Advice From Parents as Teachers

March 17, 2010

Advice From Parents as Teachers

Here’s another blog post that describes someone’s Parents as Teachers experience. This one was written by a woman who’s expecting her first child in a few weeks. I can’t tell whether she’s in Missouri, so I’m just assuming her experience is comparable and counting on in-state participants to comment about whether it’s something that wouldn’t happen here.

The blogger writes that a Parents as Teachers educator came to speak to her parenting class, and gave the following advice:

We were told that we needed to not only read to the little guy everynight (even before he’s born–which we knew) but right now to read the same story. Repitition will help him learn sounds, rhythm, words and will also help him develop comfort and a bond with us. Then when he’s fussy, reading this story that he’s heard so many times in our voices will make him feel better and remind him of when things were less stressful for him before he was born.

This way of doing things might work for many people, but it’s problematic for Parents as Teachers to present it (with state approval and funding) as the correct way to raise a child, when it’s basically somebody’s opinion. The recommendations I’ve seen suggest that parents begin reading to children at six weeks, three months, six months — not every night when the baby is still in the womb. There’s no medical consensus that you have to do that. (There are other ways to interact with unborn babies, like talking to them or singing a song.) And the idea that it has to be the same book every single time is nonsense. Babies learn from repetition in conversations and daily routines; that doesn’t have to come from one book and one book alone.

The assertion that hearing a story repeated will remind the baby of the womb is a nice theory, not a confirmed research result. Babies fuss for many reasons, and hearing a story won’t always calm them. When a story does soothe them, they may be reacting to the parent’s tone of voice or touch. It’s speculation to say that they remember hearing that exact wording from the womb.

Maybe these ideas aren’t completely scientific, but they can’t hurt, right? Actually, they could be harmful to parent-child relationships if parents feel guilty when they can’t maintain the regimen. Skipping reading for a night or two or switching between a few different stories won’t hurt your baby, but people could reach that conclusion if they’ve sat through this presentation by an official state educator. It’s not surprising that the blogger describes herself as “overwhelmed” by what she heard.

« Read Previous Entry Read Next Entry »

15 Comments »

There are several problems with this argument. The first is that we have to assume the presenter was an expert on infant development. It’s implausible to believe a program like Parents as Teachers doesn’t have guidelines on who can teach classes or present scientific or medical information. So yes, Sarah, this is basically someone’s opinion; the problem is that you assume without any basis that the person is not an expert.

The second problem here is that you unfairly compare what is probably considered a parenting “best practice” (pre-natal reading with repetition) with what are probably parenting “second best” practices (reading, singing, conversing without repetition in a post-natal stage). We can think of parenting best practices in linear terms; best practices means things like pre-natal reading with repetition and second-best practices involve less focus. So yes, you’re right. The bar for what is sufficient to ensure a functional child is probably not that high in terms of what the Parents as Teachers educator advocates. But the Parents as Teacher educator is not advocating simply what is sufficient and rather what is best.

The third problem is that you’re ascribing an entire position to this educator on the basis of an non-comprehensive blog post. While it appears to be the case that this educator probably says “read the same book as often as possible to your child” it’s not fair to conclude that the educator doesn’t endorse “sing the same song to your child every day, or talk to him/her frequently, and yes these are acceptable substitutes for reading a book”.

The fourth problem is probably the worst. It’s that you’re flat out wrong about the state of medical knowledge. There is a consensus and plenty of research out there that establishes the specific value of repetitive linguistic interaction with fetuses. This article is a good survey of the literature; though specific to prenatal music stimulation contains evidence that this is a field with much research: http://www.birthpsychology.com/lifebefore/sound1.html

There is of course some debate over specifics. But by and large your claims that these ideas have no scientific or research backing are spurious and might have been corrected with a quick google search.

Comment by Eapen Thampy — March 18, 2010 @ 7:28 a.m.
I don’t think you are giving parents/people enough credit to sift through information and determine what works for them and what doesn’t. Most people know that child rearing strategies are guidelines, from where ever they come from, and should not be taken as gospel, regardless of who gives them. Speaking of gospel, The /Bible, Word of God to believers, teaches corporal punishment. Prov 29:15: “The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame” among other passages. Yet, many (most?) Christians and Jews don’t practice corporal punishment. Hmm.

