ExchangeEveryDay Past Issues

I was disappointed in the article. On the one hand, I completely agree with most of her caveats about misusing and over-stating what we can learn from brain research. Every time some new thing comes along in education, it is fairly typical for this country's popular culture to sew an entire vest on a button. But it is disappointing that the author does not see how much school teachers and early childhood professionals can learn about children, and about ourselves, from understanding how the brain develops in infancy and throughout our lives. True, we can and will learn a lot of new things all our lives. But the early years are important because we can see in brain studies how
young children learn through relationships, connections, conversation, and we can see clearly in brain scans that they are not learning one thing at a time, AND we can see
that their intellectual development is necessarily simultaneous with their social and emotional development.

The author mentions other research findings. I am glad to see that researchers in brain development, education, early education, health, economics and neurology are beginning
to pool their research to figure out what we really do know about children's learning. I don't know what research the author meant, but for myself, I have faith in the 2 oldest longitudinal studies, with control groups, where we have evidence of the outcomes. These studies did begin with young children.
one of them with infants. (Perry Preschool, Abecedarian) If we know that children succeeded in school, went to college, graduated, found employment, supported families, and are leading constructive lives at age 40, we don't need to know what they learned by third grade. how much they
learned by third grade, and we are not very good at measuring what we want to know. Dramatic outcomes can be measured over time, but I don't have much faith in most of our short-term efforts to measure what young children know and can do. We can, however, measure teachers' behavior, qualities that we know from the longitudinal studies will correlate with
positive outcomes. It's relationships,interactions, conversations with children, observation, intentional improvised play relationships, vigorous physical activity, a stimulating environment, math, science, and reading activities, a caring parent and teacher, these we know are important to learning from the beginning. to lay a foundation for lifelong success. The author is right to warn parents not to fall for commercial
gimmicks. But brain development study is not a gimmick.

In my opinion the most important conclusions from recent brain research relate to emotional and relational development, not cognitive development. I certainly know of no research that concludes that videos or other purchased materials are helpful to babies' learning, so I don't know whose research Ms. Mead is rebutting. For many children the missing piece in their ability to learn is not cognitive but emotional. They lack the positive self esteem and positive relational experiences that enable children to focus and attend in a formal educational environment. These are the pieces that are most easily acquired between the ages of zero and three. However, I agree with Ms. Mead that the "window" of learning does not slam shut at age three. It is never too late to intervene in the life of a child. It is simply more difficult to do it later.

As a grandmother and an early childhood consultant I wish copies of this article could be part of every goodie bag new parents take home with their baby!

In a society of "ME FIRST" and children of all socio-economic groups being emotionally, socially, and physically neglected without touch, stimulating environments to explore, and the continued advent of electronic baby sitters. Ms. Mead is not observing the results of these missed years of development. Educators across America regardless of demographics know that children of today come to schools with a large range of abilities and behaviors. Most, if not this entire gap can be traced back to the limited stimulation during critical developmental periods from birth to three. The nutritional impact of poor diets is observable, too. Malnutrition from underweight and nerve damage to childhood obesity, creating several health and social/emotional conditions to be dealt with by the child and educators.

I am not an advocate that the commercial world of stimulating products are the best solution, but in a capitalistic society, where there is a need to educate and show parents what to do with infants and toddlers, these kind of products will arise. The long-term solution to improving birth to three environments is to educate people about quality environmental practices with newborns. Touch, diet, and sensory-motor-perceptual stimulation can be achieved through common sense and practical house hold items. I am sorry Ms. Mead is missing the complete picture here in stating neuroscience is incorrect. Piaget summarized it along time ago, "The fundamental movement experiences are the foundations of higher order thinking skills." Babies, infants, and toddlers need stimulation. Unfortunately, the baby has been thrown out with the bath water in regards to the baby products attempting to do what Mother's/Father's did innately for centuries-care for their young through contact and touch love.

What we know is most important is maternal sensitivity, caregiver responsiveness and the quality of the relationship between adult & child. While Ms. Mead's comments about manufactured products don't break my heart, her perspective on early intervention programs and the value of quality ECE in the earliest years seems to be very uninformed.

In the early years of brain research, early childhood advocates and educators were taught as Ms. Mead suggests, that the first years were the most critical time and that the brain would never have the same opportunity again. Early childhood professionals did not create or exaggerate this information; it was the prevailing belief of the time. Later studies have shown that while the first three years are crtically important, the brain has further opportuntities for development and is more resileint than previously known.

