Babies & TV

[MrsPete]

It bothered me, much later on, when the study came out about TV and children under 2 and how it affects brain development and attention span. So, for that reason, I do think that strapping a 4 month old in a seat in front of a TV is not a good thing. How about putting her on a blanket with a few toys and some of those rubber books that she can chew on?

Sesame Street is also the worst possible show for kids to watch. When it was developed, the idea was to teach kids in SHORT, EASY SEGMENTS; the idea was to help disadvantaged kids who aren't being read to, etc. at home -- the idea was that it'd give them a leg-up on school. Since kids pay attention to commercials, the Sesame Street folks patterned their show after them; thus, most of the SS show is filmed in little, disconnected 60-second shows. One minute of counting, one minute of kids playing, one minute of the letter M . . . that's not good for kids' attention span. It teaches them to pay attention for a very short period of time, then look for a different stimulus.

Back in the 70s (when SS was about the only kids' show available), they did studies on kids who were heavy SS watchers and kids who had never seen the show, or who had seen it only occasionally. The kids who were heavy watchers began school with a strong advantage -- they could repeat their ABCs, knew numbers, etc. However, the non-watchers passed them in 2nd grade (or was it 3rd?), and the heavy SS watchers never caught up to them. The real winners, however, were the kids who had read books with their parents; whether they watched SS or not, they began school at an advantage and consistantly stayed ahead of their peers. It's the difference between active and passive learning.

Source: Education class in college

My opinion: All things in moderation. A little TV is okay, a lot is bad. But I didn't let my kids watch SS; instead I let them watch Barney and Arthur. I also agree that a 4 1/2 month old would be better off on a blanket with a couple toys.

 

[Bob Slydell]

Back in the 70s (when SS was about the only kids' show available), they did studies on kids who were heavy SS watchers and kids who had never seen the show, or who had seen it only occasionally. The kids who were heavy watchers began school with a strong advantage -- they could repeat their ABCs, knew numbers, etc. However, the non-watchers passed them in 2nd grade (or was it 3rd?), and the heavy SS watchers never caught up to them. The real winners, however, were the kids who had read books with their parents; whether they watched SS or not, they began school at an advantage and consistantly stayed ahead of their peers. It's the difference between active and passive learning.

Source: Education class in college

If it made no difference whether or not kids watched Sesame Street, as long as they were reading books as well, how can you say that SS is the worst show for kids to watch?

 

[Maleficent13]

If it made no difference whether or not kids watched Sesame Street, as long as they were reading books as well, how can you say that SS is the worst show for kids to watch?

I was wondering the same.

 

[golfgal]

Sesame Street is also the worst possible show for kids to watch. When it was developed, the idea was to teach kids in SHORT, EASY SEGMENTS; the idea was to help disadvantaged kids who aren't being read to, etc. at home -- the idea was that it'd give them a leg-up on school. Since kids pay attention to commercials, the Sesame Street folks patterned their show after them; thus, most of the SS show is filmed in little, disconnected 60-second shows. One minute of counting, one minute of kids playing, one minute of the letter M . . . that's not good for kids' attention span. It teaches them to pay attention for a very short period of time, then look for a different stimulus.

Back in the 70s (when SS was about the only kids' show available), they did studies on kids who were heavy SS watchers and kids who had never seen the show, or who had seen it only occasionally. The kids who were heavy watchers began school with a strong advantage -- they could repeat their ABCs, knew numbers, etc. However, the non-watchers passed them in 2nd grade (or was it 3rd?), and the heavy SS watchers never caught up to them. The real winners, however, were the kids who had read books with their parents; whether they watched SS or not, they began school at an advantage and consistantly stayed ahead of their peers. It's the difference between active and passive learning.

Source: Education class in college

My opinion: All things in moderation. A little TV is okay, a lot is bad. But I didn't let my kids watch SS; instead I let them watch Barney and Arthur. I also agree that a 4 1/2 month old would be better off on a blanket with a couple toys.

While I see your point, your reasoning is flawed. It isn't the show that is bad, it is the parenting that is bad in these cases. If SS gave these disadvantaged kids a leg up to start school, GREAT. What was then missing in their lives was something to follow up on that early learning. If SS did a show for intermediate grades 3-5, then one for 6-8th grades, these kids would have followed the same learning curve they did for the early grades. The point is, these kids DID learn things from the show and since they were not getting it elsewhere, that is GREAT!!!! Source, real life (and my education major in college too).

I LOVED SS as a kid. I still remember many things I learned on that program. I was an honor student in high school and college, no issues from SS here. I also want to know what a heavy SS watcher is. The show was on for one hour/day Monday-Friday. We didn't have VCR's and video's to watch over and over again. It was self moderating.

I have 3 kids. They all watch/watched tv as infants, toddlers and even now. It is entertainment for them but they don't watch it all the time. DS14 LOVED Oprah as a baby, the talking heads. He would babble to them all the time when he was an infant. He was talking in full sentences by 18 months. Did watching Oprah make a difference, who knows. Did it cause ADD, NO! Some people get on a bandwagon about the stupidest things. You can look at any statistic and skew it any way for your own purposes. Find the thread about eating bread and how 95% of all criminals eat bread or something silly like that.

 

[kejoda]

I remember the boys loving some of the commericals that have music in them. My oldest loved the Save by the bell intro. We would watch that then he would go take a nap. He used to fight naps until that became part of the routine. Thanking about it now I probably should of had it as part of the bedtime routine too.