If many people are able to ‘cafeteria’ their sacred texts, I believe that they can pick and choose from what ‘official, state sponsored’ people tell them.

It can be argued that Parents as Teachers is a waste of money (I never quite got around to participating) for a bunch of reasons, but I don’t think that parents are unable to discern ‘absolute musts’ from ‘ideas worth trying’ is one of them.

As an aside, today it is virtually impossible to run tests on children these days due to informed consent requirements and such so proving, or disproving, anything about treatments/care given to them is really not feasible.

Comment by Papillon — March 18, 2010 @ 11:52 a.m.
Thanks for the comment. Your analogy to parenting advice from the Bible is fascinating. What if Parents as Teachers used public funds to promote corporal punishment? Would that be okay because people might pick and choose, disregarding that advice just like they disregard it in the Bible?

Any time the government endorses particular philosophies or lifestyles, I find that to be problematic–even if, as you say, most people will take it with a grain of salt.

Comment by Sarah Brodsky — March 18, 2010 @ 12:09 p.m.
Sarah –

Yawn! Do you really find it problematic “any time the government endorses particular philosophies or lifestyles”? The government does this everyday to own benefit (queue the list of things you think they don’t do well) when they require a driver’s license to operate a motor vehicle, when they require drinking water be clean and on and on and on and on. The opposite believe who say that government should set no standards and expound no expectations. Blah. Parents as Teachers is not some unbending “you MUST raise your child THIS way” group. Have you had a meeting with PaT? I have. My wife and I talked about our baby, what we thought was challenging, our expectations, etc. and the PaT rep offered options, things we hadn’t thought of, things to try. While some ideologues are just SURE that everyone else is an ideologue (just on the other side), PaT is nothing like that. What’s “problematic” to you is a lifesaver for my family.

Comment by David — March 18, 2010 @ 2:48 p.m.
Can’t believe you’re quoting a blogger and then running with it. Do you actually think that Parents as Teachers really told parents anything more than they should try to read to their children often and it may be helpful to read the same book? You’re paranoid. I mean, how else to describe someone who gets up-in-arms about the big bad government telling someone its good to read to children. Those bastards! I mean, it should be up to each individual, God-Freedom-American-loving parent to decide if reading to children is good. Am I overstating your words. Yes, but your concern is ridiculous and diminishes the incredible asset that is Parents as Teachers.

Comment by Miriam — March 18, 2010 @ 2:56 p.m.
What I find very disturbing about this is that the writer seems to have zero understanding of what Parents as Teachers does or how they help. I agree with much of what David said and in addition I’ll say that our PAT meetings have been a big source of support for my family. We’re not from Missouri and so have no family close and none of our friends have a baby. Being new parents is challenging and I can’t imagine where we would be without PAT confirming that we’re doing most things right, making us feel good about our family and helping us address the challenges of parenthood. THANK YOU Parents as Teachers!

Comment by Kevin Sargent — March 18, 2010 @ 3:23 p.m.
Thanks for the comments, everyone.

Eapen, given that Parents as Teachers educators are not required to hold degrees in child development or medicine–and that they are trained through very short seminars–I don’t think we need to assume they are experts in those fields.

You’re right that there is a consensus that it’s beneficial to interact with fetuses. However, there is no consensus that the interaction has to consist of reading the same book every day. The study you link to addresses many different sounds, including music. This supports my point that there are multiple beneficial ways to interact with fetuses–such as talking or singing a song. I have not seen any study that finds reading one book to be the best way, and I would encourage you to link to that study if it exists.

Comment by Sarah Brodsky — March 18, 2010 @ 3:53 p.m.
Sarah,

You once again betray your ignorance. Parents as Teachers educators DO NOT tell anyone that reading the same book every night to their fetus is required, or the only way to bond with your child. You are employing a straw-man argument to vilify a worthwhile program.

