The Pica Perspective

Angry Australians & 10 Things Your Preschool Won't Tell You

Last week I told you that, like the American Academy of Pediatrics, an Australian group had recommended a ban on TV for children under 2. Apparently this report also claims that exposure to television at a young age can shorten a child's attention span and stunt language development. Hmmm. Seems like we've heard that one before, too.

Well, the Australians don't like it any more than most parents here did. In fact, many experts dispute those findings, saying the exact opposite is true -- that TV time can actually be beneficial for children.

Whom to believe? Whether or not they believed the findings of similar studies in this country, the majority of parents have chosen to ignore the AAP recommendations. I suspect Australian parents will similarly ignore what they don't want to hear.

In other news, a new book called 1,001 Things They Won't Tell You: An Insider's Guide to Spending, Saving, and Living Wisely by Jonathan Dahl and the editors of SmartMoney, offers a list of 10 things your preschool won't tell you. It's pretty interesting. Following is the list. If you want to read the comments under each, click here!

1. “Sure, we're licensed, but that doesn't mean we're any good.”

2. “Bus drivers make more than our teachers.”

3. “Learning the ABC s won't prepare your tot for kindergarten.”

4. “Discipline's not our forte.”

5. "Separation anxiety? Never gave it much thought.”

6. “Get ready to work overtime.”

7. “We serve more junk food than McDonald's.”

8. “We're harder to get into than Harvard.”

9. “Our pricey tuition is just the start.”

10. “We don't always follow our own education philosophy.”

Hmmm...

Toddlers & TV

As you probably already know, the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2001 recommended that children under the age of 2 watch no television. It caused quite a stir at the time, and I've been told by many parents and experts that few are following the recommendation.

Now comes a similar recommendation from the Australians.

Research by the Royal Melbourne Children's Hospital suggests that children under the age of two should not watch any TV at all. The researchers have written guidelines for the Federal Government as part of the Get Up and Grow guidelines to reduce childhood obesity. They are designed specifically for child care centers but also provide some advice for parents.

Statistics show that four-month-old infants in Australia watch on average 44 minutes of TV each day and children under the age of four with pay TV at home spend at least three hours a day in front of the screen.

A senior lecturer in Child Development at the University of South Australia, Glenn Cuppitt, says the new guidelines are a measure of desperation to encourage children to be active and to interact with others.

"A measure of desperation." Hmmm. When did active and interactive children become so uncommon that we had to resort to desperate measures to get them to move and play together? And, trust me, this is not the case only in Australia!

Infant Swim Programs

Where do you stand on infant swim programs? There's no doubt that they're highly popular (about five to ten million infants and preschoolers participate in formal instruction). But the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has issued warnings about them.

Drowning is the leading cause of unintentional injury and death in young children, with rates highest among American children ages one to two. Still, the AAP feels strongly enough about the issue of infant swim programs that is has released two policy statements on the subject, the fist in 1985 and an update in 2000.

According to the association, children are not developmentally ready for swimming lessons until they're four years old. Although they maybe able to perform elementary swimming motions at about 12 months, these motions are more along the lines of a dog paddle than a traditional swimming stroke, or front crawl. And, as with other skills learned before children are developmentally ready, aquatic skills take longer to learn and are limited by the children's neuromuscular capacity. Furthermore, starting early doesn't translate into "a higher level of swimming proficiency compared with those taking lessons at a later age."

In other words, the situation is the same as it is with hurrying other motor skills. Earlier isn't better, and it's certainly not going to help create a future Olympic swimmer. Also, the training itself may have a long-term effect on the child's sense of autonomy (self-sufficiency), as motivation is an essential ingredient in the learning of any skill -- and motivation is not yet in the infant's emotional repertoire.

But there's much more to consider here. Even when the program's intention is to focus on water safety knowledge rather than actual swimming skills (as is the intention of the aquatic programs of the YMCA and the Red Cross), caution is the key. Warns the AAP, "When instruction attempts to optimize learning by reducing fear of water, children may unwittingly be encouraged to enter the water without supervision."

Says David Elkind, in Miseducation, if parents enroll their babies in swim programs specifically to prevent drowning, they may unintentionally be shifting the responsibility for not drowning to the children themselves!

