, but it likely involves capacities for pattern recognition and inductive learning. It does not involve the deductive memorization of phonics rules and applications associated with formal instruction. That’s much too hard for toddlers.

This ordered presentation helps kids learn chunks of letter-sound correspondence just as they inductively learn the rules of grammar when learning to speak in phrases and sentences. That is to say, they learn to apply phonics rules by experiencing printed language in use, rather than by having the rules explained or by consciously deducing the rules. Along with the word games, engaging illustrated little stories contrasting words and patterns such as pink pig, pig wig, two pigs, and two wigs enable kids to intuit letter-sound correspondences for letters such a p, w, the ending s sound, and the –ig and –ink chunk. By 2 or 3 years of age, many early readers astonish their parents as they begin to use pattern phonics to unlock words they have never seen.

5) Is it safe?

Teaching early reading requires intimate physical contact, such as snuggling with a book or cuddling with the baby or toddler at the computer. Perhaps the best thing about either lap reading or cuddling at the computer with word games is that the activities build positive parent-child social interactions and expand opportunity for the parent and the child to talk and have fun with books, concepts, and words. The big question is how is the baby/toddler responding? Is the child having fun while learning? If the technology makes it easy for parents to customize reading “lessons” and present them in a brief game-type format that a child enjoys, it’s safe. If your 2-year old can read the word grandpa on a cell phone ap along with a pic of grandpa waving, you have found your mojo as a reading teacher. If you are using the DVD as a baby sitter, it’s harmful. Babies don’t learn language or reading by watching TV alone, they are people persons.

——————

Discuss this by posting a comment below, or on the BrillKids Forum:

http://forum.brillkids.com/teaching-your-child-to-read/’cultural-shift-in-babytoddler-reading’-by-dr-richard-gentry/

—

(First published on June 21, 2012 by J. Richard Gentry, Ph.D. in Raising Readers, Writers, and Spellers)

1 http://www.educationnation.com/index.cfm?objectid=3ED60AA6-E899-11E0-B00E000C296BA163

2  Patricia Kuhl, “Cracking the Speech Code: Language and the Infant Brain” Pinkel Lecture, Institute for Research in Cognitive Science, University of Pennsylvania. April 16, 2010. For the full lecture go tohttp://www.ircs.upenn.edu/pinkel/lectures/kuhl/index.shtml .

3 Connie Juel, “Learning to Read and Write: A Longitudinal Study of 54 Children from First Through Fourth Grades.” Journal of Educational Psychology, 80 (4) 443–47. 1988.

4 J. Richard Gentry, Raising Confident Readers: How to Teach your Child to Read and Write—From Baby to Age 7. New York: Da Cappo Press, 2010.

6 Shayne B. Piasta, Laura M. Justice, Anita S. McGinty, & Joan N. Kaderavek, (2012). Increasing young children’s contact with print during shared reading: Longitudinal effects on literacy achievement. Child Development, 83(3), 810–820.

Dr. J. Richard Gentry is the author of Raising Confident Readers, How to Teach Your Child to Read and Write–From Baby to Age 7 . Follow him on Facebook , Twitter , and LinkedIn and find out more information about his work on his website .

In my next blog post, I will give a more detailed update on where we are, and what Little Musician will include.

For this blog post, however, I would like to ‘set the scene’ a little by explaining my musical background, my approach to giving my daughter musical training, as well as some of the thinking that went on behind the creation of Little Musician.

My Musical Background

I started learning the piano at the age of six, along with my two older brothers. Like everyone else I knew learning the piano, I was taught the traditional way: learning how to read and play sheet music, and most of the time learning pieces for the purposes of piano exams. I took exams all the way up to Grade Five.

During those years, despite good exam results, piano was not very enjoyable for me. At one point, I even made up my mind to quit. But, because I never managed to pluck up the courage to tell my mother of my decision (I was ten!), I carried on with it.

I consider myself lucky to have continued because, after attending boarding school in England (age thirteen), I actually started to enjoy playing the piano. One major reason was that I stopped taking exams. Under the guidance of my teacher there, I learned to play pieces that I truly enjoyed, like pieces by Gershwin. (I just loved the rhythm and jazzy feel!) I continued taking lessons until I left for university at eighteen. I would say I became quite good at it, often winning school competitions and playing at school recitals.

Classical Piano Training for Felicity

Now that I’m a dad, would I put my daughter, Felicity, through the same classical piano training? My answer: No.

Firstly, I would take a long hard look at any system which focuses largely on getting exam results.  I feel that this can really take the joy out of playing the instrument.  Sure, the training and practice will make you a better pianist, no doubt.  But what I’m far more interested in is being a better musician.

So, what did my classical piano training actually teach me? In terms of practical playing skills, I learned to look at notes on a page, and to play them on a piano keyboard. I learned to play many such pieces very well. I received great applause and admiration when I played those long and difficult Grade Eight Gershwin pieces, especially since I often played them from memory.

But what about when I had no sheet music in front of me? Or, what happened when, with the passage of time, I could no longer remember the pieces? What was I actually able to play?

The answer: NOTHING!

Surely, I don’t mean that literally, right? How about a simple tune like “Itsy Bitsy Spider”? Come on! If I could play all those piano concerto pieces that well, surely I could play “Itsy Bitsy Spider”!