Comment by Kevin Sargent — March 18, 2010 @ 4:15 p.m.
I’ve commented before about PAT, a program I just cannot fathom. I never wanted anyone else telling me what to do with my four babies. And they grew up just fine. We read to them, not because someone told us it was “good for them,” but because it was darned fun. We sang for the same reason. And when they cried, we loved them, and made it all better. Made them good food and taught them how to be nice to others.

And all this without a PAT person telling us or “encouraging” us.

And to Kevin: Sarah is not betraying ignorance; she is responding to what a PAT participant wrote on her blog. Maybe that PAT parent is ignorant.

One of Sarah’s previous posts addressed a mom who was obviously doing PAT for a third child. Again, I can’t understand why the lessons with the first child don’t carry over to a third. Which makes me think there’s some other reason that people do PAT – it’s not for “education.”

Comment by ray — March 18, 2010 @ 5:01 p.m.
I do not believe that corporal punishment is lawful (or least at a prosecutor’s discretion) so I would not want one part of the gov saying one thing and another saying something else. I would have no problem with people saying, ‘here is what works for me’ or this is what [insert public or private group that advocates for children, yes, a choice must be made] says is effective. You will rarely get unanimous agreement on anything.

During the pre-birth classes I attended (which were subsidized by someone as they were free), there was a video showing the terrible effects of ’shaken baby syndrome’. I didn’t think to say ‘hey, this is only a theory. How about showing babies who were shaken and everything turned out ok?’ The presenters of the class had a bias against shaking a child, and I am totally ok with that, regardless of whether the program was subsidized by the gov.

The government subsidizes/teaches lifestyles/philosophies all the time, from vaccinations, one woman-one man marriage (certainly not polygamous marriage anywhere), racial equality (I also wait for the day when people advocate to ‘teach the controversy’ in both evolution and race-based slavery, not), home ownership and even condoms, and their non-pregnancy/non-std uses, in some places.

Maybe Parents as Teachers is low hanging fruit, but I just don’t see a significant, if any, injustice to the parents or the children. There may not be enough upside to justify the cost to the taxpayer, I don’t know. That seems to be part of what you are saying, and I may agree, but I don’t agree with, ‘Parents as Teachers is teaching biases/opinions/theories, and those things have no place being funded by the gov.’ I am on a different side of that.

Comment by Papillon — March 18, 2010 @ 5:20 p.m.
Sarah, all I have to do is win that PAT teachers are sufficiently trained. They may be laypeople or volunteers of some nature but it appears the training is effective and incorporates the latest in data-based child rearing. It also appears PAT has a fairly robust and viable method to ensure that their training is effective, even if short. You present literally no evidence that these people are any less than qualified.

I also answered your argument earlier which I don’t think you read, so I’ll copy and paste just so it’s obvious:
The third problem is that you’re ascribing an entire position to this educator on the basis of an non-comprehensive blog post. While it appears to be the case that this educator probably says “read the same book as often as possible to your child” it’s not fair to conclude that the educator doesn’t endorse “sing the same song to your child every day, or talk to him/her frequently, and yes these are acceptable substitutes for reading a book”.

You also don’t grasp the logical gains to scale from repetition itself, so I could probably defend that the science implies that the reading the same book strategy is probably part of an optimal strategy for cognitive development.

Comment by Eapen Thampy — March 18, 2010 @ 5:25 p.m.
I don’t understand the repeated attacks of PAT on this site.

The referenced blogger was unable to sleep and overwhelmed by the amount of information given in the two hour class, not specifically on the tidbit on repetition. Then at the end of the post she admits:

“And all of that was in 2 hours. Maybe that’s why I can’t sleep…maybe my brain is still overloaded. Nope, I think it’s because I’m so uncomfortable and the little man apparently can’t figure out a comfy position ’cause he’s all over the place and HURTING my right ribs in the process!”

I can understand why people complain about the press taking their quotes out of context…

Comment by DaveG — March 18, 2010 @ 10:56 p.m.
Ray,

The great thing is that the big bad government isn’t FORCING you to sit and meet with a PAT educator. It’s OPTIONAL. Why can’t people fathom that what they might not need may be essential for someone else?!?!? It’s twisted thinking that says, “I won’t pay for anything that doesn’t serve me.” The same people think that their elected representative was elected to serve ONLY them. It’s a difficult logic to respect.