Furthermore, a child without the necessary cognitive skills may be unable to transfer his knowledge from one context to another. I well remember a story told by Kelly Ripa on "Live with Regis and Kelly" that illustrates this point. Kelly was telling Regis and their audience about her family's trip to Hawaii during which her preschool son was standing in a koi pond feeding the fish. He suddenly slipped and fell facedown into the pond. But, since he'd been enrolled in swimming programs -- several days a week for years -- and possessed many certificates proclaiming he could swim, she and her husband merely waited for their son's swimming skills to kick in. But they never did! He remained facedown and then began to sink. It appears the child knew what was expected of him in one situation (the swimming lessons) but not in an entirely new situation. (Being unable to transfer knowledge from one situation to another is to be expected, given the cognitive level of a preschooler.)

As Dr. Elkind points out, there may be other hazards as well. Infants in swimming classes are at risk for "middle-ear infections and potential permanent hearing loss, for autoasphyxiation from swallowing water, and for diarrhea, since the babies are not toilet-trained and the water may be polluted."

This is a highly controversial subject. Enthusiasts of infant swim classes defend them vehemently, claiming that their children have only benefited from them. What have been your experiences? What are your thoughts?

France

Received this in my e-mail box this week. I'm always fascinated when other countries put their children's welfare above all else...because we sure don't seem to.

By CHRISTINE OLLIVIER, Associated Press Writer

PARIS - France's broadcast authority has banned French channels from airing TV shows aimed at children under 3 years old, to shield them from developmental risks it says television viewing poses at that age.

The High Audiovisual Council, in a ruling published Wednesday, said it wanted to "protect children under 3 from the effects of television."

France's minister for culture and communication, Christine Albanel, issued a "cry of alarm" to parents in June about channels dedicated 24 hours a day to baby-targeted programming. In a newspaper interview, she called them "a danger" and urged parents not to use them to help their children get to sleep.

She was referring to two foreign channels that can be seen in France on cable television, BabyFirstTV and Baby TV.

The council's ruling aims to prevent the development of such programming on French channels. It also orders French cable operators that air foreign channels with programs for babies to broadcast warning messages to parents. The messages will read: "Watching television can slow the development of children under 3, even when it involves channels aimed specifically at them."

The ruling cites health experts as saying that interaction with other people is crucial to early child development.

"Television viewing hurts the development of children under 3 years old and poses a certain number of risks, encouraging passivity, slow language acquisition, over-excitedness, troubles with sleep and concentration as well as dependence on screens," the ruling said.

When BabyFirstTV first aired in the United States in 2006, it escalated an already heated national debate. The American Academy of Pediatrics has said babies should be kept away from television altogether.

BabyFirstTV and other companies say their products are designed to be watched by babies and parents together in an interactive manner. Critics say such channels are used as a baby sitter.

Baby TV is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. The three companies behind BabyFirstTV are Regency Enterprises, a film and TV production company that is a partner of News Corp.'s Fox Entertainment; Kardan N.V, an investment group based in the Netherlands and Israel; and Bellco Capital, a private Los Angeles-based investment fund.

Signing with Babies

Have you noticed how doing sign language with babies has become all the rage? Have you done it with your own little ones?

I must admit I was pretty cynical about it. Creators of baby sign language programs talk about the fact that being able to communicate before being able to talk prevents frustration. But I wondered if frustration wasn't a part of the natural developmental process.

I was also concerned that teaching babies to sign would discourage them from talking. After all, when my youngest brother was three and hadn't yet begun to speak, the pediatrician told my mother that she wouldn't speak either if all she had to do was point in order to get something.

Turns out neither of those concerns is worth worrying about. In fact, according to a study funded by the National Institutes of Health and conducted at the University of California, using signs actually makes it easier for babies to learn to talk. And it's possible that possessing the ability to communicate at a very early age has a positive impact on intellectual development.

I learned all this and more when I interviewed Linda Acredolo, co-founder of Baby Signs, for a segment of Body, Mind and Child. As mentioned, I was fairly cynical before the interview; but she convinced me that it just might be a good thing! At the very least, I don't see that it could do any harm -- unless it's being forced upon a baby in the way that flashcards too often are.

To learn more, go to NAEYC Radio and listen to Linda's talk with NAEYC executive director Mark Ginsberg and me. And if you've had personal experience with baby signing, I'd love to hear about it!