Nope. I basically wouldn’t have a clue how to play it! Sure, I could give it a good guess. But it would involve a little hunting and pecking, and a lot of praying that I’d play the correct note.

You see, for all those years, I was taught (and taught very well) only how to translate notes on a page onto the keyboard through my fingers. I see a note, and I know which key to push. And even if it’s a difficult piece, if you give me some time to practice, I could do it very well.

But if you don’t show me the notes on paper, then how am I supposed to know which keys to push? Just from knowing what the melody sounds like? Sorry, doesn’t help! I can translate the music notes that I SEE onto the keyboard, but not the notes that I HEAR (whether externally, or internally in my head).

That’s because, even though I can reproduce a very complicated piece of music in my head (complete with all the different parts), I basically have no idea what those notes are. I was simply never trained that way.

Introduction to Solfege

I always admired people who could just improvise and play any tune on the keyboard. This was especially so because I sometimes played in a band and composed music, and not being able to do that was a severe handicap. It dawned on me, when looking down at the keyboard, that despite all those years of learning the piano, I basically didn’t really KNOW it at all! I could operate it mechanically, sure, but without any deep understanding of it.

Many years ago, I had a Filipino singing teacher who could also play the keyboard. He never took any piano exams, and could never play some of the pieces that I could. But he was someone who really understood the keyboard. He understood it as well as he understood his own voice. The keyboard was like an extension of his body. Just name him any song, and he’d be able to play it even if he had never played it before. A song was too high to sing to? No problem! He’d just transpose it down instantly.

So I asked him how he did it. And that, sadly, was the first time I heard about solfege (or “solfeggio”, as he called it).

“What’s that?” I asked.

“You know, like: Do, Re, Mi, Fa, So…” he replied.

“Oh, from ‘The Sound of Music’?” I asked. “Yes! I know that song!” I commented enthusiastically, though I still had no idea how a song from a popular musical could help.

My ignorance on the subject was plain to see. Since the day he enlightened me how solfege works (and that solfege did not ‘come from’ that song!), I have always kept in mind the importance of learning solfege.

Yamaha Music School

Fast forward many years to when Felicity was born. I was already thinking of how to train her musically. I knew only one thing. Classical piano training (at least, the way I was taught) was not the best way to help her develop musicality.

I had heard many good things about the Yamaha Music School, so I enrolled her at age three, in the “Music Wonderland” course. It wasn’t really about learning the piano. It was more concerned with music appreciation and exposure. One year later, the piano-playing began with the “Junior Music Course”. In her first lesson, Felicity was taught to play “Middle C”.

Except it wasn’t called “Middle C”.

It was “Do”.

The other striking difference between this course and traditional piano lessons is that singing forms a big part of it. In fact, the sequence is this:

- LISTEN

- SING

- PLAY

Yep, playing comes last.

By labeling each of the notes with solfege syllables, students read and reproduce music by singing out the notes. It’s only after that that they play the notes on the keyboard (often while singing).

In the Yamaha Junior Music Course, there is a huge emphasis on learning solfege. In every class there would be solfege singing exercises, like what you see here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiNrltqxnBE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryN9yNsX5A8

(As an aside, here’s something interesting to note for all of you familiar with the right-brain flash card method for teaching babies skills such as reading and math. Often, when Felicity’s Yamaha teacher plays out the notes, it’s all very fast, and the children are expected to repeat or guess the notes very quickly following her demonstration, with no time to think or analyze. This reminds me of the right-brain flash method where information is delivered rapidly in order to be accessed directly using the intuitive right brain without the logical left-brain’s interference. Maybe whoever designed these exercises in Yamaha compared notes with Shichida?)

The Most Important Instrument

You see, solfege is designed for singing. Compare singing “C, D, E, F, G” (See, Dee, Ee, Eff, Gee) with singing “Do Re Mi Fa So” and it should be obvious which system is more practical for singing.

And that’s one of the great things about learning solfege: It encourages the use of the most important instrument that we will ever have—our VOICE. Frankly, I’m now astonished that a lot of music education completely ignores this vital instrument and, instead, just focuses on teaching traditional instruments like the piano and violin.

Ignoring the voice seems to go hand-in-hand with ignoring solfege, and I think that has partly got to do with the fact that many music teachers today themselves were never taught solfege and therefore would not be comfortable (or even know how) to teach solfege. And I think that’s such a pity, because teaching children to sing solfege is so easy and natural – which little child has reservations about singing out loud, even if it may not be in tune? If using the voice were encouraged and fostered from young, I believe children would grow up to being less self-conscious about singing. (And I would probably invest in karaoke bars!)

Anyway, just by sitting through so many of her Yamaha classes, I’ve already picked up a lot myself, and can easily ‘map’ most melodies into solfege now. So, too, can Felicity, to some extent. When she sings a tune, I would sometimes ask her, “Now sing that again in do re mi.” (She has never heard of the term ‘solfege,’ even though she knows all the syllables.) She would do so, sometimes with amazing accuracy.