 

[puffkin]

Count me in as a bad parent

My son, who is almost 5 months old, watches TV. Maybe my child is different, but he has never seemed like a baby to me...from birth he would be wide awake for LONG stretches of time. He gets bored. There are only so many things you can do to entertain an infant, especially one that can't quite sit on his own. I read to him, let him kick on a blanket with toys, give him tummy time, put him in the exersaucer, put him in the swing, put him in the high chair with a few toys, go on walks with the stroller. However, sometimes he is still bored, and sometimes I NEED to get things done at home. So I pop a Baby Einstein DVD in and let him watch it. He loves the colors and music.

I rationalize that it is better to put him in front of something quasi educational rather than just the TV. Does this make me a bad parent? I hope not, and I don't really care what any studies say. Yes, sitting him in front of the TV for hours everyday is a bad thing, but I see nothing wrong with a half hour here or there.

Oh, and I agree with the previous poster about banning things will only make the kid want it more

 

[katerkat]

At that age, my son loved Good Eats. I think it was Alton's hair.

And if he didn't watch Playhouse Disney, how would he know the characters when we go in December?

 

[KimR]

I didn't mind my kids watching TV at all when they were younger because at that age it was so interactive. They'd get up and sing, dance, and clap with the Wiggles or Barney. Even while watching the Disney movies, my oldest used to memorize the lines and reenact the scenes. I just looked at it as another form of stimulation. (Never heard the ADHD connection). Besides, at that age, they'd watch for a while and then move on to something else.

It's when they get older and sit in front of the TV for hours on end that I have a problem with. I can look at them and tell they are totally zoned-out on the TV. Now, A half-hour of so to decompress after school is fine, but after that I think it gets to be detrimental.

 

[tiggersmom2]

Nope, I don't see a thing wrong with it. What I do find irritating is mothers that have nothing better to do than criticize and critique other mother's parenting.

 

[ozarkmom]

When my little brother was a baby he loved The Price is Right especially when they would spin the wheel. If he was in the room while it was on he'd get really excited. Finally mom started putting him in his swing or walker when it was on and he would flap his arms like a bird whenever they would spin the wheel. Watching him entertained us and we still laugh about it. By the way he was a great student and has a great job.

 

[TerriP]

Nope, I don't see a thing wrong with it. What I do find irritating is mothers that have nothing better to do than criticize and critique other mother's parenting.

 

[Aidensmom]

Nope, don't think it is a problem. It sounds like she was just giving the baby a diversion so she could enjoy a little adult time. Some kids, even at that age, are more fascinated with some things than with others and it will keep their attention a little longer. Just because the baby was in front of the TV during your visit doesn't mean that the child will watch TV 24 hours a day for life or anything like that.

 

[Poohgirl]

at 4 1/2 months old, my son would love to lay on his back and stare at the ceiling fan going around, and around, and around I can't say if that is any better or worse then sesame street!

The baby Einstein DVD's are great and some are made for newborns. My son had these as an infant and it was amazing what he learned from them while watching swinging in his swing. I am a believer

 

[KirstenB]

No problem here. DD2 (11 mths now) and I watch Sesame Street together. I did with DD1 (8 years old). I've heard it's not recommended before 2, but each family needs to do what makes sense for them.

 

[N&B'smom]

I have no problem with that either. When my daughter was very small at dinner time I would put her in her swing and pop on a Wiggles DVD. She LOVED watching the colors and movement and listening to the music. My son enjoyed that when he was small too. I didn't sit them in front of a TV for hours. But I believe a little bit here and there is no problem!!

Shelby

 

[diznygirl]

DS loved to watch basketball in his bouncy seat. He was about 4/5 months old when he started this - lucky for us it was NCAA basketball and then NBA championship season!

I see no problem with it - and I also don't see any problem with any particular show - all these adult opinions and studies and the world hasn't exploded or anything yet!

 

[cteddiesgirl]

As long as it's not done a lot, I see no problem with a baby that age seeing and hearing Seseme Street. It's educational.
And seeing so many kids going into preschool and kindergarten that barely know how to recite the alphabet, I'd say, learning earlier is better.

Now if it was some sort of useless programming, I would object.

 

[schnerk]

As a father of 2 dd's (17 months and 3 yo) I personally see no real problem with it. My oldest dd loved Baby Einstein and Sesame Street. As a At-home-Dad, I know that there were time, especially once #2 came, that I needed those 30 minutes to feed the baby, fold laundry, look for my sanity.

Overall, I think that TV is a parents choice and that a lot of these "experts" are basing their findings on predetermined studies. I bet that I could find you a lot of High School Valedictorians who watched tv before they were 2. It seems to me that the real problem is people not interacting with their children, whether it comes from sitting them in front of the tv or shipping them off to school and letting the teachers raise them.

Overall, it is the parents choice/responsibility to decide what is best for their kids. What works for me and my family may not work for everyone.

 

[grlpwrd]

I let me kids as babies watch tv, too, but nowadays there is concern about using bouncy seats. Apparently, exersaucers are not good for kids because they impede walking and development.

My 8yo, 3yo, and 1yo are on an Alice in Wonderland kick. It's all entertainment to them.

I think it depends on how you use any kind of technology and whether you don't let it interfere with other important parts of your life. Because our kids are growing up in an information age, technology will be part of their lives regardless. They need to know when to unplug and when they need to immerse themselves in using technology, such as for work, school, or for entertainment. They need to learn when to read, play, etc. and not to sit in front of tvs or computers as they grow up.

We need to all learn how to assimilate technology in our lives. Just like me using my computer and DIS'ing...it's all about planning.

 

[hpygrll]

I'm on all the controversial threads today!!!

I'm sorry but I would have been lost without Baby Einstein DVDs - My DH and I called it Baby Valium!!!!!!! Thank God for Baby Einstein and a vibrating bouncy during the first year of both my boys lives.....of course they're still young so the jury is still out on permanent damage.

Jenny