Letting Babies Be

Until this morning, I'd never heard of the Pikler approach to infant care; but it certainly resonated with me, so I want to pass along some information about it...

An article called "Giving Babies the Best Start in Life" gives a nice overview of "Pikler babies." Here's a brief excerpt:

"Pikler babies" are recognized in Budapest even when they are older by the grace and confidence with which they move. The roots of this grace and harmony lie in Pikler's notion of what a baby needs for optimal development: lots of space and time for free, uninterrupted play, supported by sensitive, observant attention during slowed down daily care routines. The approach is based on respect for babies as human beings and not objects and trust in them to develop as they are meant to without our interference or "help."

What a novel idea, huh? For a Body, Mind and Child podcast (not yet posted as of this writing), I talked with motor development specialist Dr. Jane Clark of the University of Maryland about "containerized kids." Jane and I worked together on the task force that created national guidelines for early childhood physical activity, and it was at one of those work meetings that a colleague used that expression. In short, "containerizing" babies refers to the practice of always having them in something, like car seats, high chairs, carriers, and the like. Not long ago, a pediatrician appearing on Good Morning America claimed that infants are spending upward of sixty waking hours a week in things! Jane and I talked about what a bad idea that is from a motor development perspective, but the pediatrician on GMA pointed out that such practices also can have a negative impact on a baby's personality.

Unfortunately, too few of the babies in today's American society will grow up displaying "grace and confidence." We'll be lucky if they display such necessities as coordination and independence!

Skin to Skin Bonding

Quick post today...

Before I played "tag" with The Mentor Mom, I wrote about "containerized kids" and tummy time for babies. Lisa G. posted a comment about bonding, and that got me thinking about skin-to-skin bonding -- which American parents don't do that much of. In fact, compared to other cultures in which babies are held for hours, stroked when in need of soothing, and carried close to the bodies of their mothers, America is a pretty "low-touch" society. And that's a shame. Because numerous studies have proven that touch isn't just something "nice" for baby; it's absolutely essential -- to bonding, to growth and development, and to present and future emotional well-being.

I've got an article about this on my website if you'd like to read more. It's called "Skinship: Better Bonding with Baby."

The word "skinship?" It's the term the Japanese use to describe the closeness between mother and child.

Tummy Time

As an addendum to my last two posts -- and in light of the comments received -- I thought I'd offer a bit more information about tummy time. If you've read both the posts and the comments, you know that a lack of tummy time for babies is creating problems with muscle, motor, visual, and even brain development! Moreover, the more time a baby spends on his back, the greater the likelihood that he'll develop a flattened skull and torticollis, which causes a child's chin to be rotated to one side and his head to the other side.

Obviously, the solution is to ensure babies get plenty of tummy time. Not when you put them down to sleep, of course, but every other time it's possible!

What do you do, however, if yours is one of the many babies who simply doesn't enjoy being on the tummy?

First, it's important to acclimate your infant to this position as early in life as possible. Right from the start, following a nap or diaper change, two to three times a day, you should place her on her tummy for a brief play period. You can gradually increase the length of these periods as your baby becomes used to them. Also, whenever possible, lie on your back and place your baby facedown on your chest. This not only helps her adapt to this position; it will also give her a reason to lift her head: to look at you!

But even if you didn't begin tummy time the day you brought him home from the hospital, it's not too late to start! Following are some ideas for making tummy time a fun time:

• Get "down and dirty" with baby. Lie side by side with your baby and have a "conversation!" Coo and sing and make funny sounds. There's no one else's voice she'd rather hear. When your baby is ready to start lifting her head, you can also lie head-to-head with her. She'll eventually lift her head and push up on her arms because she wants to look at you. Make it worth her effort by making her favorite funny faces!
• Tempt him with a toy. Place a favorite toy or stuffed animal just out of your baby's reach and encourage him to get it! Mirrors and rattles work well, too.
• Circle the wagons. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends placing toys in a circle around the baby. Reaching in different directions helps develop the muscles needed to roll over, scoot, and crawl.
• Give her a lift. If all else fails and your baby still fusses while facedown, place a pillow or a boppy under her chest, with her arms in front of her. Or lay her across your lap, raising one of your legs to create a slight incline. This will make it easier for her to see what's going on around her and should stop the fussing. Then, as she develops upper body strength, she'll no longer need the lift.
• Remember: The policy is "Back to Sleep. Tummy to Play!"