When I show Felicity a simple piece of written music, she can often sing out the melody. Some of you may have seen the video where I wrote out words like “clap” on a doodle board and Felicity (at 12 months) would read out the words. Now, in a similar manner, I would place black dots (representing notes) on a magnetic board with the musical staff lines, and she would sing out the notes for me.

Like Teaching Children To Read

That brings me to an interesting metaphor that I’ve noticed about teaching solfege.

Imagine looking through a musical score and being able to ‘read’ it (by singing it out, or having the melodies reproduced in your head) as easily as you’re able to read a book (aloud or in your head). Knowing solfege is like being able to read words.

Conversely, not knowing solfege is like not knowing how to read out words.  It’s like all you’re able to do when encountering words is to type them back out on a computer, and let the computer read the words out for you.  In both cases, you have become dependent on that machine / instrument to be able to hear the words or music.  By having focused on training our fingers to operate an external instrument instead of training our own musical instruments (our ear and voice), we’ve effectively outsourced the most crucial part of musicality, with dire consequences.

And similarly with writing.  Knowing solfege is like being able to write out the words that you speak or hear.  When listening to music, you know what notes are being played (at least relatively), so you’re able to write them out.  Without solfege, the chances are, you’d be quite lost.  It’s a bit like listening to someone talk but not being able to take dictation because you have not mastered the alphabet.

I am, therefore, thoroughly convinced as to the benefits of solfege towards developing musicality and a good ear. That’s why I consider any musical training (for any instrument) that does not include the teaching of solfege to be severely lacking.

Don’t Get Me Wrong

Just so that I’m not misunderstood and people don’t go away with the wrong impression, let me say a few more things about my beliefs:

• Not all classical piano courses were created alike. It may well be that the teachers I had were simply not very good and if I had had the fortune of having had a better teacher I might have a different view or experience. I must say, though, I thought I had good teachers at the time although I now quibble with their methods.

• Classical piano training, even though it has the shortcomings mentioned above, did give me other benefits. From it, I got a solid grounding in music theory, great dexterity with my fingers, and good hand-eye coordination.

• Even with classical piano training without solfege, one can still be reasonably musical and develop a good ear (though in a different way). Despite not knowing solfege, I, for example, still managed to compose musicals in college as well as pop-songs that were sung by Asian pop-stars, among other musical accomplishments I’m proud of.

• I’m not saying that classical piano training cannot help a student acquire skills such as playing by ear, or having a deep sense of understanding of music. Indeed, I know of people who were trained classically, without solfege, and who can play by ear. It just appears to me much harder to do so than with a solfege-based system. I believe those people I mentioned had natural talent that enabled them to do so despite not having the benefit of solfege.

• I’m also not saying that learning solfege is a panacea for all problems. Solfege itself has problems. For example: Should one use the ‘fixed-do’ or ‘movable-do’ system, and how do we apply solfege syllables to accidentals (like C sharp and E flat)?  However, these problems (to me) are minor compared to the benefit that solfege brings.

• Solfege is probably not the only way to develop a good ear and musicality.  However, it’s the easiest and most fun way that I know of.

Solfege in Little Musician

So, after this lengthy exposition, let me come back to Little Musician.

Here’s a surprise for you: solfege training forms a very important part of the program!

When the curriculum is written, the emphasis on solfege will also be quite prominent.  In the beginning, I believe it is more important to call notes by their solfege syllables rather than C, D, E, etc., so that in addition to identifying notes using their names, children can also sing them out.

I will talk more about this in my next blog post about Little Musician. (Subscribe to this blog to be notified!)

Feel free to leave comments here or discuss this topic in this Forum thread:
http://forum.brillkids.com/teaching-your-child-music/why-i-avoid-classical-piano-training-for-my-daughter-(plus-little-musician-updat/

—

KL Wong is the Founder and CEO of BrillKids, and also father of Felicity, aged 5.  He can be contacted at KL(at)brillkids(dot)com.

—

Many of you probably have read about the recent controversy stirred up by the Today Show over YBCR and teaching babies to read in October last year, and again recently when the Campaign for Commercial-Free Childhood (CCFC) joined in the attack.

If you haven’t read it yet, I recommend reading Dr. Richard Gentry’s blog post on this: “Is There a “Baby Can Read” Witch Hunt?”.  Particularly fascinating were the comments the blog attracted, including a post by CCFC who were obviously not very pleased with what Dr. Gentry wrote.

One of the later comments then brought up a point about how CCFC twisted the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)’s recommendations regarding babies and screen time as supposed ‘evidence’ against YBCR.

Sadly, I don’t think CCFC are the first or only ones to represent/misrepresent the AAP’s recommendation to be something that’s absolute (ie., NO screen time for children under two, PERIOD).

So what did the AAP actually say?  Here’s the recommendation regarding babies and TV:

- Discourage television viewing for children younger than 2 years, and encourage more interactive activities that will promote proper brain development, such as talking, playing, singing, and reading together.

Firstly, notice that they say “discourage”, not something as absolute as “no screen time” which we hear so often.

Secondly, notice that it follows on to say that they encourage “interactive activities… such as… reading together”.

The whole point about this policy is that we should not simply be putting our young children in front of TVs unsupervised and without any interaction, which is what many parents often and easily do when it comes to letting children watch TV.

