Raising Readers, Writers, and Spellers

Hi Dr. Gentry,

I am thankful for your article.

I tweeted it directly to Mr. Rossen, with the hopes that he will actually read it, in between preparing other stories on tight time deadlines:

http://www.nbcudirect.com/news/rossen020711/

I taught both of my children to read as infants with great success. YBCR was one tool I used in addition to flashcards, Brillkids, starfall.com and Dolch lists. No pressure was needed. It only required minutes a day. It is unfortunate to see baby reading under attack but maybe some good will come out of it. It might actually lead to some studies.

We are writing concerning a recent posting by Dr. Gentry on the Psychology Today website ("Is There a 'Baby Can Read' Witch Hunt"). Dr. Gentry insinuates a baseless accusation against The Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood (CCFC); unwittingly supports a major part of our recent Federal Trade Commission complaint against Your Baby Can Read; and fails to disclose an important fact about his paid-for research for Your Baby Can, LLC. We expect Psychology Today will print a retraction of Dr. Gentry’s accusation.

Dr. Gentry writes, in reference to the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood's complaint, “I wonder who really is behind this latest complaint." He then describes a separate complaint filed by Leap Frog against Your Baby Can Read with the National Advertising Division. The implication of the article is that we filed our complaint on behalf of one of Your Baby Can's competitors and that CCFC’s advocacy is "more about market share than about protecting babies."

That is a very serious charge. It is disturbing that Dr. Gentry would level such an accusation against CCFC without bothering to contact us for comment. It is even more disturbing that Dr. Gentry would cast aspersions on CCFC's integrity without citing a shred of evidence.

We can assure your readers that no competitor of YBCR or any company was "behind" our complaint. We fully expect Psychology Today to print a retraction. We don't believe that Psychology Today has given a platform to Dr. Gentry so he can make reckless accusations benefiting his paying clients.

We encourage Dr. Gentry and his readers to take another look at our complaint (http://www.commercialfreechildhood.org/pdf/ybcrftccomplaint.pdf), since Dr. Gentry agrees with one of its key elements. He states:

“When I checked out the statements of each of these experts--all if them admittedly respected academics--I was shocked to find that none of them had expertise with baby and toddler readers or reported research on 2- and 3-year-old readers. How could they, there is no current research on 2-year-old readers.”

This supports CCFC’s complaint. To avoid making false or misleading claims, the FTC’s Policy Statement on Substantiation states that companies should have a “reasonable basis for their advertising claims before they are disseminated.” If an advertiser implies or expressly claims a certain level of support – such as “studies show” – then the advertiser must possess the advertised level of substantiation. Your Baby Can implies that they have a scientific basis for their advertising claims. Therefore, the company needs to produce research to support those claims. As we argue, and Dr. Gentry agrees, such research does not exist. YBCR lacks adequate substantiation for its claims and therefore its marketing is deceptive.

Dr. Gentry admirably discloses that Your Baby Can hired him to provide “expert opinion” when another advertiser filed a complaint against YBCR with the National Advertising Division. However, he does not report the results of that proceeding.

The National Advertising Division dismissed as “unreliable” Gentry’s paid-for opinion supporting some of the advertiser’s claims. His opinion was found to contain “little in the way of probative value for ascertaining the actual reading ability of babies who use the YBCR program.” Overall, the proceeding concluded that 1) there was no evidence to support the claim “that that use of YBCR early in life will have a long-term effect on a child’s reading ability and later success in school and life.” And 2) “the evidence was insufficient to substantiate the claim that babies who use the Program will learn to read novel words.”

It is shameful that that there are those who exploit parents’ anxieties to sell them on products that are, at best, expensive and unnecessary and, at worst, harmful to babies’ development. And it is both ironic and troubling that Dr. Gentry assumes that anyone who raises concerns about Your Baby Can Read must have a financial stake in doing so. Some of us are genuinely interested in children, not out of cold-hearted self-interest, but for who they are and who they might become.

Sincerely,

Susan Linn, EdD
Director, CCFC

Josh Golin
Associate Director, CCFC

Dear Susan and Josh,
Thank you for your comment above clarifying some important points about The Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood position and your participation in the TODAY show report. Please know that I carry no animosity toward your group and I have certainly made no “charge” against you. My post simply states that I think the report, and your participation in it, was biased and that popular media should be responsible for unbiased investigative reporting. Asking the question, “Is There a “Baby Can Read” Witch Hunt?” is not making a reckless accusation against CCFC.

Susan, if you review your vitriolic statement in the TODAY show segment, you might not be so surprised that I found it unprofessional. Rather than present a thoughtful review of the CCFC position or share your research, you weighed in with inflammatory language: “It’s deceptive, and it’s really harmful. Parents are shelling out all this money for something that is basically snakeoil.” You don’t mention that the YBCR “snakeoil” comes with a money back guarantee. My understanding is that any parent who is not happy with the product can return it. Did you know that only 1% of parents out of the hundreds of thousands who have used YBCR actually return the product and ask for their money back? (At least that’s what they told me when I asked.) In other words, parents shelled out money but apparently 99% liked the snakeoil.

