"Your Baby Can Read"...or can it?: Child Development Experts Weigh In On Popular Baby Product
The Today Show recently launched an investigation of the popular product “Your Baby Can Read”, a system of flashcards, DVDs and pop-up books which boasts that it can teach children as young as two or three to read. The product, which retails for $100-$200, is available everywhere from the manufacturer’s own website to retail chains such as Best Buy and Bed, Bath & Beyond.
As part of its investigation, Today Show staff enlisted the help of child development experts from some of the nation’s most prestigious universities to assist in determining whether children who had used the product were actually able to read. The experts unanimously found that the babies or toddlers touted as being able to read had merely memorized the cue cards repetitively presented to them through the “program”. One expert, Dr. Maryanne Wolf, Direction of Neuroscience at Tufts University went so far as to call the product’s marketing “an extraordinary manipulation of facts”. The findings of Dr. Wolf and her fellow child development experts are premised on the scientific truth that while young children can recognize or memorize certain words with repetitive exposure, the brains of infants and toddlers are just not developed enough to “read” at the level that enticing television ads might suggest.
Dr. Robert Titzer, the product’s creator, maintains that the 10 experts enlisted by the Today Show are all simply “wrong” and insists that his product and its claims are backed up by scientific research. However, when asked by Today Show investigators to produce the scientific data, he provided only customer satisfaction surveys and general studies related to child learning.
While Dr. Titzer, whose PhD is in the unrelated field of human performance (motor skills), won't disclose specific details as to how much profit the product has generated, the company claims to have sold more than a million kits. Though the popularity of “Your Baby Can Read” is undisputed, the same cannot be said for its efficacy and we invite you to share with us your personal experiences with the product.
We have purchased this package and when we called to get refund they did not want to refund us. we want to learn about this suit..and how can we be apart of this suit? who do we contact
My mother purchased this product for our child and began the program at 2 or 3 months of age. Well before her first birthday my child recognized words not just on flash card or in books, but in every day life. We could even write out a word on a piece of paper and she recognized it. She was by no means reading a book, but she had a large vocabulary that was familiar to her. She could point to all of her body parts when asked, which is part of the program as well. I have nothing but good things to say about the program and believe it does work. I had no expectation other than what was presented by the television ads and feel that they lived up to my expecatations with their product. It actually exceeded my expectations on what my child could do and for that, I am grateful to my mother and to "Your Baby Can Read." It is disappointing to see they are involved in this lawsuit, and disappointing that people are trying to discredit the good work they do. All children are not the same, and all parents/caregivers are not equally diligent in going through this program with their child. Not all children will have the same results. Aside from the program we did read with our child, and encourage her to use words and signs in communicating with us. There are many methods out there, this particular one just enhanced her learning experience, I believe. She still reviews her books and cards, and watches her videos weekly for review. And she still enjoys them, as well as a few other children's programs she watches. I hope this does not downplay the good that "Your Baby Can Read" has done for some children. (I want to add that we had no payment issues as I have seen many people state on the internet. I do understand that issues with payment are cause for concern and agree that should be corrected. Again, however, we did not have that experience.)