However, to infer that we should reduce support for this vulnerable population, which is already woefully under-served, is short sighted. A person has only to look at the devastating effect on brain development when there is severe neglect, such as with the Rumanian orphaned infants, to realize the common sense in supporting families with the youngest and most vulnerable children.

A study of our child abuse, poverty level and mortality rates for young children should provide a madate for action. Funding ifor children in the first 5 years can decrease funding for special education, juvenile delinquency and incarceration later in life. Supporting families with infants and toddlers is the fiscally responsible and morally correct path.

Ms. Mead presents the most convoluted argument against early childhood development initiatives that I have ever encountered. There is no research that demonstrates value in multi-media learning or devolved school curriculum for infants. Nor has it been demonstrated that classroom learning, play-based or otherwise, is appropriate in infancy. In fact, we know that optimal learning potential in humans is fostered through direct, developmentally appropriate, enjoyable interactions with the people that love them. It is both the quality and quantity of parent/infant interactions that form the strongest base upon which potential is maximized. Therefore, rather than dismissing the need for money to be spent in the early years, we should be discussing how best to invest in our children. If we accept the irrefutable evidence that parents are the primary facilitators of growth and development in their children, there are two obvious sensible solutions:
1. Enhance parental leave benefits so that parents can fulfill their natural primary caregiving role.
2. Roll out early parenting programs founded on attachment parenting principles and practices. Such programs should normalized within the community and universally accessible to all parents with new babies.

Ms. Mead presents the most convoluted argument against early childhood development initiatives that I have ever encountered. There is no research that demonstrates value in multi-media learning or devolved school curriculum for infants. Nor has it been demonstrated that classroom learning, play-based or otherwise, is appropriate in infancy. In fact, we know that optimal learning potential in humans is fostered through direct, developmentally appropriate, enjoyable interactions with the people that love them. It is both the quality and quantity of parent/infant interactions that form the strongest base upon which potential is maximized. Therefore, rather than dismissing the need for money to be spent in the early years, we should be discussing how best to invest in our children. If we accept the irrefutable evidence that parents are the primary facilitators of growth and development in their children, there are two obvious sensible solutions:
1.Enhance parental leave benefits so that parents can fulfill their natural primary caregiving role.
2.Roll out early parenting programs founded on attachment parenting principles and practices. Such programs should normalized within the community and universally accessible to all parents with new babies.

Ms. Mead -- and others on this discussion forum -- make some valid points about how early brain development research has been exploited by marketers eager to capitalize on the good intentions of many who are interested in nurturing the development of young children.

I would like to focus my comments, however, around programs that have been scientifically proven to benefit young children. In particular, Ms. Mead did not mention that there are rigorous studies that have demonstrated the social and economic benefits of intervening early with high-risk populations. David Olds's work is probably most notable because the intervention started prenatally and has demonstrated both short- and long-term benefits for children and their parents. The Abecedarian project started when children were infants and went through school age and two years post-school entrance. It has been able to demonstrate short- and long-term benefits for children from high-risk situations who were participants. Finally there is Early Head Start (EHS) and the short-term benefits noted for both parents and children. The longitudinal evaluation of EHS has shown statistically significant, positive impact on standardized measures of children’s cognitive and language development. In addition, EHS children had more positive interaction with their parents than control group children, EHS significantly facilitated parents’ progress toward self-sufficiency, and EHS parents were more involved and provided more support for learning.

Therefore, it seems pretty clear that those children from high-risk environments do, indeed, benefit from early intervention programs.

Sara Mead is mixing apples and oranges. On the one hand she is talking about Early Childhood advocates overselling educational opportunities, and on the other hand she is talking about manufactured products that manipulate the child, rather than allowing the child to manipulate the toy. Educational opportunities come in all shapes and forms. Early childhood advocates of educational opportunities are on the right track when they say that the first 3 years are extremely important developmentally. Within those first 3 years, the foundation is laid for so many different cognitive learning opportunities. Neuroscience does support lots of play opportunities, gross motor skill development, sensorimotor development, language development, all of which lay the foundation for higher cognitive applications.

It is best to err on the side of providing as many wonderful experiences as possible, within each setting in order to undergird all children's development after the first 3 years. Manufactured products have very little to do with any of those experiences. Good teachers and parents who include Music and Movement and rich language engagement have MUCH to do with experiences for brain development.