Comment by Gerard — March 18, 2010 @ 11:13 p.m.
[...] Last week, I blogged about some advice a Parents as Teachers participant received from a program representative. She says she was told that she “needed” to read to her unborn child every day, and that it was important to read the exact same book each time. I criticized this advice as lacking a scientific basis; in addition, it’s liable to provoke anxiety or unrealistic expectations in parents. [...]

Pingback by Public Programs Should Substantiate Claims About Child Development | www.statehousecall.org — March 23, 2010 @ 11:39 a.m.
@Ray Four kids, and you applied the same parenting skill set the same way to each child? No differences in feeding, temperament, intellectual and motor skills between them? No difference in your response to each child? Surprisingly, most parents with multiple children talk about the differences among them and the new things they learned each time, both about their child and about themselves. Guess you might be the exception, or perhaps it’s just that we don’t always notice when we’re learning. As far as the kids turning out all right, it is rather remarkable how well children can thrive despite the odds.

Comment by george — March 24, 2010 @ 10:14 p.m.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Categories

There are several problems with this argument. The first is that we have to assume the presenter was an expert on infant development. It’s implausible to believe a program like Parents as Teachers doesn’t have guidelines on who can teach classes or present scientific or medical information. So yes, Sarah, this is basically someone’s opinion; the problem is that you assume without any basis that the person is not an expert.

The second problem here is that you unfairly compare what is probably considered a parenting “best practice” (pre-natal reading with repetition) with what are probably parenting “second best” practices (reading, singing, conversing without repetition in a post-natal stage). We can think of parenting best practices in linear terms; best practices means things like pre-natal reading with repetition and second-best practices involve less focus. So yes, you’re right. The bar for what is sufficient to ensure a functional child is probably not that high in terms of what the Parents as Teachers educator advocates. But the Parents as Teacher educator is not advocating simply what is sufficient and rather what is best.

The third problem is that you’re ascribing an entire position to this educator on the basis of an non-comprehensive blog post. While it appears to be the case that this educator probably says “read the same book as often as possible to your child” it’s not fair to conclude that the educator doesn’t endorse “sing the same song to your child every day, or talk to him/her frequently, and yes these are acceptable substitutes for reading a book”.

The fourth problem is probably the worst. It’s that you’re flat out wrong about the state of medical knowledge. There is a consensus and plenty of research out there that establishes the specific value of repetitive linguistic interaction with fetuses. This article is a good survey of the literature; though specific to prenatal music stimulation contains evidence that this is a field with much research: http://www.birthpsychology.com/lifebefore/sound1.html

There is of course some debate over specifics. But by and large your claims that these ideas have no scientific or research backing are spurious and might have been corrected with a quick google search.

Comment by Eapen Thampy — March 18, 2010 @ 7:28 a.m.

I don’t think you are giving parents/people enough credit to sift through information and determine what works for them and what doesn’t. Most people know that child rearing strategies are guidelines, from where ever they come from, and should not be taken as gospel, regardless of who gives them. Speaking of gospel, The /Bible, Word of God to believers, teaches corporal punishment. Prov 29:15: “The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame” among other passages. Yet, many (most?) Christians and Jews don’t practice corporal punishment. Hmm.

If many people are able to ‘cafeteria’ their sacred texts, I believe that they can pick and choose from what ‘official, state sponsored’ people tell them.

It can be argued that Parents as Teachers is a waste of money (I never quite got around to participating) for a bunch of reasons, but I don’t think that parents are unable to discern ‘absolute musts’ from ‘ideas worth trying’ is one of them.

As an aside, today it is virtually impossible to run tests on children these days due to informed consent requirements and such so proving, or disproving, anything about treatments/care given to them is really not feasible.

Comment by Papillon — March 18, 2010 @ 11:52 a.m.

Thanks for the comment. Your analogy to parenting advice from the Bible is fascinating. What if Parents as Teachers used public funds to promote corporal punishment? Would that be okay because people might pick and choose, disregarding that advice just like they disregard it in the Bible?

Any time the government endorses particular philosophies or lifestyles, I find that to be problematic–even if, as you say, most people will take it with a grain of salt.

