Your baby can read??

7*15*06 · January 2009

Has anyone done this???

What do you think of it?

take to much time?

Did it work?

LoriFalce · January 2009

I think it's ridiculous. The premise is unsound. It's not teaching your child to read, it's teaching your child to be a white rate in a maze, pressing the right pedal to get a pellet of food.

punkfiction · January 2009

LoriFalce:
I think it's ridiculous. The premise is unsound. It's not teaching your child to read, it's teaching your child to be a white rat in a maze, pressing the right pedal to get a pellet of food.

this.

DarceyLivesinFL · January 2009

Not sure what these people are talking about - it's a bona fide phonics program. Sammy reads and understands well over 100 words at 21 months. His pediatrican couldn't believe it at his 18 month appointment and wrote about 10 or 12 words that he kept reading (some that he already knew, others that he sounded out). His reading and comprehension are far above average. We've done the DVD program for about a year now.

jessicasuzann · January 2009

Reading is about more than phonics, (though that is a part of it), and being a baby is about so much more than learning to read at an unusually early age.

As a certified reading specialist, allow me to make a "professional" recommendation: spend you money and time buying books that you read to and with your child ren now and as they grow. That is the single greatest thing you can do now to help your child become a fluent, capable, enthusiastic reader later.

DarceyLivesinFL · January 2009

Here's another post on it: https://community.thebump.com/cs/ks/forums/thread/8017830.aspx

Those with such criticisms clearly haven't looked into the program. And to the reading specialist, I'd like to see a successful approach that doesn't BEGIN with phonics.

Of course we read books. I'm an English teacher and have a plethora of books for my kids. There's no reason not to take advantage of the sponge that is the mind of your child. Why teach anything at this age (sign language, potty training, vocabulary)? WHy not just "wait until later," right?

What flawed logic.

jessicasuzann · January 2009

DarceyLivesinFL:
Here's another post on it: https://community.thebump.com/cs/ks/forums/thread/8017830.aspx

Those with such criticisms clearly haven't looked into the program. And to the reading specialist, I'd like to see a successful approach that doesn't BEGIN with phonics.

Of course we read books. I'm an English teacher and have a plethora of books for my kids. There's no reason not to take advantage of the sponge that is the mind of your child. Why teach anything at this age (sign language, potty training, vocabulary)? WHy not just "wait until later," right?

What flawed logic.

Actually, the most successful young readers begin with a "whole word" or "whole language" approach. As you said, you read to your children. When you read to them, you read the words and point to the pictures, correct? So when you read "one fish, two fish, red fish, blue fish," your child learns, "Those are fish. That's red, that's blue." You don't read and say "Red fish....Rrrrrrr-ed...that's a R." Not to an infant, at least. So you're implementing a whole language approach.

A child also needs knowledge of alphabetic principles and phonological awareness before or in tandem with phonemic awareness to become a fluent, independent reader. Phonics is part of it, but not the whole...and arguably, not even the biggest part.

DarceyLivesinFL · January 2009

Jessica - the more you write the more obvious it is that you're not familiar with the program.

jessicasuzann · January 2009

DarceyLivesinFL:
Jessica - the more you write the more obvious it is that you're not familiar with the program.

Darcey--I am not engaging in an argument about the program or the success your child (children?) has had with it. I am sure that at a very early age, some children can in fact read--be it by recognizing sight words, remembering text through visual cues, or even through phonetic decoding. However, I don't think parents need to spend the money on this program to encourage that. I believe that reading to and with your baby can accomplish the same thing. You can teach phonetic awareness and recognition as well a sight vocabulary by reading any board book the "right way."

(My response was in reaction to your comment to me earlier in the thread, when you stated that you'd like to know about any successful reading program that didn't start with a phonetic approach.)

LoriFalce · January 2009

I am familiar. It's not phonics. It's sight words. As an English teacher, I would have thought you would know the difference.

bim38106 · January 2009

jessicasuzann:
DarceyLivesinFL:
Here's another post on it: https://community.thebump.com/cs/ks/forums/thread/8017830.aspx

Those with such criticisms clearly haven't looked into the program. And to the reading specialist, I'd like to see a successful approach that doesn't BEGIN with phonics.

Of course we read books. I'm an English teacher and have a plethora of books for my kids. There's no reason not to take advantage of the sponge that is the mind of your child. Why teach anything at this age (sign language, potty training, vocabulary)? WHy not just "wait until later," right?

What flawed logic.

Actually, the most successful young readers begin with a "whole word" or "whole language" approach. As you said, you read to your children. When you read to them, you read the words and point to the pictures, correct? So when you read "one fish, two fish, red fish, blue fish," your child learns, "Those are fish. That's red, that's blue." You don't read and say "Red fish....Rrrrrrr-ed...that's a R." Not to an infant, at least. So you're implementing a whole language approach.
A child also needs knowledge of alphabetic principles and phonological awareness before or in tandem with phonemic awareness to become a fluent, independent reader. Phonics is part of it, but not the whole...and arguably, not even the biggest part.

Exactly, reading begins with reading readiness.. not phonics. I am not familiar with the program, but I am also a reading specialist and, even as just a parent, I can say that a child has to be developmentally ready for something before you can teach them.. a child at this age is not developmentally ready to read. What is important at this age is to implement a joy for reading.

W/out knowing what exactly the program is, I'm sure it might be "fun" for some babies, but it could also be harmful for others if their parents are trying to push reading on them when they are not ready. Like I've said before, you wouldn't expect to teach your baby how to run before they learn to walk or even crawl.. why push them to learn to "read" at this age.. they have the rest of their lives to do that. Let them enjoy being a baby and do developmentally appropriate activities.

jessicasuzann · January 2009

bim38106:
jessicasuzann:
DarceyLivesinFL:
Here's another post on it: https://community.thebump.com/cs/ks/forums/thread/8017830.aspx

Those with such criticisms clearly haven't looked into the program. And to the reading specialist, I'd like to see a successful approach that doesn't BEGIN with phonics.

Of course we read books. I'm an English teacher and have a plethora of books for my kids. There's no reason not to take advantage of the sponge that is the mind of your child. Why teach anything at this age (sign language, potty training, vocabulary)? WHy not just "wait until later," right?

What flawed logic.

Actually, the most successful young readers begin with a "whole word" or "whole language" approach. As you said, you read to your children. When you read to them, you read the words and point to the pictures, correct? So when you read "one fish, two fish, red fish, blue fish," your child learns, "Those are fish. That's red, that's blue." You don't read and say "Red fish....Rrrrrrr-ed...that's a R." Not to an infant, at least. So you're implementing a whole language approach.
A child also needs knowledge of alphabetic principles and phonological awareness before or in tandem with phonemic awareness to become a fluent, independent reader. Phonics is part of it, but not the whole...and arguably, not even the biggest part.
Exactly, reading begins with reading readiness.. not phonics. I am not familiar with the program, but I am also a reading specialist and, even as just a parent, I can say that a child has to be developmentally ready for something before you can teach them.. a child at this age is not developmentally ready to read. What is important at this age is to implement a joy for reading.
W/out knowing what exactly the program is, I'm sure it might be "fun" for some babies, but it could also be harmful for others if their parents are trying to push reading on them when they are not ready. Like I've said before, you wouldn't expect to teach your baby how to run before they learn to walk or even crawl.. why push them to learn to "read" at this age.. they have the rest of their lives to do that. Let them enjoy being a baby and do developmentally appropriate activities.

Agreed!

Want a personalized experience?

Your baby can read??

Re: Your baby can read??

Choose Another Board

Search Boards