The article makes a good point...fancy toys can't take the place of quality human relationships..this is what is lacking from children being bounced from one mediocre care situation to another on a regular basis. Families have few choices as two wager earner families can't even make it in this economy. Our educational institutions haven't kept up with the reality of families lives, so different a generation ago. I measured play space as a child in square miles and now I run a center measured by square feet. 35 Square feet of space per child is equivalent to the size of a prison cell. Think about it.

Look what I just found:
The Natonal Scientific Council’s Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University has produced significant new resources which are free for download. These include: The Science of Early Childhood Development—Seven Core Concepts of Development and their Implications for Policy and Practice. Find the paper at: http://www.developingchild.net/pubs/persp/pdf/Science_Early_Childhood_Development.pdf.

Other resources on the main website -- http://www.developingchild.net-- include working papers and interviews with key scientists and experts in early childhood development.

The author's remark about public schools shirking responsibility for older children's learning makes me cringe. Best practices with adolescents are not that different than best practices with young children--have them actively engaged with appropriate learning experiences that allow for the development of multiple intelligences. Youth who had a rough start will do well in this kind of setting, as will gifted ones, and "typically-developing" youth. We each have a responsibility to learn, understand, and apply developmentally-appropriate "best practices" with ALL children. The result: optimum development in all domains which reflects what is going on in the brain (optimum development).

I agree that the money spent on toys such as Baby Einstein (some boring toys and videos which are NOT helpful for development) would be better spent elsewhere. The American Academy of Pediatricians recently issued a position paper on the importance of play for children's development. I also agree that other stages of development are also very important (i.e. new research on adolescent brain plasticity). However, there are certain critical structural and chemical changes (supported by research) that are being developed during the early years, so we do need to consider what is best for young children, all children. Tapes of Mozart won't hurt and can help auditory development IF they supplement quality human interactions. The emotional sense of safety for infants and toddlers is critical, and most of this development occurs within the minute-by-minute interactions between children, their caregivers, and their physical environment (with caregivers providing appropriate responses). From Neurons to Neighborhoods (Institute of Medicine) examined what is truly known about early childhood brain development and makes recommendations for appropriate uses of the information.

FUNDING IS DIFFICALT FOR EARLY CHILDCARE PROVIDERS. WE ARE NOT REPRESENTED WIDELY IN ANY GOVERNMENT BODY. ANYONE WORKING WITH CHILDREN 0 THROUGH 3 FOR ANY LENGTH OF TIME WILL ALWAYS KNOW HOW IMPORTANT THIS TIME IS FOR LEARNING. WE ARE NOT COMPENSATED FINANCIALLY OR RECOGNIZED AS TEACHERS. WE RECEIVE BAD PUBLICITY CONSTANTLY. HOW MANY NEWS PROGRAMS SHOW QUALITY CHILDCARE? IT'S ALWAYS ABOUT THE "HORRIBLE PROVIDERS" GIVE US A BREAK! PRIVATE CHILDCARE PROVIDERS GET LITTLE OR NO FUNDING AND GIVE MOST OF THE CARE FOR OUR SILENT MAJORITY. I HAVE BEEN PROVIDING CARE FOR INFANTS, TODDLERS AND PRE-SCHOOL CHILDREN FOR MORE THAN 35 YEARS AND HAVE SEEN THE PENDULUM SWING EVERY WHICH WAY IT CAN. ALL AGES OF LEARNING ARE IMPORTANT. CARING FOR YOUNG AND OLD ALIKE IS IMPORTANT. BRAIN DEVELPMENT AND ANY RESEARCH THAT MAY HELP IS IMPORTANT. REMEMBER CHILDREN IN THIS AGE GROUP CAN BE TAUGHT ANY LANGUAGE. WHO ARE YOU TO SAY WHAT THEY MIGHT LEARN IF GIVEN THE OPORTUNITY. WE ARE NOT TRYING TO PRODUCE LITTLE GENIUSES. WE ARE TRYING TO MAKE SAFE, CLEAN, HEALTHY AGE APPROPRIATE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS WITH LOTS OF OPORTUNITIES TO EXPLORE THE WORLD AND SOCIALIZE WITH OTHERS APPROPRIATELY. WE AS PROVIDERS WISH TO GIVE THESE CHILDREN A GOOD START IN CITIZENSHIP SO THEY CAN DEAL WITH THE WORLD AND ALL THE NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE THINGS THAT ARE IN STORE FOR THEM. IF THEY HAVE A GOOD SELF ESTEEM AND KNOW THAT THEY ARE ALL CAPABLE OF GROWING AND BECOMING PRODUCTIVE, LOVING PEOPLE THEN OUR GOAL HAS BEEN MET. WE NEED MORE FUNDING FOR EDUCATING THE PROVIDERS OF OUT FUTURE ADULTS. MAYBE WE COULD STOP SOME OF THE VIOLENT BEHAVIORS WE SEE IN OUR SOCIETY. DON'T KNOCK US IF YOU HAVE NOT WALKED IN OUR SHOES.