There are inaccuracies in your comment above and I would like to clarify these points for our readers:

• I am not a representative of YBCR and they do not pay me. I have never indorsed their product. Actually I think their advertising could be improved and I think they are making some changes.
• As far as I know its standard practice for an academic to be paid for the time it takes to do an “expert opinion” report. I was paid for two reports in the NAD complaint proceedings, nothing more.
• I did not consult with anyone at YBCR when I wrote this post. They had no knowledge of it. I just wanted others to know that I thought the treatment they were getting was unfair.
• Instead of me contacting you before I commented on my own post as you suggested above, I think the TODAY show and CCFC should have contacted YBCR and allowed them the courtesy of appearing on the show with you and giving their side of the story. My impression is that Dr. Titzer was blindsided in the prerecorded segments on the first show and unfortunately may have overstated his case. By the way, I have never spoken with or corresponded with him personally.
• Since there is no research on 2-year-old readers, how does CCFC know that use of this product in a joint media presentation with a loving parent, in short durations that end if the baby/toddler looses interest, is in your words, Susan, “really harmful.” Do you have research on this product, or are you making misleading claims? In my opinion, you lack adequate substantiation for your snakeoil claims as stated on TODAY and therefore your statements were deceptive or at least misleading.
• There were a number of “expert opinions” supporting the NAD complaint and the only feedback that I ever received was that my report was “excellent.” If NAD specifically referred to my work alone as “unreliable” please send me the report. I never received the report you speak of. I’m a lifelong learner, and I will use this report to do better work next time. You can contact me at JRichardGentry.com.

Susan and Josh, I sincerely believe that most of the pioneers with baby reading products loved teaching their own children to read and only have good intentions in sharing what they have learned about baby/toddler reading with others. The ones I have met sincerely love young children, have spent loads of time with babies and toddlers, and are driven by high aspirations for all children. Beyond that, I have personal experience with parents who love these products and they love their children and would never consider doing anything to harm them.

Here’s my prediction for the future: a few years from now, the research will prove that these parents are right; that baby/toddlers can read; that baby/toddlers can intuit phonics patterns and decode novel words. I predict that research will prove that there are positive long-term effects but I hope today’s parents won’t wait ten years to see the ten-year report. Although I believe you have good intentions, I think you have jumped to the wrong conclusion and that you and CCFC need to work harder to learn more about baby/toddler reading. The baby/toddler reading world is eager to learn, and eager to share information. The baby/toddler reading world is eager for research to be conducted. I hope you will try harder to be fair and avoid the kind of sensationalized, biased presentation that you participated in on TODAY. This is important work. We need a kinder, gentler forum for moving forward.

Sincerely,
Richard

My first exposure to YBCR was about a year ago when my three year old saw a commerical on television and shouted " Mommy, I want to read!!" She was so adament about it that it made me happy to hear that she wanted to start to learn to read. But I wasn't going to use YBCR because I thought that it was "snake oil" myself. I wasn't going to buy something like that when I have perfectly good phonics programs here at home that I used with my other three daughters. I had never heard of little children reading. The closest I came at the time was my 2nd daughter who was 4.5 when she started reading and it was all on her own want.
I found the older I started the more resistance I got with my daughters ( now knowing that the ease of learning was beginning to fade by the time my daughters were about 5 or 6.)

So I brought our our How to Teach Your child to Read in 100 Easy Lessons book and proceeded to teach (torture) my 3yr old with phonics. She just wasn't getting it no matter how much we blended words. So I put it away and assumed she just wasn't ready to learn to read. Something that had been ingrained into my thought process by those who think later learning is better.
It wasn't until Christmas time did I come upon YBCR at our local Walmart. My daughter by this time was 4 and she saw it and instantly wanted it. Of course I thought, ugh. But I got it thinking, well what do I have to lose? If it doesn't work I just can resell it to someone else. Little did I know the amazing results of this program that was going to await us.

My daughter loved it and it really took up a tiny part of our day. She was happy to watch it and trust me, compared to other stuff on television was much shorter than most programs on t.v. The greatest part was she started learning something concrete. By the 2nd day she read her first word 'nose'. In a month we completed the entire program! She was reading at least 250 words.
Now 4 months later she has learned to take her words , string them together and is actually reading at about an early 1st grade level! I also round out our progam with some other early learning reading progams. And I've finally lost count of how many words she really knows how to read. She has learned how to decode words phonectially on her own versus when I was trying to teach her. She reads better than her 7yr old sister which I started teaching her to read at the ripe old age of 5.

I don't think YBCR plays on parents anxieties. What it does do is tell them that there is a window where learning to read is so simple, so effortless that its actually child's play. Once a child hits the age of 5 or 6 or even 7 learning to read becomes a horrible chore because now they have to work harder on it then a child would at the age of 6 months, 1yr , 2yrs, 3yrs, 4yrs.