Comment by Sarah Brodsky — March 18, 2010 @ 12:09 p.m.

Sarah –

Yawn! Do you really find it problematic “any time the government endorses particular philosophies or lifestyles”? The government does this everyday to own benefit (queue the list of things you think they don’t do well) when they require a driver’s license to operate a motor vehicle, when they require drinking water be clean and on and on and on and on. The opposite believe who say that government should set no standards and expound no expectations. Blah. Parents as Teachers is not some unbending “you MUST raise your child THIS way” group. Have you had a meeting with PaT? I have. My wife and I talked about our baby, what we thought was challenging, our expectations, etc. and the PaT rep offered options, things we hadn’t thought of, things to try. While some ideologues are just SURE that everyone else is an ideologue (just on the other side), PaT is nothing like that. What’s “problematic” to you is a lifesaver for my family.

Comment by David — March 18, 2010 @ 2:48 p.m.

Can’t believe you’re quoting a blogger and then running with it. Do you actually think that Parents as Teachers really told parents anything more than they should try to read to their children often and it may be helpful to read the same book? You’re paranoid. I mean, how else to describe someone who gets up-in-arms about the big bad government telling someone its good to read to children. Those bastards! I mean, it should be up to each individual, God-Freedom-American-loving parent to decide if reading to children is good. Am I overstating your words. Yes, but your concern is ridiculous and diminishes the incredible asset that is Parents as Teachers.

Comment by Miriam — March 18, 2010 @ 2:56 p.m.

What I find very disturbing about this is that the writer seems to have zero understanding of what Parents as Teachers does or how they help. I agree with much of what David said and in addition I’ll say that our PAT meetings have been a big source of support for my family. We’re not from Missouri and so have no family close and none of our friends have a baby. Being new parents is challenging and I can’t imagine where we would be without PAT confirming that we’re doing most things right, making us feel good about our family and helping us address the challenges of parenthood. THANK YOU Parents as Teachers!

Comment by Kevin Sargent — March 18, 2010 @ 3:23 p.m.

Thanks for the comments, everyone.

Eapen, given that Parents as Teachers educators are not required to hold degrees in child development or medicine–and that they are trained through very short seminars–I don’t think we need to assume they are experts in those fields.

You’re right that there is a consensus that it’s beneficial to interact with fetuses. However, there is no consensus that the interaction has to consist of reading the same book every day. The study you link to addresses many different sounds, including music. This supports my point that there are multiple beneficial ways to interact with fetuses–such as talking or singing a song. I have not seen any study that finds reading one book to be the best way, and I would encourage you to link to that study if it exists.

Comment by Sarah Brodsky — March 18, 2010 @ 3:53 p.m.

Sarah,

You once again betray your ignorance. Parents as Teachers educators DO NOT tell anyone that reading the same book every night to their fetus is required, or the only way to bond with your child. You are employing a straw-man argument to vilify a worthwhile program.

Comment by Kevin Sargent — March 18, 2010 @ 4:15 p.m.

I’ve commented before about PAT, a program I just cannot fathom. I never wanted anyone else telling me what to do with my four babies. And they grew up just fine. We read to them, not because someone told us it was “good for them,” but because it was darned fun. We sang for the same reason. And when they cried, we loved them, and made it all better. Made them good food and taught them how to be nice to others.

And all this without a PAT person telling us or “encouraging” us.

And to Kevin: Sarah is not betraying ignorance; she is responding to what a PAT participant wrote on her blog. Maybe that PAT parent is ignorant.

One of Sarah’s previous posts addressed a mom who was obviously doing PAT for a third child. Again, I can’t understand why the lessons with the first child don’t carry over to a third. Which makes me think there’s some other reason that people do PAT – it’s not for “education.”

Comment by ray — March 18, 2010 @ 5:01 p.m.

I do not believe that corporal punishment is lawful (or least at a prosecutor’s discretion) so I would not want one part of the gov saying one thing and another saying something else. I would have no problem with people saying, ‘here is what works for me’ or this is what [insert public or private group that advocates for children, yes, a choice must be made] says is effective. You will rarely get unanimous agreement on anything.