I find it sad but not surprising that those in the education field do not look at early childhood as a place in a child's life where education happens without intentional stimulation. It is a difficult idea for the "teachers" of children to realize that teaching and learning begin before birth and continue throughout life. I feel that the need to try any tactic to hold on to the funding that the government provides for education for the school districts is admirable. As admirable as the efforts of the early childhood community to have their importance recognized. We are now professional teachers of children and are as dedicated to our profession as are school district teachers.

Are you kidding? What do you think lasts longer: a building with a strong foundation or a weak foundation? The first three years are the foundation for the rest of life. Babies and young children need nurturing and love and conversation and safety for optimal development. Wouldn't we want to do everything possible to ensure a positive future? Of course we would.

Having been in child development for almost 30 years, I am always amazed at how we jump on issues that get us funding. In the past, there just was very little funding for child development. The powers that "were" just thought that we should have good environments and let children play. When we provided developmental activities which in any way looked like curriculum, we were written up. Now that they have MRIs and they can see (or at least think that they see) all this brain activity there is a new excitement. What type of brain activity did they think was going on all these thusands of years. Infants are learning all about their own bodies and how to manuvere and control them, learning how to communicate (in some cases in more than one language) and learning about their family and surrounding. Do you think this takes a little brain activity? Have we not always capitolized on children's curiosity, their enjoyment of total involvment in an activity, their social responsiveness and their enjoyment in what they are doing with other children and caring adults. Now however I think the pendulem has swung the other way. Too much activities and too much pressure for staff to document and show how much this child is learning. We have to have creative curriculums that follow the chld's lead - a child's lead can lead from one thing to another in a matter of minutes. So we are really, really fooling ourselves. We are so like the Prince's New Clothes. So much so that now we thinkg it takes a four year degree to work in child development. And since we seem to be pushing this issue, I think we should also have laws that say people can not have children unless they are college graduates. So you can see, that I think that we are now taking ourselves too seriously. I keep hoping that the pendulum will swing back from the extreme and end up in the middle. Not to the other extreme where there was no funding or value to providing quality child development programs but to a more common sense middle. Where we have quality programs, with well trained staff - a two year degree would be fine (not saying that people with a four year degree can not work) but just that it would not be required. And that staff were paid equivalent to Associate professionals in other professions. And certainly that our assessments would not require testing. We want programs with caring adults who are totally involved with the children and the children are having fun.

I hope everyone who reads the excerpt from Exchange Everyday will take time to read the entire article and look at the references (endnotes); much of the information sited is more than 10 years old - especially the information attributed to Early Childhood advocates.
Ms Mead has presented a very narrow view of this important discussion - and leaves out some significant points. Products will always make claims that may boarder on truthfulness, and it unfortunate that parents feel these products will take their place in building relationships and providing the "extra stimulation" for their infants and toddlers. What we in the field do know for certian - the extra stimulation children receive in their earliest years is not harmful and should not be precieved as a threat; shouldn't we expect quality care for ALL our children - babies, toddlers, preschoolers and those in school. I for one do not think the government should have the sole responsibility to educate my child or close achievement gaps - it takes everyone to be successful in this venture of raising children to be successful adults. And, while I do not agree the window SLAMS shut at 3 years of age, I do believe if we miss out on important stimulation and relationship builidng in those years, the window will begin to drop as children struggle with the results of having adults who are not responsive to them.

