cutter@apple.UUCP (Mark Cutter) (04/25/85)
In article <ihuxn.1026> popeye@ihuxn.UUCP (D. Saylor) writes: >The question I have is what importance does the crawling stages >have for the development of a child. >... I refer all parents out there to: Better Baby Institute 8801 Stenton Ave. Philadelphia, PA 19118 Glenn Doman, who started the institute, has written several books. I recommend 'How to Multiply Your Babies Intelligence' as the one to start with. The people at the institute have found a definite correlation between growth of certain areas of the brain, higher abilities such as reading, and length of time spent creeping and crawling. They probably know more about how the brain grows, its impact on reading, writing, math, physical coordination, etc, and how to present the greatest possible opportunities for enhancing growth in these areas than just about anyone else in the world. I first heard of the institute from a friend who claimed to be teaching his 2 year old to read. I chastised him for almost two years for submitting his son to such undue pressure. Last year I visited them for the first time since their kid was born (they live 1000 miles away), and to my amazement, I found a well adjusted, happy, brilliant 4 year old who was a kid in every sense of the word, loving to play, full of fantasy, etc. The difference was that he could read, do math, play violin, do gymnastics, etc, and loved it! I felt embarassed for categorically putting down something that I obviously knew so little about, and proceeded to learn more about it. I read some of their books, and had the opportunity to spend 10 days at the institute last fall. It was one of the highest times of my life; I was moved to tears every day I was there. I saw incredibly well-rounded kids from 4 to 9 years old: reading at a high school level (japanese as well as english!), doing analytical geometry and algebra, who knew over 2,000 works of art, doing olympic gymnastics, running a mile, and playing violin. The most amazing thing was that all of these kids could do all of these things. And to watch them play! They played like any kids, but their creativity was an order of magnitude greater, because they had tools to play with that were an order of magnitude more sophisticated. To see 4 year olds improvising on a violin, or 6 year olds doing a dramatic reading! Through the institute's books and courses I've learned how to be a real parent, providing the greatest possible opportunities for my son to grow in all areas, in a proactive sense, rather than a passive spectator of the normal, trial and error process of learning. My son learned to swim starting at 6 months, and at 10 months, could swim halfway across a pool, before he could walk. Now, six months after starting other aspects of the program, my 20 month old still doesn't read, but does know a few words, knows over 100 kinds of dogs, 150 kinds of animals, 50 kinds of birds. I take much greater joy in seeing him learn, and do not hesitate to explain complicated phenomena to him. This doesn't come for free. You never spend more than 5 minutes at a time on any one thing, but you may do it dozens of times a day. Some things take months before you see any results, other things days or weeks. But it is all incredibly worthwhile, and provided it is done properly, your kids gain immensely. But it has to be done properly, without any pressure or ego stroking of the parents. It has to be something done for your kids, not for you to brag to your peers about. Our policy is to never put our son up for show, and never even talk about what he can do. That way we keep ourselves in check. Doman is completely against pressuring kids to do anything, and so am I. In fact, he absolutely forbids testing your kids in any way, shape or form, as it does not enhance the learning process whatsoever, and is done solely for the parents gratification. All you do is learn how to make learning fun, something that few of us have experienced as children, given the educational system we all had to go through! Kids learn anyway, and if you present something to them in the right way, they will learn it. Kids that grow up in multi-lingual households are multi-lingual by the time they are three without any pressure whatsoever. I encourage all parents to read his book, and if possible, visit the institute. It will greatly enrich your relationship with your kids, and if you put it into practice, provide them with unparalleled opportunities for growth. Mark Cutter Author/Developer of MacDraw and LisaDraw Education Research Group Apple Computer Inc. UUCP: {ucbvax!mtxinu, nsc, dual, idi, voder}!apple!cutter CSNET: cutter%apple@CSNET-RELAY ARPAnet: cutter@apple.ARPA -- Mark Cutter Author/Developer of MacDraw and LisaDraw Education Research Group Apple Computer Inc. UUCP: {ucbvax!mtxinu, nsc, dual, idi, voder}!apple!cutter CSNET: cutter%apple@CSNET-RELAY ARPAnet: cutter@apple.ARPA
mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) (05/05/85)
In article <49983@apple.UUCP> cutter@apple.UUCP (Mark Cutter) writes: >Doman is completely against pressuring kids to do anything, and so >am I. In fact, he absolutely forbids testing your kids in any >way, shape or form, as it does not enhance the learning process >whatsoever, and is done solely for the parents gratification. I beg to differ. We've had Matt on Doman's reading and math programs for about 6 months now. I started out doing it "by the book", and after a couple of weeks I discovered that the real motivation behind "don't test your child" is "if you test your child, you'll discover he really isn't learning any of this." You very quickly go through material that is claimed to be sinking in, but that the child really doesn't understand at all, then you go on to more advanced things and the child is completely lost. The child thinks it's neat, but learns random things like "anything plus anything equals two." We had to make a fairly drastic change to the program after discovering that it just won't work as written. We now do lots of testing. In fact, each lesson