Public Programs Should Substantiate Claims About Child Development
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.
This incident brings to mind a program that was introduced in Georgia back in 1998. The state distributed free classical music tapes and CDs to the parents of newborns, in hopes that listening to the music would stimulate babies’ cognitive development.
In both cases, public programs inappropriately extrapolated from scientific research to prescribe parenting behaviors. Babies can enjoy music — and psychologists have debated the existence of a “Mozart effect” — but that does not mean all babies need to listen to CDs for healthy development. Likewise, research shows that fetuses can detect sounds and that young brains learn from repetition, but that does not imply that reading one book every day will be beneficial. It’s worth noting that despite the research on repetition, repetitive exposure to Baby Einstein language videos has been shown not to help babies’ linguistic abilities. The manner of repetition makes a difference. It’s not sufficient for Parents as Teachers to point to studies about repetition in general; the program would have to show that this specific repetitive activity has a positive effect.
It’s been brought up in our comments section that Parents as Teachers might endorse other ways of interacting with fetuses. This could be true. Similarly, if pressed, Georgia’s governor might have been forced to admit that country music has as much chance of promoting development as classical music. But what matters is the advice that was actually conveyed by the program. When participants honestly come away from a class under the impression that they need to do one particular thing — and I have no reason to believe the blogger I linked to was trying to misrepresent Parents as Teachers or make it look bad — we should evaluate whether that activity is as important as the program claimed. If Parents as Teachers never intended to promote one activity over others, then the program needs to do a better job of communicating with parents so they don’t form erroneous conclusions.
Why don’t you stick to writing about things you actually have experience with?
Comment by Eapen Thampy — March 23, 2010 @ 11:54 a.m.
That seems rather harsh coming from someone who has recently blogged about solar power, fair tax, Republican delegates and local food. Do you have something substantive to criticize about the post, other than the fact that Sarah does not have a child in PAT?
Comment by Caitlin Hartsell — March 23, 2010 @ 1:17 p.m.
I don’t think it is fair to include PAT in this post with the current evidence provided. The linked blog from what is likely a lone, soon-to-be, first time mother that repeatedly admits she was totally overwhelmed at a presentation she attended about caring for children. If you read the blog, she appeared to be very distracted by many different things during the presentation. Who knows if what she heard is the same as what was said by the PAT rep. I see no other evidence anywhere of PAT requiring parents to perform such acts.
I performed some due-dilligence on my own and looked over PATs official site and found nothing stating that a parent “needed” to do anything remotely close to what that one blogger was saying. (I do not claim to have reviewed the entire PAT site.) I also Googled around on the Internet to no avail.
I would be very suprised if PAT ever made a statement that all parents are required to perform a specific act for all children. Their mission is to provide information and encouragement to families. It is up to the parents to decide what they will or will not do for their child.
I don’t understand the repeated attacks of PAT on this site…
Comment by DaveG — March 23, 2010 @ 2:52 p.m.
That is why we have commenters, Dave G, so that people can defend things such as PAT. I have certainly disagreed with Sarah on aspects of her posts on Parents as Tearchers. However, I agree that PAT should be subject to the same level of budget cuts as any other program during the current budget situation.
Comment by David Stokes — March 23, 2010 @ 2:58 p.m.
I agree with you, David Stokes. PAT should most definitely be subject to the same level of budget cuts as any other program during the current budget situation.
Comment by DaveG — March 23, 2010 @ 3:09 p.m.
Caitlin, your point is somewhat fair, and I know I’m a little harsh here. But fairly so. I come to this blog because I think that the SHow-Me Institute does a really good job in general and a lot of the work here is pertinent and worthwhile.
But Sarah’s posts contain almost as much sheer blind speculation as anything else. Consider this: at no point does she present any relevant research, sticking instead to comments like “this is a nice theory, not a confirmed research result” when a simple google search reveals that there is a HUGE literature existing. Blind speculation works if you get things right, or if you’re a really original analytical thinker like Robin Hanson, but not when you get basic facts wrong.
Here’s a good criticism of the post: Sarah makes blind assumptions about how Parents as Teachers has used scientific research to form their curricula. She does this on the basis of her misreading of 1) a non-authoritative blog post that was roundly criticized in her last post and 2) an LA times blog post about a DVD instructional video for post-natal infants (the original argument was about parental interaction with pre-natal children, not passive television watching in post-natal infants.). It’s absolutely unfair to Parents as Teachers to level such charges against them without actually finding out what they do and advocate. To this point, Sarah hasn’t presented anything but hearsay and poorly made arguments that miss vital distinctions. This is poor work if the answers can literally be found through google.
As for your comment: on my latest posts:
1. My post on solar power was expository (I posted an excerpt). I made no argument, so there’s no comparison.
2. My argument on the fair tax is analytically based, not data based, but insofar as there is an argument there, I’m not presenting blind speculation. Insofar as I’m making an argument, I’m not straying far from the literature or theory in the field. I get my facts right.
3. The republican delegates post was my derivative work based on someone else’s data. I found data, did work on it, and put it through a visualizer (Tableau Public fyi). So I’m presenting my work that is 100% expository graph of a dataset.
4. I will defend I’m an expert on local food. I have been researching the subject for 10 years, I managed a high end restaurant and worked with a chef who used almost a lot of local produce, and I have a certification relevant to the topic.
Comment by Eapen Thampy — March 23, 2010 @ 3:10 p.m.
Hey, check it out!
http://www.parentsasteachers.org/atf/cf/%7B00812ECA-A71B-4C2C-8FF3-8F16A5742EEA%7D/finalSACreport1.pdf
FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS FOR THE
PARENTS AS TEACHERS PROGRAM
Final Report of the Scientific Advisory Committee
Parents as Teachers National Center
submitted to the
Board of Directors
Parents as Teachers National Center
Committee Members
Donna Bryant, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Linda M. Espinosa, University of Missouri, Columbia
Karen A. Guskin, Parents as Teachers National Center
Brenda Jones Harden, University of Maryland
Douglas R. Powell, Purdue University (Chair)
Arthur J. Reynolds, University of Wisconsin, Madison
Susan S. Stepleton, Parents as Teachers National Center
Penelope K. Trickett, University of Southern California
Barbara HannaWasik, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
October 2003
They actually
Comment by Eapen Thampy — March 23, 2010 @ 4:02 p.m.