While I would agree with Mead that it is unfortunate that we have convinced parents that "products" are necessary to ensure a bright child when much research shows otherwise, for Mead to suggest that the early years, especially those from 0 to 3, are unimportant is concerning to me. It must be clarified that there is plenty of evidenced based research that does demonstrate what is key for later success. Having consistent, caring adults who are crazy about you who consistently meet your needs, thereby ensuring trust is built, will go a long way to setting the foundation for learning. Holding the infant, talking to him/her and involving him/her in everday experiences provides an infant with the best start. Shame on Mead for suggesting that brain research is responsible for our society's concern with the creation of genuises. Those of us who have toiled in the field of early childhood welcomed brain research because it finally gave credence to the fact that the early years were important. This is because we knew that babies were not simply "blobs" or were "children to be seen and not heard" but no one was listening; we have been encouraging respect for an age group that has no voice, for recognition that infants and toddlers are eager, active learners and that if we do not provide them with opportunities to interact with people and things, and to hear language their potential can be affected. Let us not forget about the wild childs, those in orphanges etc. who have helped us to not only understand that relationships are key but, without these interactions our ability to reach whatever potential we may have will be affected!

Sara Mead throws the baby out with the bathwater, falling prey to the tendencies to draw unwarranted conclusions from limited facts that she criticizes in others. As an advocate for young children, I have to agree with her about the outrageous exploitation of parents and babies by the baby gizmo industry, based on misunderstandings of early brain development.
Her criticism about the ability of older children and adults to make up the progress they lacked as young children is half right. It's much easier for a child to change early, when he or she is ready for it and not encumbered by bad habits.
Unfortunately she ignores the developmental needs of infants and toddlers, which can have amazing effects, positive or negative, on later development. A baby starved of loving touch will not thrive, and a young child in a household where the only words come from the always-on TV will not excel at literacy. The Perry Preschool Project, the Abecedarian Project, the Chigago Infant-Toddler Project, and the Syracuse Head Start Project, all showed up the defects of the Federal Comprehensive Child Development Program and produced the very dramatic positive results for low-income or otherwise at-risk young children, lasting a lifetime. The point is not that the first three years are unimportant, but that the hucksters have kidnapped that importance to make a buck, based on false assumptions.

Wow! It think someone got up on the wrong side of the bed. Does she have any evidence to support her point of view? Apparently she doesn't understand the question and doesn't understand the environments that so many children are brought up in nowdays.

It's good that you print these diverse points of view, but printing them doesn't mean that you endorse them. Does it?

Thanks,
Jan

I think this is another case of folks seeing what they want to see and reacting to it. As most of the comments point out, the richness of the early experiences of youn g children is what determines later success and development. What corporations have chosen to market to over stressed parents are short cuts. "Buy this CD" instead of "hold your little one and dance around the living room to music you love, singing and talking all the while." And, indeed, the research is not going to show any lasting advantage to buying some kit. I think research has shown and will continue to show, that rich and varied experiences with loving adults provide children with life long benefits. Early childhood professionals know this. Corporations are looking for a product to sell, harried parents are looking for a short cut, and the author is looking for a straw man to knock down.

Unfortunately the author of the article neglected to note the importance of the social/emotional influences in the first three years of a child's life ALONG WITH the importance of cognitive stimulation. Ms Mead does not appear to understand the significance of trust and attachment. Simply put it you can't trust, you have difficulty learning no matter what outside stimulus is put in front of you. If your brain is on constant alert wondering what "the others" in your environment are doing to/with you, you have difficulty taking in new cognitive information. Bottom line the brain, heart and soul in the first three years of a human beings all need to be fed and nourished to help turnout functional, coherent and healthy adults!

Apparently the author has not spoken to any true child advocates, only corporations marketing items for children. True child advocates simply want all children to be exposed to quality environments, whether at home or at school - those that include meaningful relationships and enriching experiences. I know of few people who consider having children watch a video to be an important part of these experiences. It makes me sad to think we're still fighting an uphill battle.

I think Mead has it half right. It's true that lots of money is wasted in the name of making smarter babies - videos, computer games, and other "stimulation" that is totally useless. On the other hand, what we do know is that strong, caring relationships build healthy human beings, and indeed these must begin in infancy. Money spent on supporting healthy parenting skills, and supporting high quality, relationship-based child care for infants out of the home, is never wasted.

I know there always have to be nay-sayers to every issue. It is a shame that someone thought enough of this person's viewpoint to print it. I think the research speaks for itself. Certainly, we don't know enough and may never know all that assists a child to grow and develop in the "best" way. After all, each child is unique and what works for one may not always work for another.

So we want to throw out the baby with the bath water? Just because we don't have enough research? We can't turn our backs on even one child and if new programs can assist those with the greatest need to meet developmental milestones it is worth everything we can do.