probably has over 50% of the time doing testing. The key here is that things are still very positive. Whenever Matt gets an answer right (which is most of the time) he gets praised - ON EVERY CORRECT ANSWER. Even the most mundane things that he's done many times before with ease get a "good!" and most answers get "very good!" or better. My tone of voice is quite excited when it's something that isn't routine, and if it's something new it's practically a celebration. I don't think Matt feels pressured to do anything. We don't show him off (in fact, if he does his lesson with others watching, he gets distracted and doesn't do so well.) He seems to really enjoy the lessons, and he often asks "wanna do reading" or "wanna do dots." He seems to me to be an especially happy, well adjusted 2 year old. (However, he's always been like this. I don't know what we did to deserve such an ideal child, but I hope we did it again in time for the second one.) I can make some comments about Doman's math program. What Doman claims and what actually happens are quite different. Doman claims that the child is subconciously counting the dots, so that when he sees 37 sheep or 37 cars or 37 pennies he'll instantly know there are 37 there; he claims that the child is looking at the number, not the pattern. At least in the case of Matt, he is clearly looking at the pattern. I could put out 9 pennies in a random arrangement and he would not recognize them; moving them into the same shape as on the 9 card, he instantly knew it was 9. Now that we've gotten into the bigger numbers (we're up to 36), he can recognize them pretty reliably, but if I hold the card upside down or sideways, he is lost. He also sometimes gets two similar numbers confused if they have similar patterns (e.g. 17 and 19 happened to have similar shapes.) I am very skeptical of the claim that "he already knows what addition is, you are just showing him the notation". We are just now getting into addition on the second pass (see above for the results of the first one 12 months ago) and the jury is still out. So far my impression has been that the child has no concept of addition, although he certainly knows the sequence of numbers. Doman's reading program has an undocumented weakness, too. While the child learns to recognize words by their overall pattern, this pattern is recognized (and stored away) as a picture, not as a sequence of letters. This may be good for the program, but you quickly discover that the child is only able to read the word "mommy" if it is a particular size, color, font, and capitalization. If you change from the Helvetica font to the Times Roman typical of children's books, he can't read it. We used hand drawn words, done exactly according to the directions, and then ordered the kit through the mail. When the kit arrived, we lost about 3 days while we changed from the hand drawn font to Helvetica. Right now, we're reading sentences, and he has trouble with the first word in a sentence because of the initial capital letter. He seems to be getting more comfortable with different point sizes as he sees more examples, but at some point he's going to have to insert a layer of letter recognition underneath what he's learning now or he'll never be able to read the wide variety of fonts that are out there. Mark
smuga@mtuxo.UUCP (j.smuga) (05/06/85)
> I am very skeptical of the claim that "he already > knows what addition is, you are just showing him the notation". We are > just now getting into addition on the second pass (see above for the > results of the first one 12 months ago) and the jury is still out. So > far my impression has been that the child has no concept of addition, > although he certainly knows the sequence of numbers. > > Doman's reading program has an undocumented weakness, too. While the > child learns to recognize words by their overall pattern, this pattern > is recognized (and stored away) as a picture, not as a sequence of letters. > This may be good for the program, but you quickly discover that the > child is only able to read the word "mommy" if it is a particular size, > color, font, and capitalization. If you change from the Helvetica font > to the Times Roman typical of children's books, he can't read it. We > used hand drawn words, done exactly according to the directions, and > then ordered the kit through the mail. When the kit arrived, we lost > about 3 days while we changed from the hand drawn font to Helvetica. > Right now, we're reading sentences, and he has trouble with the first > word in a sentence because of the initial capital letter. He seems to > be getting more comfortable with different point sizes as he sees more > examples, but at some point he's going to have to insert a layer of > letter recognition underneath what he's learning now or he'll never be > able to read the wide variety of fonts that are out there. > > Mark *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** Relax. As children grow up, they seem to develop the ability to read and do arithmetic. I base this statement on my observations of my children (now 6 and 8 years old) and their friends. About the time my older child approached school age, she and several of her friends began to do addition. For several weeks addition fascinated her; it popped up in every conversation (e.g. me- "Today we're going to the library." her- "Mom, six and three make nine.") All of this seemed to happen spontaneously; that is, none of the parents had been coaching the children, so far as I know. Likewise with reading. Evelyn began to recognize words at an early age and built up a large vocabulary of words she knew on sight; but it was not until she reached school age that she began to sound words out. At three she knew that c-a-t spelled "cat", but not until she was five or six could she go from that to working out what m-a-t might spell. What I'm trying to say is that there is a readiness factor at work in children's education. And generations of children have learned to read and do arithmetic without the Better Baby Institute.