I’ll be the first to raise my hand as someone who has been guilty of doing that.  Sometimes, that’s the easiest way to occupy our children when we need to take time off to tend to something else or to just take a break!

So the point of this is that we should try our best not to, because:

1. Children need INTERACTION
(This has also been borne out by a recent study. See here.)

2. Some CONTENT can be unsuitable and unhealthy.

In addition, the AAP also has these recommendations:

- Monitor the shows children and adolescents are viewing. Most programs should be informational, educational, and nonviolent.

- View television programs along with children, and discuss the content. Two recent surveys involving a total of nearly 1500 parents found that less than half of parents reported always watching television with their children.

Notice the pattern?

So, if we are sitting with our children, interacting with them, and even reading to/with them, while watching content that is educational, and all the while doing so in a fun and loving way, do you really think the AAP would wag their finger and say, “Uh uh… Not recommended! No TV under age of 2!”

What do you think?

—-
See: The AAP’s full policy statement.
Please tell us what you think by either leaving a comment here or joining the Forum discussion here:

http://forum.brillkids.com/general-discussion-b5/tv-bad-what-exactly-does-the-american-academy-of-pediatrics-(aap)-recommend/

—

KL Wong is the Founder and CEO of BrillKids, and also father of Felicity, aged 5.  He can be contacted at KL(at)brillkids(dot)com.

At first, I was shocked by such a negative reaction, especially the intensity of some of it. Over time, I became accustomed to it, and saw that I was not the only one to experience this (see these discussion topics for example: Forum thread 1, Forum thread 2).

We explored the pros and cons of early reading and early learning in general in the BrillBaby.com articles here:

• Top 8 Myths of Early Reading
• The Arguments For + Against Early Learning

However, after watching the recent Today Show’s highly-critical piece on the “Your Baby Can Read” program, I decided to write out my direct responses to the common criticisms leveled at the topic of early reading.

Here are some of the most frequently-heard comments I hear from critics, and my responses to them:

• Those babies are not reading!
• What’s the rush?
• Why are you forcing that poor baby?
• Just let babies be babies!
• Teaching them to read would take time from other areas of development.
• Babies should be allowed to play.
• Teaching reading skills so early creates unhealthy pressure on the child.
• Babies should be taught to read through play.
• The best way to teach babies to read is by reading to them.
• Teaching babies to read in that manner is too formal, too unnatural.
• There is no scientific proof of any long-term benefit to early reading instruction.
• Won’t My Child Eventually Learn To Read In School Anyway?
• These children will be bored at school.
• These children will not fit in with their classmates.
• Teaching children to read should be left to teachers.
• It’s developmentally inappropriate. The child’s brain is not ready for reading.
• I wasn’t taught to read as a baby and I turned out okay!

Those babies are not reading!

Well, that depends on your definition of ‘reading.’ If you use the most common definition (e.g., Oxford Dictionary), then ‘reading’ simply means being able to understand the meaning of written or printed words. By this definition, it is clear that babies can read. Countless babies can be seen on video (search “baby reading” on YouTube for example), gesturing appropriately to the word shown (clapping for the word clap and pointing to their noses for the word nose.)

Some might argue that those gestures do not prove that the child understands the word. They would contend that she is just gesturing as a ‘conditioned reflex’ due to the ‘training’ we give her. So, for example, when she sees the word ‘nose’ and points to her nose, she is just pointing automatically without really understanding what she is doing, nor is she understanding that the word ‘nose’ means the object she is pointing at.

Because we cannot peer into the baby’s mind, we will never know for sure if that’s the case. But consider this: Let’s say we ask the child, “Where’s your nose?” and she is able to point to her nose. Would we argue that the child does not understand our question and is pointing to her nose as a conditioned reflex? I doubt it. So, if we show her the word ‘nose’ and ask her, “Where is this?” and she can point to her nose, why would that be so different?

The more common objection, however, occurs when we take ‘reading’ to mean being able to sound out words phonetically. The objection goes: “She’s not really reading. She has just memorized the shape of the words, like a picture.”

The answer to that would be, yes. It’s true. Felicity, at twelve months, did not even know her alphabet, much less the rules of phonics. The way she learned to read in the beginning is similar to how you would read Chinese characters, where you either know the character, or you don’t (since there is no concept of phonics in Chinese writing). In English, this type of reading is called ‘whole-word reading’ or ‘sight reading,’ and is regarded as a form of reading. Whether or not that is a good way to learn to read, is a different matter.

Phonics-based reading versus whole-word reading is an ongoing subject of heated debate. We have addressed this topic, in detail, in the “Whole Language vs. Phonics” article on Brillbaby.com. In short, we advocate both. Because most traditional phonics-based approaches are only really appropriate when the child is three or four, we recommend teaching babies using a whole-word approach first, and gradually building upon their phonetic understanding in a natural and intuitive manner before explicitly teaching them phonics rules the traditional way. See here for more details concerning how we integrate the whole-word and phonics methods.

What’s the rush?

I would prefer to rephrase this question as: “Why teach them to read so early?” I think it asks the same question without the underlying negative assumption.

The answer that many people frequently trot out in response to this question has to do with the rapid rate of brain development that occurs during the first few years of a child’s life – i.e., that the brain is most absorptive at that age, the plasticity of the neural network, and so on.