Thank you to Sara Mead for writing this piece and to Exchange for printing it. The early childhood community has misunderstood the so-called "brain science" on early development and, in doing so, has created a myth around what parents and caregivers need to do with babies, especially concerning "windows of opportunity."

It was refreshing to read this short, clear explanation of why the brain development/"science" train that has been roaring along these past few years is way off track.

Someday we may know more about those first years, but right now (as my neuroscientist son tells me) we do not know enough about the brain to make the kinds of assumptions and statements that are too often made.

When seeking funding or advocating for infants, we need to draw on the wealth of research (based on observation and experience in working with babies) that we already have. We know a lot!

John Bruer's book, "The Myth of the First Three Years" is informative.

I can't agree more with the previous posts. I do not believe the the so-called "educational" products will promote any more brain development than a simple ball or block, and in some ways may harm children's development (forcing them into a world of immediate gratification and over-stimulation). The thought of taking money away from early childhood programs would be drastically detrimental to children's development as these are the programs that make the difference for children through positive interactions and building strong, loving relationships, not giving away CD's to newborns.

Blame our consumer society on feeding parents this line that they need these products to stimulate their baby's brain. Americans want to buy something rather than DO something...It just shows HOW MUCH MORE we need quality Early Childhood professionals to debunk all the myths that parents are faced with!!

After working in the early childhood field for over 26 years and just completing an intensive infant mental health fellowship, I can agree that parents are being misguided on what is important during those crucial, rapidly growing years of development. Very young children need time, attention, positive and consistent interactions from caring adults to be able to someday understand and appreciate the teachings of Einstein, Mozart etc. What children are missing is educated parental involvement not signing for more food. I see many children who have the economic support from middle to upper class families, utterly frustrated because they are expected to understand and use many of these "brainy" tactics to communicate for basic needs. Just the other day, I saw a child crying hysterically while her mother was on the cell phone motioning her to sign for what she wanted. The children that I work with are from very low income families whose children are more adept at social interactions, respect for others and have very well developed self esteem, due to parental interactions, love and support. This is all they have, since they are unable to purchase "Baby Einstein". This country really needs to look at how we are raising children and go back to the basics of positive, supported social interactions between the very young and their primary caregivers.

While I do not believe that the zero to three stage is the be all, end all as far a child's capacity for learning is concerned, it is an intergral part of a child's total development. In developing a yearning for learning in children and the pursuit of knowledge as an intrinsic want of the child, early care educators plant the seeds for future learning. In this way, developing that internal curiosity, even at an early age, and stimulating all of the brain areas (such as through Mozart and Bach) can only help foster a child's natural curiosity and need to learn. So while it may not raise you a genious it does however help improve that child's odds at educational success. And as far as government programs "dumping" money into early childhood programs, it is still important for these money streams to continue to flow. Having children who are raised from the start wanting to learn and ready to do so can only help improve grauduation rates and raise the level of competency in the adults of the future. Remember that these lovers of Mozart may be the ones taking care of us someday!

Agreed that purchased items that encourage sitting and observing will not boost a child's mind! But, she is missing the point and making a VERY dangerous statement that we don't need to invest in early education!!! Play, interaction (with objects and humans), the ability to fail, try again, and succeed and, I believe, most importantly social interaction to build positive social skills IS what will provide the BEST foundation for a child's success.....in school, in life...in this world!!

I am in no way a brain researcher, but I do have a Master's in child development and family studies. I have always believed that it is the combination of nature and nurturing that prepares a child for success in the world.

I had fallen into the mainstream of Baby Einstein videos 2 years ago with my first child and after viewing them, I realized that this will do nothing for my child's development. A child needs human interaction and responses to their own reactions to the environment. This is truely where brain growth occurs. Play and interact!

I do, however, believe that exposing children in their first 3 years of life to classical music can only be beneficial. While it may prove not to help with mathematical skills or problem solving later on, it creates an appreciation for music.

I honestly believe that there is no substitute to loving human interaction, a supportive and safe environment, and quality care. As long as you have those components, the child will be better prepared to be successful in the world.

George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, & many other successful people from our past did not have Educational videos or toys. They had the basics and learned from the environment they had.

To create successful children, love them, teach by example, and foster their curiosity. Facilitate their learning, don't preach it. Instead of concentrating on molding your child for the future, concentrate on the now and how you can help them in the present.

Having spent 30 years in the child care field and I am still helping raise babies I would say the best way for every infant to reach its full potential is for the caregivers to encourage investigation, questioning, reasoning, and discovery. This can be easily accomplished by not putting babies in containers except for safety reasons. So I do agree that money spent on comerical products could be much better spent.