mim@ihnp3.UUCP (M. K. Fenlon) (05/06/85)
> In article <49983@apple.UUCP> cutter@apple.UUCP (Mark Cutter) writes: > >Doman is completely against pressuring kids to do anything, and so > >am I. In fact, he absolutely forbids testing your kids in any > >way, shape or form, as it does not enhance the learning process > >whatsoever, and is done solely for the parents gratification. > > I beg to differ. We've had Matt on Doman's reading and math programs > for about 6 months now. I started out doing it "by the book", and > after a couple of weeks I discovered that the real motivation behind > "don't test your child" is "if you test your child, you'll discover > he really isn't learning any of this." You very quickly go through > material that is claimed to be sinking in, but that the child really > doesn't understand at all, then you go on to more advanced things and > the child is completely lost. The child thinks it's neat, but learns > random things like "anything plus anything equals two." > > We had to make a fairly drastic change to the program after discovering > that it just won't work as written. We now do lots of testing. In fact, > each lesson probably has over 50% of the time doing testing. The key > here is that things are still very positive. Whenever Matt gets an > answer right (which is most of the time) he gets praised - ON EVERY > CORRECT ANSWER. Even the most mundane things that he's done many times > before with ease get a "good!" and most answers get "very good!" or better. > My tone of voice is quite excited when it's something that isn't routine, > and if it's something new it's practically a celebration. > > I don't think Matt feels pressured to do anything. We don't show him off > (in fact, if he does his lesson with others watching, he gets distracted > and doesn't do so well.) He seems to really enjoy the lessons, and he > often asks "wanna do reading" or "wanna do dots." He seems to me to be > an especially happy, well adjusted 2 year old. (However, he's always been > like this. I don't know what we did to deserve such an ideal child, but > I hope we did it again in time for the second one.) > > I can make some comments about Doman's math program. What Doman claims > and what actually happens are quite different. Doman claims that the > child is subconciously counting the dots, so that when he sees 37 sheep > or 37 cars or 37 pennies he'll instantly know there are 37 there; he > claims that the child is looking at the number, not the pattern. At > least in the case of Matt, he is clearly looking at the pattern. I could > put out 9 pennies in a random arrangement and he would not recognize them; > moving them into the same shape as on the 9 card, he instantly knew it > was 9. Now that we've gotten into the bigger numbers (we're up to 36), > he can recognize them pretty reliably, but if I hold the card upside > down or sideways, he is lost. He also sometimes gets two similar > numbers confused if they have similar patterns (e.g. 17 and 19 happened > to have similar shapes.) I am very skeptical of the claim that "he already > knows what addition is, you are just showing him the notation". We are > just now getting into addition on the second pass (see above for the > results of the first one 12 months ago) and the jury is still out. So > far my impression has been that the child has no concept of addition, > although he certainly knows the sequence of numbers. > > Doman's reading program has an undocumented weakness, too. While the > child learns to recognize words by their overall pattern, this pattern > is recognized (and stored away) as a picture, not as a sequence of letters. > This may be good for the program, but you quickly discover that the > child is only able to read the word "mommy" if it is a particular size, > color, font, and capitalization. If you change from the Helvetica font > to the Times Roman typical of children's books, he can't read it. We > used hand drawn words, done exactly according to the directions, and > then ordered the kit through the mail. When the kit arrived, we lost > about 3 days