For me, that is not the main reason, at all. I believe that it’s the best time to teach because it’s also the EASIEST time to teach. And the main reason why it’s much easier to teach at an early age is because there are more and more distractions later on, as a child matures.

Let’s take Felicity as an example. I first started seriously teaching her to read when she was nine months old. At that age, she could crawl, but she couldn’t stand, walk, talk, nor do much else. I taught her using various tools and methods, including many personalized books that I made for her. Whatever I showed her, she totally lapped up. She was absolutely hungry for whatever I put in front of her—so much so that it was I who had to stop the lessons despite her protests for more!

In the months and years following that, her interests grew along with her physical and mental development. At three, all Felicity wanted to do was to draw. Next she was fixated on dinosaurs. Then dragons. Then horses. And the list goes on. Boy, was I glad that she had already learned to read, because learning to read at that age would pale in comparison to playing with dragons, drawing horses, and play-pretending with her play mates!

In short, I would have found it so much more difficult to engage Felicity’s attention at age three than when she was one.

Furthermore, I only really made deliberate efforts to teach her to read (in English, anyway) between the ages of nine months and eighteen months. After that, reading instruction required only minimal effort on my part to read bedtime storybooks with her. Felicity built on her reading skills herself after that. The great thing was: because she could already read, she could enjoy her interests so much more by reading up about those interests herself!

Why are you forcing that poor baby?

A common assumption made by many is that we need to force babies against their natural will to do things like learning to read.

As already mentioned, I never forced Felicity to learn to read. It was the complete opposite. Many parents also experience the same thing. Indeed, it is commonly the case that young children protest when they are not given their reading lessons. This can be seen on the video of 16-month old Naimah who protested and cried when she mistakenly thought she wasn’t about to be given her reading lesson.

The fact that we adults often associate learning with pain (and therefore requiring forcing) says, I believe, a lot more about our attitudes towards learning than it does about a child’s. I contend that such attitudes arise precisely because we, typically, leave teaching too late. By then, forcing becomes necessary as the child has other interests with which reading instruction must compete. She would prefer (for example) to play with her toy puppy instead.

Forcing children to learn also runs completely contrary to our message.

What we encourage parents to do is simply provide the learning opportunity to the child. It’s up to the child whether or not he wants to engage in the lessons. If there is resistance or a lack of interest, then we stress that the parents should put the materials aside and try again later. The more frequent the resistance, the longer the materials should be put aside.

We always stress to parents that they should NEVER force their babies to learn if they are unwilling. They should always maintain a joyful learning atmosphere. We also stress that the first and foremost objective of the learning experience is to expose your child to reading in a loving and joyful environment. Results are secondary.

Of course, I realize and acknowledge that, despite such advice, some parents, in their over-zealousness to have their child learn, ‘lose the plot’ and impose lessons on the child even when he/she shows obvious signs of disinterest or resistance. In a way, this is understandable because many parents have been brought up in an environment where learning has always needed to be forced.

But how do we address the issue of parents forcing their children, which, we agree, can be harmful? Should we tell all parents that they should not be teaching their babies to read? I believe that such extreme attitudes are not only unnecessary, but also deprive babies of something they could potentially love and would benefit from. What we need is more education of the parents, instead of discouraging them from teaching their babies.

Even though we agree that babies should never be forced, here’s the good news: If you start early enough, you are more likely to not need to force. If the parent avoids having a results-oriented mindset and keeps the lessons loving and joyful, then, in our experience, the parents will likely find that, at some stage in the child’s development—whether it is six months, twelve months, or two years—the child will show great interest in the lessons. Forcing will be unnecessary!

Just let babies be babies!

This comment is similar to the ‘don’t force your baby’ comment, and my response above would also be relevant here.

However, to those saying “Just let babies be babies,” I would ask this question: “What, exactly, does ‘being a baby’ entail, and upon what is that opinion based?”

Since most people have always believed that babies are incapable of learning skills such as reading, it has naturally been the norm for babies not to be taught to read, and hence, the general notion of what “being a baby” should be like would certainly not include such activities.

But, if we discover that babies are, indeed, capable of learning, and love to do so, then does it make sense for us to cling to our past notions of what is the norm and deprive our babies of doing something they enjoy?

I believe that those who are saying, “Just let babies be babies”, also mean that babies should just have fun. Well, guess what? There is no disagreement there! What many people don’t realize is that reading can be fun for the baby, and most often is!

In that way, giving a baby an opportunity to learn to read is no different from offering her any toy. The baby may like the toy, or the baby might not. If the baby doesn’t like the toy, then, of course, we put it away. If the baby likes it, we encourage her to play with it. The same applies to learning materials or reading lessons!

Teaching babies to read would take time from other areas of development.

This may sound logical, as a matter of theory, but how true is it in practice?

How much time is spent every day teaching a baby to read? As the creator of the product, I will speak for Little Reader. Each Little Reader lesson takes as little as five minutes per session. We recommend one or two sessions a day, five days a week. So during weekdays, it would typically take five to ten minutes in total. (For me, it’s about five minutes as I usually do just one session a day.)

What is the impact of taking five minutes once or twice a day during weekdays? What would it displace?

