This Sunday’s Boston Globe Magazine had an exposé on the Better Baby Institute, which claims to have created a method for accelerating babies’ development. Physical therapist Glenn Doman founded the Institute to help brain-damaged children recover function, and he (along with daughter Janet) is now applying his findings to well infants and toddlers. “We are persuaded that every child born has, at the instant of birth, a greater potential intelligence than Leonardo da Vinci ever used.”
It’s a statement full of promise, but when it leads to three-year-olds being drilled with flashcards of the Mona Lisa, Maria de Medici, and other famous works of art (or animals like the two-spotted ladybird beetle and the periodical cicada), or a one-year-old wearing a pedometer so her parents can see how her daily distances match up to the Institute’s benchmark of half a mile in 18 minutes, one wonders if the supposed boost is worth the cost.
In contrast, Globe author Neil Swidey cites a number of studies showing that children with the earliest letter, number, and word skills are not necessarily those who do best in the long run. Pushing too hard can in fact hinder development. If we ask children to do something for which their brains are not ready, says Maryanne Wolf, professor of child development at Tufts University, “You run the risk of making a child feel like a failure before they’ve even begun.”
I’m a skeptic when it comes to special “methods” for improving a young child’s intelligence. Titles like the Domans’ How To Multiply Your Baby’s Intelligence, How To Give Your Baby Encyclopedic Knowledge, and How To Teach Your Baby To Be Physically Superb make me cringe. Read to a child. Expose them to a variety of objects and experiences. Incorporate letters, numbers, and music into your daily activities, but don’t obsess about it. Make sure they play and socialize. Beyond that, I don’t think there is much we can do to stack the deck.
One of the many other things that bothers me about programs like the Domans’ is the focus on rote identification and a selectivity about what constitutes intelligence. Is a child who can identify Claude Debussy really any smarter than one who can identify Cinderella or Thomas the Tank Engine? Does it matter that the child can’t put the former into any kind of context, but can relate to Cinderella or Thomas as characters in stories they’ve heard? In a toddler, knowing Debussy or the Mona Lisa is not intelligence, but mere parroting. Yes, they’ll learn some language skills through that process of parroting, but unless they also have a Mona Lisa doll and friends with similar toys, they’ll get a lot more practical use from knowing Thomas or Cinderella. (I hate the whole mass-marketing approach to children’s toys, I really do—but I also realize there’s social value in being able to talk about these characters with the kid next door.) In some ways, Doman’s method is the memorize-for-the-test approach engendered by No Child Left Behind, taken to its early extreme. If your children memorize enough, they will pass. If they start early, maybe they will even become geniuses.
What say you? Are intelligence-improvement programs like the Domans’ (or the Baby Einstein DVDs) worth it? How can we make reasonable efforts to ensure our children are learning, and challenge them to fulfill their potential, but not push them beyond where they are mentally and physically ready to go?
Eh, the Mona Lisa is all about parroting anyway. It wasn’t famous until Walter Pater in the 19th century said “Hey, let’s all think for ourselves about art instead of listening to other people. Now I happen to find this picture of La Giocanda (Mona Lisa) really cool. Here’s why. Go pick your own pictures and enjoy.”
Only people reacted by saying “Oooh, Mona Lisa!” instead of actually going out and making their own decisions.
As for my future toddler, I want him/her to enjoy learning and discovering. I wouldn’t want to risk it with flash cards too early.
Silly superficial parents. Flashcard people confuse me! Flashcards are great drill tools right before an exam, or to hammer things into cell memory for use in other function (such as knowing your times tables before learning division.) But they only get associations into memory. Knowing an encyclopedia of artists is no better or worse than knowing baseball stats or memorizing where the coins are in Mario. Without context, the facts are merely in there. Building memory capacity happens naturally, with no risk of burning out or turning off a kid.
Rich experiences and a sense of emotional intelligence is what makes the difference in the long run, but that’s harder to sell than a pack of cards.
I’m with you, Mrs. Micah, and Deb. We have done nearly zilch with our daughter (now three), and periodically worry. Then we just watch her and see that what’s happening is that her natural zest for learning is simply evolving unimpeded. We read to her tons, we provide for her the raw material to exercise her imagination. We pay attention, basically, and stoke whatever embers she has going. But with kids, as with adults, I draw a distinction between information and knowledge and wisdom, and I’m interested in cultivating the last of these three most. The first two can feed it, but their acquisition are not and never will be an end in themselves.
I think it’s all about exposure.
We do firmly believe in taking our 3-year old to the museum with us (dealing with the glares of incensed adults as we go along) if only because we hope to share our love of art with her. Maybe she will forget all about it as a teenager, but hopefully revisit this experience of her life as an adult.
We don’t expect to her to actually know or recognize what she’s seeing. I’m just happy that she says: “Oh look, a horse”, or “the sea!”. Sometimes, she will see things that we don’t necessarily notice. Sometimes her approach to art is so refreshing, like tickling the toes of a Henry Moore sculpture this afternoon. (of course, we were immediately told by the warden to not touch the art but it made for a good laugh).
The same applies to books. Our book cabinets are open and she’s welcome to grab anything that piques her interest. At the end of the day, it’s up to the child to choose. All we can do is provide a whole world to choose from.
>> At the end of the day, it’s up to the child to choose. All we can do is provide a whole world to choose from.
Oh, well put!
Pingback: Mombian » Blog Archive » How Academic Should Schools Be?