"Educational" DVDs -- Part II

It's fascinating. Despite the fact that the story about so-called educational videos appeared in newspapers all around the world -- and was reported on such TV shows as Good Morning America -- there's been very little "buzz" about it. Or maybe I should say that I've found very few of the many blogging moms "talking" about it. Am wondering why that is...

In the meantime, I personally can't stop thinking about it. In my last post I wrote a bit about how babies' brains, intellect, and language develop. In short, it's not by watching DVDs. But as I considered this issue over the weekend, it occurred to me that there's another, very important aspect that no one has addressed yet; and that's the aspect concerning "containerized" babies.

"Containerized" is the term coined by a colleague of mine to describe the fairly recent trend of keeping babies in things: high chairs, car seats, carriers, and the like. A year or so ago, on another segment of Good Morning America, a pediatrician reported that infants are spending upward of 60 waking hours a week being confined by such things. So the chances are good that if 40% of babies and 90% of two-year-olds are regularly watching TV, DVDs, or videos, as the authors of the DVD study found, they're doing it in "containers." And that's bad news for babies.

Among other things, it means fewer opportunities for them to strengthen their muscles -- to lift and turn their heads, to push up on their arms, to develop optimal balance, stability, and motor skills. It means fewer opportunities for the cross-lateral (right arm/left leg, left arm/right leg) experience gained from crawling and creeping. And because cross-lateral movement activates both hemispheres of the brain and stimulates communication between the two, too much time being containerized affects much more than motor development; it also impacts brain development and can later result in problems with reading and writing.

When a child's natural desire -- and need -- to move is thwarted, upper torso strength, rotation of the head, visual tracking, motor development, and other physical skills become much more difficult to achieve, and in extreme cases, require intervention from such professionals as physical and occupational therapists.

We all know that parents only want the best for their children. For a look at how parents came to believe "educational" products are the best for their little ones, read "Educational Toys Prey on Parents' Fears" and "Extreme Parenting."

I wish I could remember who said it, but I recall reading that it's a lot easier to spread a bad idea than a good one. Am also wondering why that is...

The Word Is Out on "Educational" DVDs

Reading my local paper at lunchtime today, I flipped over the front section and nearly jumped off the couch. There, in a bold headline, I read: "'Baby Einstein' videos may actually make kids dumber: Study says programs don't help baby brains."

Hallelujah! The piece, originally written for the Los Angeles Times, reports on a study published today in the Journal of Pediatrics, which determined that, among babies ages 8 to 16 months, every hour spent daily watching programs such as "Brainy Baby" or "Baby Einstein" translated into six to eight fewer words in their vocabularies as compared with other children their age. The researchers, from the University of Washington and Seattle Children's Hospital Research Institute, commented that even watching American Idol would be more beneficial because there was a greater chance that parents would watch with them, likely offering contact and interaction that would have developmental benefits.

Ah, the validation. As I -- and many others -- have long contended, a baby's brain and intellectual development rely on nurturing relationships, the sound of a parent's voice, physical contact, and movement. As far as language development is concerned, nature has conveniently created us to develop language through interaction with others. Babies learn to communicate by communicating, and they can't communicate with two-dimensional materials.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not opposed to all two-dimensional materials. I even consulted with Sesame Street on a movement DVD for babies and toddlers. The difference between that DVD and the "Brainy Baby" ilk is that the former is intended for both baby and parents. It's meant to demonstrate to parents how they can interact with their little ones and to provide them with movement ideas. That parent involvement, to me, makes all the difference in the world.

Anyway, there's finally a news report that should be helpful to parents, who are often terrified they'll be failing their little ones if they don't purchase the latest and greatest "educational" products -- products purportedly backed by research on what babies need in order to learn. Interestingly enough, this news report is really making the rounds. After cutting the article from the newspaper and heading to my computer, a quick Google search indicated that the story had been spread, not only from sea to shining sea in this country but also across the sea to, among other places, the UK, Australia, and India! The only ones not talking are the marketers of "Brainy Baby" and "Baby Einstein," who couldn't be reached for comment.