This will differ. In the case of Felicity, when she was still an infant, it would have sometimes displaced periods where we would otherwise have left her to her own amusement in her crib, rocking chair or playpen while we watched her. Maybe the reading session robbed her of five minutes of chewing on her rattle or she would spent five minutes more looking around the room and kicking her legs—because that’s what she was doing plenty of. Past her first birthday, the five-minute reading session would have probably displaced 5 minutes of Felicity’s walking around the house or playing with the same toy that she had been playing with for hours before that.

For those five to ten minutes a day, what did she get instead? First and foremost, she got more bonding time with Daddy or Mommy. She also got to satisfy her craving to learn and to be stimulated. Oh, and she also learned to read very early. Most importantly, however, she had a lot of fun. We also spent plenty of time engaging in other activities with her: swimming, playing in a park, reading stories to her, going on family outings.

Babies should be allowed to play!

Firstly, this statement involves a similar issue to the previous point regarding the ‘opportunity cost’ of learning. In other words, “Don’t deprive the babies of playing time!” As I already mentioned, we are talking of very short periods of time (five to ten minutes each day).

Secondly, let’s look more closely at the word ‘play.’

In the adult world, there is a clear distinction between learning and playing. Playing is fun; learning is not usually very much fun. Often, we learn because we have to; we play because we want to.

But is this necessarily the case with babies?

I think many, if not most people, will agree that infants love to learn. They are extremely curious about the world around them, and love to explore new things.

Do we really believe that, in a young child’s world, there is the same distinction between ‘learning’ and ‘playing’ that we have in the adult world? If we can see that the baby is having fun during the learning process, does it matter whether we label it ‘learning’ or ‘playing’?

Learning can be fun for a young child. The younger the child, the more fun it will be. That’s why many consider the early years to be the most joyful period of learning for a child.

To make sure the process is fun, the most important thing to get right is our mindset. If we approach learning as something that is not fun, then our attitude will show in our interaction with our children. How much fun can a child really get out of the lessons when the parent is treating them like a chore?

Of course, we should also be sensitive to the child’s mood. We should never force a lesson when it’s not wanted. The same is true for toys!

If we maintain a loving and joyful attitude and are sensitive to our child’s moods, then the learning process can be extremely enjoyable.

Teaching so early puts unhealthy pressure on the child.

This need not be the case.

Having the right frame of mind involves making sure we do not have a results-oriented mindset.

We, therefore, always stress to parents that the main focus should be on having a loving and enjoyable time bonding with the child. Having a results-oriented focus tends to bring about stress and tension which will be picked up by the child sooner or later.

When we approach the whole matter without the need for or expectation of results, but merely for the purpose of bonding with our child over an enjoyable activity, we believe that results will actually come more easily as a pleasant ‘side effect.’

Of course, no matter how much this point is stressed, there will always be parents who will be interested only in achieving results. Yes, this would create unhealthy expectations and pressure to learn on the baby.

However, I believe that this can be kept to a minimum with proper education of the parents—which we do in many other parenting areas. To advocate against teaching our babies at all for this reason despite all the benefits would be like throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Babies should be taught to read through play.

I agree! In fact, it may even be the case that the most effective way of teaching a child anything would be through play.

First of all, I’ve already discussed whether a baby really perceives a difference between playing and learning.

For the purposes of this argument, let’s assume the case of slightly older children (say, three-year-olds), where the difference between play time and lesson time is probably more distinct (though not necessarily one being any less fun than the other).

Learning the alphabet through play could be done, for example, by having the child use a ball to try to knock down the bowling pin that has a particular letter written on it. I’m sure there are countless more imaginative examples. Yes, that would be fun for the child, and I would totally encourage such learning games to be played.

But let me ask a few questions:

• How realistic is it to expect a parent to be able to continually come up with games to teach the child to read?

• How much time does such an activity take, and how much will the child actually learn during that time?

• Why must this be the only way, to the exclusion of more dedicated reading lessons? Instead of thinking of it in terms of ‘either/or,’ why not consider the concept of ‘both/and?’

So, I totally agree that babies should be taught to read through play, and I, myself, do so every opportunity I get. I find, however, that if I were to rely purely on teaching through play, Felicity will not be learning anywhere near as much in the same amount of time as compared with having dedicated reading lessons, and it’s also much harder (practically impossible) to keep a daily routine of teaching that is simple and easy to use.

The best way to teach babies to read is by reading to them.

I certainly agree that we should read to our children, and it is also a good way to teach them to read.

Can babies learn to read simply by having parents read to them and pointing to the words while reading? According to some parents, some children apparently do learn to read this way, so yes, probably.

Is it the best way?

The great thing about books is that they can be very engaging for a child. They, typically, have colorful illustrations and an interesting story. If we judge the methods purely in terms of engaging the child’s attention, then yes, storybooks could arguably be considered to be the best way to teach a child to read (though even so, I believe that this would hold true only in the case of slightly older children, and not babies). But then, using the same criteria, it could also be argued that teaching by play is even better.

Is it the best way in terms of effectiveness in actually learning to read?

I would say ‘no’ unless the books are structured in a coherent manner (most likely as part of an overall series of books). Even then, I believe a child would find it much easier to learn to read, and learn much more, using a dedicated reading program that teaches a child in a gradual and systematic manner and which imparts specific knowledge on the rules of phonics.