while we changed from the hand drawn font to Helvetica. > Right now, we're reading sentences, and he has trouble with the first > word in a sentence because of the initial capital letter. He seems to > be getting more comfortable with different point sizes as he sees more > examples, but at some point he's going to have to insert a layer of > letter recognition underneath what he's learning now or he'll never be > able to read the wide variety of fonts that are out there. > > Mark Are you sure this activity is leading to reading and math learning? There are so many readiness activities to learning that I feel are missed by this over zealous push to get kids to learn by our mind set and not by the mind set of the child's age. If the kid does not recognize the word with the change of font than the child is not ready for the activity. A 5 or 6 year old with no word attack skills would not have problems recognizing a word even with a change of font. READ TO YOUR KID! Most kids have few problems learning the recognition and word attack skills for reading. The children who fall behind do so because of comprehension problems that would happen even in situations where the material is read to the child. The things to work on both prior to and during the first few years of reading instruction are: comprehension(listening as well as reading) -what happened -why -how reading between the lines infer what is not stated Montessori, one of the leaders in preschool education, felt that children have "periods of sensitivity" for learning certain things. Let the child direct the education during these early years, by his or her own interests and abilities. You might learn something from your kid too if you let nature be a little freer. Mary
rwh@aesat.UUCP (Russ Herman) (05/09/85)
I too purchased the math and reading kits of the Better Baby Institute.
I confess I haven't been terribly diligent about their utilisation, but
I have made observations similar to Mark Horton's.
First of all, the kid *does* like to do the activities. He also asks
"Let's do dots" or "I want words". Those aren't the only times I
interact with him, so it's not that this is the only way he can get me
to spend time with him.
When I first looked at the dots, I was concerned about the issue of
pattern recognition. Consequently, I rotated the cards 90 degrees at
each presentation. Not at all surprisingly, he didn't seem to get the
hang of it. His grasp seems to be about three - then he has to count,
and still won't accurately if they're randomly strewn objects.
As for the flashcards, I was pretty ambivalent about them, since I have
strong leanings toward a phonics approach. Joel learned the alphabet
before starting with the cards, and then was taught sounds to associate
with the letters. This is consistent with the "Sesame Street" approach
(which I beleieve is the REAL key to early reading in today's kids). As
a result, he has NO difficulties with font changes (from Doman's cards
to books to the C-64 character set to ...). I wound up making my
own flashcards of words that were meaningful to him (toys, favorite
foods, animals) rather than using the kit.
On the issue of testing, I think I know what Doman is getting at, but
I don't agree with it either. However, in the beginning, my "testing"
was pretty subtle, running like
1) present word
2) pause a few seconds
3) sound initial syllable
4) pause a few seconds
5) sound next syllable
6) go to 4 until done
Eventually the kid is going to say the word, even if he's just
repeating it after I've said it. Then, PRAISE. Also, I'll stop in the middle
of reading to him and ask him to sound out a word occasionally. Having
had a brief introduction to CAI, I came away with the idea that learning
and testing should be intermixed, not separate steps.
Unfortunately (?), neither Mark nor I have been sufficiently rigid to
do it exactly by the book. Has anyone else tried, and to what degree
of success? As well, I confess to skepticism about flash cards to
teach the kids paintings, flowers, etc. etc. - too close to the useless
clutter knowledge of my school days.