Sara Mead is missing the point, or perhaps she’s misinterpreting the point – or maybe she’s just paying attention to the wrong points. It’s true that some entrepreneurial individuals have taken advantage of parents’ desires to do the best for their babies. These folks have taken the birth to three knowledge base and used it for their own financial gain, preying on one of the most vulnerable groups of parents – those that want to do anything and everything for their children, those that will use whatever resources they have if someone would just tell them what to do, those that believe that their money can insure things it simply cannot. So yes, we agree with Sara Mead, when she says buying Baby Einstein CD’s for one’s newborn will NOT make the child smarter now or anytime soon. BUT, that isn’t really the point. When the then Governor Miller saw to it that every parent took home a CD of classical music for their infant to listen to he didn’t directly effect the intelligence of Georgia’s newest citizens, but he did make an impact on how parents do their parenting and he did make an impact on the environment of new babies in his state. He told parents that their state cared. He conveyed to parents that the future of their children was important. He communicated that the arts were a critical part of each person’s development. And he helped parents think about their children’s infancy – which just so happens to be one of the most important times of life – even if we can’t hardwire it.

The real point is that parents have children and they deserve to be supported in their efforts to do the right thing for those children. It’s in everyone’s best interest to support parents and their infant children. Society suffers when parents and subsequently, their children fail. And given that the first 3 years of life are so crucial, society needs to have a comprehensive approach to creating systems to insure that parents succeed in their roles as parents. Misleading parents to think that the answers to success are found in putting an infant in front of a screen to watch a video as the way to prepare a child for success is dishonest and unethical. Parents need pre-natal care, they need information and support, they need paid time off to parent their youngest infants, they need home visiting, they need child care programs of the highest quality when they return to work or attend school, they need the ability to feed their families, and they need to keep their children healthy and safe. If we want to effect the cognitive development of our youngest citizens we need to be deliberate. Infants need parents who have time for them. Infants need environments that are appropriately stimulating. Infants need interactions with adults that are respectful and responsive. Yes, they don’t need CD’s or videos – but they need loving adults who will hold them, love them, understand them, protect them, talk to them, and teach them. And our society is responsible for providing this – and once it does, it will be richly rewarded – not with little hard-wired people, but with valuable contributing citizens.

Thank you, Thank you, Finally someone is speaking up against this onslaught of baby brain boosting. I have provided care for infants for over 30 yrs and the most important item they need is time and attention! Parents cannot buy!!! what is best for their child whether it is a cc center or a product. I am seeing a trend with parents. They are treating their children like an expensive pet. As long as they have a good border (school), the best and fun toys, and a pat on the head once in a while, all should be well. It is the hardest job on earth and they will do anything to make it easier including giving their child to someone or something else any chance they get. Im not against cc, as I am a provider, but some of these kids are in care 12 hrs a day, 6 days a week. These are not just low income parents, most are high income. There is just no excuse for this. They more money/products we throw at this topic the more they will replace one on one care with a parent, with something else. Wake up parents, your child is not a pet.

As the number of programs serving birth to 8 year olds out of the home increases, there is also recognition that quality matters.

The brain studies confirm that the brain by age three has TWICE as many brain connections as an adult.

That does not mean earlier is better!

Inappropriate so- called early cognitive training such as described in "Baby Einstein," "Teach your Baby to Read," etc. do not meet the fundamental values of early childhood quality and integrity (best practice).

NAEYC (National Association for the Education of Young Children) outlines these as follows:

1. appreciating and valuing the uniqueness of the early years and valuing that in the present; not just as preparation for the future

2. basing work with birth to 8 year olds on research and child development about how these ages learn best (whole child)

3. children are best understood in the context of their family, culture and society

4. respect the diginity of the individual child

5. assist children in achieving full potential within the context of relationships of trust, respect and positive regard (Feeney and Kipnes, 1992, 3)

note: list paraphrased from NAEYC "Developmentally Appropriate Practice" by Sue Brenedenkamp and Carol Copple, 1997.


Becky Mangin, EDU Department CCConline (Colorado Community Colleges Online)

I would take issue with the apparent definition for "hardwiring" used in the article. It is my understanding that the word "hardwired" refers not to what children learn or are taught, but to the characteristics they are born with, what they bring into this world, so to speak. No one to my knowledge of research on and 50 years of experience with children, hardwires anybody. This is the "nature" half of the oft-used "nature vs. nurture" debate. In the end, like so much of life, it is BOTH!