In any event, does it really matter which is the best way? Again, why does one way need to be to the exclusion of other ways? We certainly would never propose that a parent should use Little Reader exclusively and not read books to their children! On the contrary, we highly encourage parents to read bedtime stories to their children. That is why we also create dedicated storybooks for this purpose and encourage all sorts of reading activities.

Teaching babies to read in that manner is too formal, too unnatural.

Whenever we introduce a systematic and structured program to teach a child, that will, by definition, make the teaching formal. From the point of view of someone who is not accustomed to the concept of deliberately teaching babies to read, then certainly this would seem to be ‘unnatural.’ Anything we are not used to or familiar with will likely be deemed ‘unnatural.’

I would ask: What difference does it make to a child whether the activity is something that we adults are unaccustomed to or consider unnatural? Were not many ways that we do things today considered unnatural decades ago? So what?

When one suggests that something is too ‘formal,’ I presume the underlying complaint is that it’s not fun, because formality is often associated with rigidity and forced learning. However, we have already discussed the question as to whether or not the lessons are fun for a baby. If the baby is having fun and enjoys the lessons, what does it matter that an activity is ‘formal?’

There is no scientific proof of any long-term benefit of early reading instruction.

Strictly speaking, that statement is probably true. However, it is also true that there is no scientific proof that there isn’t any long term benefit to early reading instruction. The truth is: there just isn’t much scientific proof either way.

Sadly, there have not been many studies conducted about whether children learning to read at young ages retain an advantage in later life. However, when people use this fact to suggest that scientific research affirmatively shows that there isn’t any long term benefit, that would not only be misleading, it would be blatantly untrue.

If anything, from what little research that has been done in this area, studies actually support the claim that there is a definite long-term advantage to learning to read early. In one notable study by Dolores Durkin entitled Children Who Read Early: Two Longitudinal Studies (1966), not only did the three-to-five-year-olds retain a significantly higher reading level than their peers even six years later, the gap between them and their peers was more pronounced with the three-year-olds than the four or five-year-olds.

Further details on this study as well as some other studies can found in Larry Sanger’s essay “How and Why I Taught My Toddler to Read” which I highly recommend reading.

Despite these studies strongly suggesting that there is a long-term benefit, I agree that it’s probably not strong enough to prove the point conclusively. However, does that mean that we should ignore this possibility altogether just because no one has conducted conclusive research yet?

If common sense tells you that there is likely to be a long-term benefit, are you really going to insist on waiting for research to prove it conclusively? And if/when that research does come ten years later, what would you be able to do about it then?

Won’t My Child Eventually Learn To Read In School Anyway?

Yes, most likely.

However, the first thing to consider is this. When other children are busy trying to learn how to read in school, a child who learned to read as a preschooler would, instead, be consolidating what she already knows from experience, and would start out as a confident reader. Instead of it possibly being an area of confusion and struggle, reading becomes an area of strength and confidence.

Next, a child may know how to read. But at what level?

The official literacy rate in the US is 99%, and this is similar to many developed countries, so the chances are very high that any child in the US or developed country will know how to read, technically speaking.

But how well can the child read?

You see, two children could both know how to read, but could be reading at vastly different levels. How easily is a child able to comprehend and absorb written information? When we start talking about levels (and concepts such as ‘functional literacy’), then the literacy rate starts to get much lower, even as low as 50% in the US depending on how you classify literacy.

The point is, learning how to read is only the first step. The more important next step is learning to read well.

This is particularly important because a child’s reading level will determine how well the child will be able to absorb written information, and this has very serious implications on the acquisition of knowledge in general.

Reading is said to be the gateway of further knowledge, and the foundation for learning almost all other subjects. The earlier a child masters reading, therefore, the earlier the child can begin to acquire such other knowledge.

Children are especially hungry for knowledge, even if it may be limited to topics that interest them, like dinosaurs. Imagine how much happier a child would be if he could read up and learn all about his favorite dinosaurs HIMSELF at the age of 5, when most children have not even started to learn to read yet and can only admire the pictures in the books.

If all children were to master reading earlier, would this not reduce the number of children whose learning of other subjects was hampered because of reading difficulties? Is it that difficult to see that learning to read early would therefore bring long-term benefits? To me, it’s just common sense.

These children will be bored at school.

This is an assumption which I do not believe is necessarily true, and I will examine this assumption a little later.

Assuming it to be true, are we really suggesting that we should deliberately “dumb down” our kids so that everything they learn in school will be new to them? Should we retard their development simply so that they can conform to the ‘norm’ at school, despite their desire and capacity to learn? Are we suggesting schools have a lock-step method of imparting knowledge that ignores students’ readiness to learn new information?

Surely, better solutions exist, such as finding schools which have systems that cater towards developmental differences between children.

Now let’s look more critically at the assumption that children will be bored at school.

When the teacher is teaching the class how to read, yes, they may become bored as they already know what is being taught. Or they may not. They may be finding it useful to consolidate what they have learned, or to see things from a fresh perspective.

Their experience of school might be one of boredom. Or it might not. It might be one of joyful ease, where they do not have to struggle, where they can finish their assignments more quickly and have time for other things that they enjoy.