--
______ Russ Herman
/ \ {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!aesat!rwh
@( ? ? )@
( || ) The opinions above are strictly personal, and
( \__/ ) do not reflect those of my employer (or even
\____/ possibly myself an hour from now.)cutter@apple.UUCP (Mark Cutter) (05/10/85)
In article <cbosgd.1135> mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) writes: >I beg to differ. We've had Matt on Doman's reading and math programs >for about 6 months now. I started out doing it "by the book", and >after a couple of weeks I discovered that the real motivation behind >"don't test your child" is "if you test your child, you'll discover >he really isn't learning any of this." Six months is a *very* small sample time to be making such broad generalizations. Having seen kids that have been on the program for years, I can assure you that kids do learn all of it, and have an uncanny ability to intuit the rules behind the facts. However, I can also sympathize with your comments. My own experience is that kids grow incredibly fast, and will respond differently to parts of the program as they grow. In our case, Justin initially showed little interest in words and dots. After 6 weeks of very little exposure he suddenly became very interested and would even bring the words or dots to me to show him. Then after 3 months we started showing him bits (pictures). He took off like a rocket on the bits, and for four months didn't want to have anything to do with words or dots. Now he is very into words again, learning them rapidly. I asked people at the institute about this, and they said 'if he doesn't want to do words, then DON'T do the words! He'll come back around sooner or later.' And he did. >We had to make a fairly drastic change to the program after discovering >that it just won't work as written. We now do lots of testing. We too started sneaking in testing, quite by accident. Showing him a book of dogs one day, I said 'Pyrenean Mountain Dog', and before I could point it out on a page of 8 other dogs, he pointed to it himself. I went through six pages of dogs, with six to eight dogs per page, and he pointed each one out as I said its name, with no prompting. We thought this was pretty neat, and for a week or two showed his grandparents, our friends, etc. This eventually got to be counter-productive. Doman says that kids get tired of the whole thing if you keep it up, and we found that Justin would lose interest when asking him things that he already knew, and would sometimes walk away. My tendency is still to test him, but I do it much more subtly and very infrequently. When showing a series of words, bits, etc, every so randomly often I'll hesitate in saying the thing, and he'll often fill in the word. He is just now beginning to talk, and loves to try and articulate. He even repeats the word if I say it first. >and what actually happens are quite different. Doman claims that the >child is subconciously counting the dots, so that when he sees 37 sheep >or 37 cars or 37 pennies he'll instantly know there are 37 there; he I don't believe that Doman would actually say this, since counting involves a sequential activity. Doman says that kids learn quantity without having to count. Initially kids learn by pattern recognition, but so do all human beings. We are really just elaborate pattern recognizers. What makes it so elaborate is that we learn to intuit the rules. In the case of the dots, yes, initially the kids learn the patterns, but later on learn a more abstract level of the pattern, namely quantity. I have seen kids first hand that can differentiate 96 dots from 93 dots, regardless of how they are arranged. Keep at it and your kid will one day surprise you. >Doman's reading program has an undocumented weakness, too. While the >child learns to recognize words by their overall pattern, this pattern >is recognized (and stored away) as a picture, not as a sequence of letters. >This may be good for the program, but you quickly discover that the >child is only able to read the word "mommy" if it is a particular size, >color, font, and capitalization. This is categorically inaccurate. Maybe initially kids have trouble with different fonts, sizes, etc, but it goes away as they are exposed to different character styles. They learn one further level of abstraction. I have seen three-year-old kids that read words whether serif, sans-serif, bold, capital, or hand-printed. It is a very common tendency for adults to believe that because kids can't talk very well yet, or don't have a lot of manual dexterity that they can't possibly learn such abstract things. But they can. Learning to recognize words in different fonts is simple for kids. Wait until he starts reading words that he has never seen before! After seeing literally thousands of words, he begins to recognize common parts of words, and will sound out words he hasn't been exposed to yet, based on familiarity with the parts. Now that is amazing! Congratulations on having done the program for six months. Many parents don't even have an open enough mind to look into it at all. Of those that do, many don't stick with it for more than six weeks. You are definitely over the biggest hurdle. Do try out bits, and if you are ever near Phila, definitely stop by the institute. mark cutter
cutter@apple.UUCP (Mark Cutter) (05/10/85)
In article <mtuxo.671> smuga@mtuxo.UUCP (j.smuga) writes: >What I'm trying to say is that there is >a readiness factor at work in children's education. And generations of >children have learned to read and do arithmetic without the Better Baby >Institute. There are also generations of children who have never learned to read or do math. In fact, some estimates range as high as 40% of the graduating high school students today can't even read their own diploma. My goal in doing the reading, math, bits, swimming, music or any other program with Justin is not to force him through these things early, but to give him the opportunity to be exposed to them. Familiarity with anything when a child is young (less than six) makes it easier for him to learn that thing later. Witness foreign language. Many people hold that if you are not exposed to foreign language before age 10 that you will never become fluent in another language, no matter how hard you try. Yet if a child grows up in a multi-lingual household, he will be fluent in multiple languages by the time he is three! Work that into the readiness factor. mark cutter
smuga@mtuxo.UUCP (j.smuga) (05/14/85)
> In article <mtuxo.671> smuga@mtuxo.UUCP (j.smuga) writes: > >What I'm trying to say is that there is > >a readiness factor at work in children's education. And generations of > >children have learned to read and do arithmetic without the Better Baby > >Institute. > > > There are also generations of children who have never learned to read > or do math. In fact, some estimates range as high as 40% of the > graduating high school students today can't even read their own > diploma. > > Familiarity with anything when a child is young (less than six) > makes it easier for him to learn that thing later. Witness foreign > language. Many people hold that if you are not exposed to foreign > language before age 10 that you will never become fluent in another > language, no matter how hard you try. Yet if a child grows up in > a multi-lingual household, he will be fluent in multiple languages > by the time he is three! Work that into the readiness factor. > > mark cutter My first posting was intended to reassure; it was in response to a parent who worried whther his child would progress to reading via the Institute's approach. My answer was "yes" with or without the Institute. And, yes Mark, you did detect some skepticism. The truth is, I don't know much about the Better Baby Institute. Based on what I've read in postings on the net, the methods sound very much like many of the things my husband and I did with our children in an unstructured, informal way. The most important word in my first posting is one you didn't quote: "relax". I've found that my kids seem to grow up just fine in spite of all the good I've tried to do for them ;-). Since I have no experience with it, I'll try to withhold judgment on the Better Baby Institute, and I hope you will agree that it may not be the only route to raising intelligent children.
mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) (05/14/85)
Mark Cutter's comments are insightful, and I appreciate being able to benefit from his experience. For the most part, I think I agree with him. For example, Matt is now beginning to develop the ability to read different fonts. Addition is coming slowly, and so far I think he's just memorizing addition tables. I do hope the rule will form in his mind from the examples, but so far it hasn't. One thing we're doing that Doman doesn't suggest is working with pennies. The are the same size and shape as the dots, and as long as the table they sit on (Matt does this stuff sitting at a wood desk) contrasts reasonably well, and the pennies are arranged in the same shape as the dots, he can recognize them. Using pennies allows me to change the shapes and to show addition much more graphically than the card method Doman suggests. One quibble: >>and what actually happens are quite different. Doman claims that the >>child is subconciously counting the dots, so that when he sees 37 sheep >>or 37 cars or 37 pennies he'll instantly know there are 37 there; he > >I don't believe that Doman would actually say this, since counting >involves a sequential activity. Doman says that kids learn quantity >without having to count. Quoting from page 95 of "Teach Your Baby Math" (paperback version), where he refutes common explanations others come up with to explain the child's apparent brilliance: 2. The child isn't actually perceiving the dots but instead is actually recognizing the pattern in which they occur. (Nonsense, he'll recognize the number of mem standing in a group, and who can keep people in a pattern? Besides, why can't *you* recognize the seventy-five patterns on the seventy-five dot cards he now knows at a glance?) I could swear there is a comment about sheep in there somewhere, too, but I can't grep the book. I'm inclined to go with Mark Cutter's analysis, but this is not how I read Doman's claim. Matt can recognize up to 4 objects reliably, in any shape. Up to 6, sometimes. Beyond 6, he depends on the shape. (This is the situation today, maybe it will change.) I showed him a greeting card yesterday with 11 Canadian geese on it, and asked him how many geese there were. He started to point his finger at it and count them. He missed half of them, partly because he doesn't have a system for keeping track of which ones he's counted, and partly because there were some groups of 2 and 3 geese he counted as one. As to Doman's last sentence above, when Matt and I were starting dots, he and I developed the ability to recognize the numbers up to 20 at about the same rate, and we were both recognizing patterns. Beyond 20, I changed methods so I could handle the cards faster (he's a whiz at recognizing dots, we're up to 44 now.) I now look at the backs of the cards (so I can read the numeral on the card) and don't see much of the fronts. I claim (without having actually tried it) that had I been looking at the fronts as much as Matt, I could do as well. If anyone out there is getting ready to do dots, I encourage you to try this and see if it's true. (You could put the card down on the desk rather than holding it up, this will be a bit slower but in retrospect it shouldn't matter, I hope.) Or have the other parent sit next to the child. Mark Horton
brahms@spp3.UUCP (Bradley S. Brahms) (05/19/85)
[}{]
I missed the begining of this discussion on the Better Baby Institue.
Could someone please send me information or tell me where I can find out
information about the BBI? Thanx.
-- Brad Brahms
usenet: {decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!trwrb!trwspp!brahms
arpa: Brahms@usc-eclc