I think it would be interesting to know the research behind the opinion stated in the article. If this is true, then most of what I've read in the past several years isn't correct. I know dialogue like this keeps the air charged and active, but I wish we could all get on the same page. While I'd never argue that watching a Baby Einstein video is good for brain development in an infant or toddler, being connected in relationship with the caregiver has definite value in wiring the brain...or so I thought. As with any good thing, extremes can be found, but legislators and those in control of setting policy and funding need to be aware of the value of quality early care and education for those youngest members of society.

While it may be true that the previous data (and interpretations of the data) are wrong, or misleading, in terms of "hardwiring" intelligence, or knowledge, it does not follow that we should decrease the playing of Mozart, or decrease early childhood funding. There are other very important reasons for the playing of Mozart, Back, as well as Armstrong, The Beatles, et al. By playing many different styles of music to our children we encourage diversity in our children's musical tastes. While Baby Einstein and other companies may be wrong about claims of making children more intelligent, it does not negate the possibility that many of these books do make children smarter, by at least making children aware of things that are often not written about in children's books.

I agree with Sara in that it is not important that parents "Have" to expose their children to boughten products to enhance this imprortant learning period. I beleive direct interaction with parents/caregivers can't be replaced by a machine be it an interactive toy or TV. I am totally against TV with children 0-3 years. Our children today are so much more advanced than our children of the past and I beleive it is because we are more educated knowing it is important to sing to them, read to them, talk to them, teach them how to be a social person by example. We know anything that is important to us as parents there will be people out there that will make money off of it. We need to be concious of that as educators and parents.

While I agree that the exploitation of parents fears by commercial interests is not moral, I do feel that money is well spent in supporting parents and caregivers of children zero to three years. Of course we're not hard-wiring smarter humans. We are nurturing more tuned-in parents which pays off for the rest of childhood. We also, I believe raise literacy and language abilities, as well as overall health, and find help for problems due to early detection. You are not hardwiring smarter kids, you're just helping families help their children live up to their potential. In Ontario we are seeing an improvement in children's readiness to learn (EDI scores) in areas where neighbourhoods have parenting programs, libraries, gathering spaces, health care, cultural celebrations, etc. I agree that products such as Baby Einstein are misleading, (Einstein did not watch Einstein videos), and I tell parents so. But spending money on supporting the zero to three (or to six) period is money well invested. Please look at the research of Dr. Fraser Mustard and Margaret McCain as evidence.

Well I have to say that I do believe that the birth to three years are importaant and we should be offerring children a stimulating environment. BUT, I have to agree with the author that purchasing toys such as Leapads and Baby Einstein is not what educators had in mind. Parents are blindly spending money on all these products thinking they benefit their child.

What would benefit the child is one on one time with a parent or caregiver, reading books, talking with the child and creating an environment that nurtures their curiousity for the world!!

We look toward brain research to specify the
most effective stimulation to offer children and
assume that from that point forward the child's
brain will organize that information into some
useful way. While the brain is a marvelous organ,
it cannot play. It cannot select stimulation.
The whole child combined with arms, legs, toes,
and fingers seeks out interesting events and then
plays with them until their workings are understood.
The danger of brain research, as a guide for early
education, comes when we shift our attention from
play to stimulation. In our desire to guarantee success
we shift our efforts toward finding the perfect environ-
ment: a classical recording , a kinetic mobile, a light
table. We now feel our work is done and the mira-
culous brain takes over. We may look for change in the
child's behavior as a result of perfect stimulation, but we
don't notice how the child constructs her own inter-
esting experiments with mundane objects or ordinary
social moments. The teacher needs to place confidence
not in the power of stimulation, but in the power
of play.

Some might argue, for example, that blocks stimulate the
brain so isn't play implied in the concept of stimulation.
The problem is not with the blocks per se but with our
attitude toward blocks if we use brain research as our
guide. We have a tendency to be content just to give the
blocks to the children and only note that the children are
spending time with them. The brain will do it's thing.
We have done ours by providing a stimulating material.
But this attitude does not help us become co-players
with the child, does not help us understand what the child
is doing to understand how blocks tip beyond their center
of gravity or how a lintel allows you to open the door
without collapsing the wall. By placing our faith in the
stimulation, we lose the child's process of learning and
our entry into the child's way of thinking.