Either way, it’s all speculation. What is true for one child may not be true for another. What is true one day may not be true the next day, even for the same child. For every story that you find about an early reader being bored, you will probably find another story about an early reader enjoying school.

When we are dealing with something that is so fundamentally important to master (i.e., literacy), I would prefer to err on the side of caution and make sure my daughter masters it, rather than take the risk of having a child struggle to read, and having this struggle negatively affect other areas of learning. But that is my personal choice.

These children will not fit in with their classmates.

One aspect of this statement relates to conformity, which I already discussed above.

Another aspect relates to social development. I believe that if parents merely focus on a child’s academic development and neglect other aspects like social behavior, then yes, there is a risk that the child will have problems socializing with other children. However, these problems relate less to the child’s reading level and more to the child’s social skills.

Teaching a young child to read does not necessarily lead to the child’s not “fitting in.” As with so many other things, it’s a question of balance. It’s a question of educating parents about the importance of maintaining such balance.

Teaching children to read should be left to teachers.

This is a comment often voiced by educators. In fact, some go to the extent of imploring parents not to teach their children skills such as reading.

Some teachers (though I believe a small minority) prefer that all kids start of as ‘clean slates’ as far as reading is concerned so that the teaching process would be simpler and more convenient. As I believe we all agree that what’s most important is the interests of our kids’ education and not the convenience of teachers, this objection cannot hold much weight.

From my discussions with educators, it would seem most educators expect and welcome differences in abilities between children, and even see early reading abilities as a help to the teacher, not a hindrance.

The main objection they seem to have against early reading education by parents is that if parents force reading on their child (in their exuberance to help the child), parents will make learning ‘work’ and not a natural, enjoyable, joyful experience. Teachers want to make sure children are curious about learning and see it as an enjoyable experience. If reading is forced on a young child who is not ready by a well-intentioned parent, the child’s willingness and curiosity to learn may already have been compromised.

These are certainly very valid concerns. However, as I already mentioned before, I believe that not only can teaching be done in a way that is not forced, but the earlier you teach, the less likely you will need to force (and even the complete opposite).

What is most important here is the education of parents to instill the appropriate mindset.

If everyone agreed that the best time to teach a child to read is in the first few years (discussed above), and that the child retains significant long-term advantages from having done so (also discussed above), then changes need to be made to the current educational system so that teaching our children to read is started well before they enter the schooling system.

If parents can be better educated concerning how to teach their children to read (and most importantly, their mindset when doing so), and the educational system supports the entire notion of teaching babies to read, then I’m sure even the teachers would no longer think that teaching children to read should be left to teachers.

It’s developmentally inappropriate. The child’s brain is not ready for reading.

I am not a neurologist, so I will not comment on brain science.

Instead, I will ask these questions:

• If the child’s brain is really not ready for reading, why do we see increasing numbers of babies and toddlers learning to read?

• How exactly is it “developmentally inappropriate?” If it is, then presumably, that would mean it leads to stunted development of the child’s learning faculties later on. But where do we witness that? If anything, what we see suggests the exact opposite. If the child likes to learn to read, is able to learn to read, and there is a long term benefit, then how can it be developmentally inappropriate?

For a more in-depth look at ‘brain appropriateness’ criticisms, I would recommend reading Larry Sanger’s essay.

I wasn’t taught to read as a baby and I turned out okay!

I believe almost everyone would consider that he/she turned out fine, and who would argue otherwise? Of course we all turned out ‘okay.’

The only question is: how would our academic lives have been different had we learned to read at an earlier age? No one will ever know, of course. This brings us back to the question we already discussed: Is there any long-term benefit to learning to read early? I’ve already discussed that above.

If we believe that there is a long-term benefit to learning to read early, then it becomes a personal decision as to whether we want to give our children the opportunity of that benefit. And there is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ to that decision. It’s simply a matter of personal choice and the consequences that follow from that choice. Either way, of course your child will turn out ‘okay.’

For me, personally, the norms of previous generations hold very little relevance in my decision as to what I choose to do. I believe that, if everyone had a mindset of sticking to how things are done in the past, there would be very little advancement (if any at all) amongst us as a human race.

Some ending words:

Firstly, you’re not a “bad Mom” if you don’t teach your baby/toddler to read! Being a parent is very challenging, and often we don’t even have time for ourselves. So, very often all we want to do is to just relax and do nothing. And that would be fine, because first and foremost, you as a parent should take care of yourself.

At the end of the day, whether or not we should teach our baby to read is a very personal decision. Ultimately, it matters not whether our views are in agreement or not, because as parents, we are the only ones who are responsible for our child’s upbringing.

Even where there is disagreement, we should all remember that all of us parents have one thing in common – we all want the best for our children!

For me, the issue of early reading instruction is very simple. Everything boils down to this: If I am able to give my baby the opportunity to maximize her potential, and my baby—most importantly—enjoys it, then why wouldn’t I?

—————–

More comments by BrillKids members can be found on this Forum discussion thread.

—————–

KL Wong is the Founder and CEO of BrillKids, and also father of Felicity, aged 5.  He can be contacted at KL(at)brillkids(dot)com.