During the pre-birth classes I attended (which were subsidized by someone as they were free), there was a video showing the terrible effects of ’shaken baby syndrome’. I didn’t think to say ‘hey, this is only a theory. How about showing babies who were shaken and everything turned out ok?’ The presenters of the class had a bias against shaking a child, and I am totally ok with that, regardless of whether the program was subsidized by the gov.

The government subsidizes/teaches lifestyles/philosophies all the time, from vaccinations, one woman-one man marriage (certainly not polygamous marriage anywhere), racial equality (I also wait for the day when people advocate to ‘teach the controversy’ in both evolution and race-based slavery, not), home ownership and even condoms, and their non-pregnancy/non-std uses, in some places.

Maybe Parents as Teachers is low hanging fruit, but I just don’t see a significant, if any, injustice to the parents or the children. There may not be enough upside to justify the cost to the taxpayer, I don’t know. That seems to be part of what you are saying, and I may agree, but I don’t agree with, ‘Parents as Teachers is teaching biases/opinions/theories, and those things have no place being funded by the gov.’ I am on a different side of that.

Comment by Papillon — March 18, 2010 @ 5:20 p.m.

Sarah, all I have to do is win that PAT teachers are sufficiently trained. They may be laypeople or volunteers of some nature but it appears the training is effective and incorporates the latest in data-based child rearing. It also appears PAT has a fairly robust and viable method to ensure that their training is effective, even if short. You present literally no evidence that these people are any less than qualified.

I also answered your argument earlier which I don’t think you read, so I’ll copy and paste just so it’s obvious:
The third problem is that you’re ascribing an entire position to this educator on the basis of an non-comprehensive blog post. While it appears to be the case that this educator probably says “read the same book as often as possible to your child” it’s not fair to conclude that the educator doesn’t endorse “sing the same song to your child every day, or talk to him/her frequently, and yes these are acceptable substitutes for reading a book”.

You also don’t grasp the logical gains to scale from repetition itself, so I could probably defend that the science implies that the reading the same book strategy is probably part of an optimal strategy for cognitive development.

Comment by Eapen Thampy — March 18, 2010 @ 5:25 p.m.

I don’t understand the repeated attacks of PAT on this site.

The referenced blogger was unable to sleep and overwhelmed by the amount of information given in the two hour class, not specifically on the tidbit on repetition. Then at the end of the post she admits:

“And all of that was in 2 hours. Maybe that’s why I can’t sleep…maybe my brain is still overloaded. Nope, I think it’s because I’m so uncomfortable and the little man apparently can’t figure out a comfy position ’cause he’s all over the place and HURTING my right ribs in the process!”

I can understand why people complain about the press taking their quotes out of context…

Comment by DaveG — March 18, 2010 @ 10:56 p.m.

Ray,

The great thing is that the big bad government isn’t FORCING you to sit and meet with a PAT educator. It’s OPTIONAL. Why can’t people fathom that what they might not need may be essential for someone else?!?!? It’s twisted thinking that says, “I won’t pay for anything that doesn’t serve me.” The same people think that their elected representative was elected to serve ONLY them. It’s a difficult logic to respect.

Comment by Gerard — March 18, 2010 @ 11:13 p.m.

[...] Last week, I blogged about some advice a Parents as Teachers participant received from a program representative. She says she was told that she “needed” to read to her unborn child every day, and that it was important to read the exact same book each time. I criticized this advice as lacking a scientific basis; in addition, it’s liable to provoke anxiety or unrealistic expectations in parents. [...]

Pingback by Public Programs Should Substantiate Claims About Child Development | www.statehousecall.org — March 23, 2010 @ 11:39 a.m.

@Ray Four kids, and you applied the same parenting skill set the same way to each child? No differences in feeding, temperament, intellectual and motor skills between them? No difference in your response to each child? Surprisingly, most parents with multiple children talk about the differences among them and the new things they learned each time, both about their child and about themselves. Guess you might be the exception, or perhaps it’s just that we don’t always notice when we’re learning. As far as the kids turning out all right, it is rather remarkable how well children can thrive despite the odds.

Comment by george — March 24, 2010 @ 10:14 p.m.

March 17, 2010