Learning to read is learning to read no matter the age. When anyone learns to read you learn how to read one word at a time until you begin to string words together , until you read sentences.

YBCR is not hurtful. I have met so many wonderful families that have happy, healthy wonderfully developing children. Some even developing at a much better rate then a child who hasn't watched one lick of television a day in their life. Just because they watch a video for 20 minutes or less doesn't mean we don't read to our children ( our children LOVE books and they love to be read to), doesn't mean our children don't know how to run or play, walk or talk, as a matter of fact its beginning to show that these children have a much higher vocabulary than their peers who haven't learned to read yet. Our kids are active, they swim, they run, they do gymnastics. We value health and activity. Haven't come across yet with any children who are lazy and obese. If anything they maybe guilty of reading to many books.

In conclusion its not anyone's business to tell others what to buy and what to use as a curriculum. I find it funny that its a curriculum if your 5 and not if your a year old. So if YBCR was geared to 5 or 6yr olds this product would be fine? If you go to You Tube you can see wonderful testimonials of families with young children who prove they are reading and they understand those words. There are even videos of children who began with YBCR and are on You Tube that are reading at 1,st, 2,d 3rd grade levels and beyond by the age of 4!

I'm sure much of my thought here is scrambled and for that I apologize. But this truely is a great product. If anything it will actually teach a child something and isn't mindless drool. I would have never have been a YBCR advocate if I had never tried it. Something these people who have made this claim have never done.

I posted this response on CCRC link, and was amused to find it deleted - so, I am reposting it here, and again on the link below, for those who are interested in the truth, amidst the claims from spin-doctors:

* * *

While this complaint may be well-intended, I find it irresponsible of this organization to reference the AAP guidelines - and misrepresent the actual recommendations as "evidence" against YBCR.

When reading the actual guidelines, it is more than obvious that YBCR actually falls within the recommendations made by the AAP:

* * *

AAP POLICY STATEMENT
PEDIATRICS Vol. 107 No. 2 February 2001, pp. 423-426

AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS:
Children, Adolescents, and Television
Committee on Public Education

Pediatricians should recommend the following guidelines for parents:

- Discourage [not forbid] 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. [there is an erroneous assumption, that ANY screentime is going to replace any other activities, when that is clearly not the case.]

- 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.5,47

- Use controversial programming as a stepping-off point to initiate discussions about family values, violence, sex and sexuality, and drugs.

- Use the videocassette recorder wisely to show or record high-quality, educational programming for children.

- Support efforts to establish comprehensive media-education programs in schools.

- Encourage alternative entertainment for children, including reading, athletics, hobbies, and creative play.

* * *

The Actual AAP Policy Statement:

AAP POLICY STATEMENT

PEDIATRICS Vol. 107 No. 2 February 2001, pp. 423-426

AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS:
Children, Adolescents, and Television
Committee on Public Education

ABSTRACT

This statement describes the possible negative health effects of television viewing on children and adolescents, such as violent or aggressive behavior, substance use, sexual activity, obesity, poor body image, and decreased school performance. In addition to the television ratings system and the v-chip (electronic device to block programming), media education is an effective approach to mitigating these potential problems. The American Academy of Pediatrics offers a list of recommendations on this issue for pediatricians and for parents, the federal government, and the entertainment industry.

[ more details at link below]

FOOTNOTE:
The recommendations in this statement do not indicate an exclusive course of treatment or serve as a standard of medical care. Variations, taking into account individual circumstances, may be appropriate.

http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;107/2/423

* * *

posted, deleted, and reposted again here:
http://commercialfreechildhood.blogspot.com/2011/04/your-baby-cant-reall...

TR,

"In conclusion its not anyone's business to tell others what to buy and what to use as a curriculum. I find it funny that its a curriculum if your 5 and not if your a year old. So if YBCR was geared to 5 or 6yr olds this product would be fine?"

People are troubled by the idea of teaching babies to read because they see 5 and 6 year olds struggling. They assume that an infant has to put in the same level of effort to learn as an older child. The fact is, infants can learn to read with little or no effort on their part. I think if people realised this, there would be less opposition.

You don't hear people raving against teaching infants more than one language or even sign language. There is an understanding that babies can learn these things without pressure. Reading is simply written language. Having taught both of my kids to read as toddlers, I think that the brain is actually ready to learn reading in the first few years. Just like learning a foreign language takes a lot of effort for a 5 or 6 year old, learning to read requires a lot of effort. Infants can simply absorb written language, the way they can absorb multiple foreign languages.

I think if more people realised this you would see far less opposition. But people won't realise this until studies are done. All we have now is anecdotal evidence from parents. And that really isn't enough to provide proof. We need well-designed studies that prove that baby reading does work. And that is what they will prove, if they are ever done.