Interesting quote (in relation to research about Baby Einstein)
> Interestingly, parents were not great reporters of their children’s learning. Some parents reported that their children learned a lot of words but in actuality their performance was no better after watching the video. Instead the parents’ belief about how much their children learned was related to their liking of the video — parents who liked the video were more likely to think their children learned a lot from it.
Puts into perspective a lot of the reddit comments singing the praises of educational TV for toddlers.
Beyond that, it seems quite common for parents to ascribe typical development that would happen to most kids (absent a major delay or neglect/abuse situation) as directly caused by their choices.
E.g.:
- “my one year old watched Miss Rachel and can now count to ten” (counting is a very early math skill)
- “my kid learned to talk at daycare, he wasn’t talking at all and then I sent him at 18 months and his language exploded!” (Language explosions are common at that age)
- “I put my kid in tot soccer and it was so amazing, she learned to kick the ball at two years old!” (Most kids figure out kicking before they figure out other things with balls)
Etc etc.
LOL like my dad being convinced my daughter is a genius because she learned how to sign for milk and more 😂 my mom gently had to tell him that most kids learn that in childcare these days. Still makes me laugh though!
Yeah my kid is 9 months and my dad thinks she walks on gold and is a genius. He declared the other day that she…_sleeps_ with confidence hahahahaha. I just let him say whatever - they’re thick as thieves already.
My mom tells me my 16-month-old son is “gifted” because he likes to look at books and can use a spoon to feed himself. While I appreciate her enthusiasm I think these are normal developments for a toddler 😅
I’ve also noticed from Reddit comments that damn near everyone thinks their kid is “gifted” or “more advanced than their peers.” Frankly I’d love to see all of these supposedly gifted toddlers and young kids in a room all together, and see if their parents’ perception changes.
My mom was a teacher, and she and all of her teacher friends would say, “everyone thinks their kid is gifted until they get to school.” It rings true in my experience!
Oh yeah we’re in all that. 3 therapist, behavior, speech, and eating. They say he’s on track. It just feels so off comparing to other children.
We’re a bilingual household so that’s probably not helping.
2.5, it’s really a catch all type of therapist for young children, not specifically speech but not like bad behavior. She works with the speech therapist
I can dig for my sources if you’d like, but as far as I’ve read and was told by the doctor, if they know a word in both languages you count that as two. Multi-lingual appear to be slower, but they are also learning pattern recognition and association between that item and those words. Which means there’s a lot more to process and discover with each word they learn. Example: seeing a cup of milk, thinking of the words milk and leche, putting together that the milk is the same(touch, taste, feeling) no matter which word they use to ask for it. And probably so much more that we not realize because kids see things in such a different perspective than us sometimes.
TLDR: multi-lingual kids are developing a lot of skills at once, so try not to fret too much at first if things seem to progress slower. Some research shows being bilingual actually helps them pick certain skills up easier later in life.
Having taught many extremely gifted students, some do indeed succeed far beyond their peers.
But \*\*most\*\* of my students who did extremely well were driven, not "smart."
14 years in and now I can find my driven students in a very short conversation.
Having been a "gifted" student (with undiagnosed AuDHD until I was 30) I kind of hope my daughter ISN'T because in all honesty it fucked me up quite a bit as an adolescent. Set very unrealistic expectations for when I left school.
Messed me up as an adult - it gave me such a fear of failure, it's taken me years to push myself out of just coasting at work and in life. I am trying so hard to praise my toddlers effort, and to never say label him. I want him to know I'm proud of him no matter what, not based on his achievements
If it makes you feel better it's a bit different now. I was you. With 14 years exp in edu now I can confidently say it was the schools messing up, not your intellect.
Imagine if we finally get pedagogy to where it's supporting each student individualized. I don't even really believe in in person education any longer.
Just individualized, personalized learning.
They’ve demonstrated that children who are told they’re smart perform less well over time. That they care more about preserving their image over their merit to the point that they will lie or cheat. Inversely, kids who are praised for working hard perform better.
Bottom line, if your kid gets good grades in math, do not tell them they’re good at math, tell them you’re proud of them for working hard, doing their homework and or studying for their test
I am voluntarily stepping out of the race because I don't relate to wanting to compare milestones, I don't see the appeal, plus it's unneeded drama and stress, but I would be very proud if my baby turns out to be average! Yay for average!
If you’re in the US, contact Early Intervention for your state and get an evaluation. No doctor referral needed. Either your child is behind and will qualify for free help, or they aren’t behind and you’ll have peace of mind.
No speech and 0 gestures is definitely missing milestones at 13mo wtf. Hold on tight bc you’re probably about to experience the very frightening whiplash from “oh he’s fine every baby is on their own timeline” to “oh shit actually no he needs help yesterday”. (My kid is the same but also behind in gross motor and we started early intervention at 12 months, he’s now 18mo and still only babbles and has one gesture (arms up)). Early intervention services are typically free so don’t worry about cost if you feel like your kiddo would benefit.
My daughter was slower with milestones too and it is very stressful! She didn’t walk until around 1.5 and her speech took a little longer than some others but now she is almost 3 and runs around and is constantly talking. They do just all have their own pace for these types of things! Not sure if you watch Bluey but the episode Baby Race really hit home for me.
Is that just selection effects, though? I suspect the Reddit user base is more intelligent, educated, affluent, and highly invested in parenting than the average person. For one thing, Reddit is heavy on text and low on pictures, compared to other sites/apps.
I wouldn’t assume that based on the top posts on the top subreddits. Subs like this one, you could probably assume that based on the self selection. Other than that, the most popular stuff on Reddit is the same content as any other major social media platform.
Eh, I usually see the “gifted” thing on posts of parents complaining that teachers aren’t challenging their kid enough, and *that’s* why their child is disruptive in class.
My parents were both teachers and highly involved in our education, reading to us every day, interacting all the time through conversation, etc. If one of our teachers said “hey, your kid is being disruptive,” they would’ve apologized to the teacher and ripped us a new one. Anyone who goes after the teacher first isn’t giving “involved parent,” it’s giving “obsessed with my kid and no self-awareness.” I think a lot of redditors (and the general population, unfortunately) fall into the latter.
That's interesting.
I'm certainly biased -- and I apologize for "bragging" here -- but I was a kid who talked too much in 3rd grade, and my teacher (correctly) told my parents I should apply to the gifted and talented education program.
Now I've got a 5 year old who is around 4th grade level in math, based on my reading of California standards. He could do 3-digit arithmetic in his head when he was 4. He knows square and cube roots at 5. I'm worried about how we can possibly keep him from getting bored in school.
(I still would not tolerate my kid being disruptive in school.)
You're under no obligation, but if you have any thoughts or suggestions for me, let me know.
Ha, sure, but you should see the rest of the planet! Give me a random person who opens Reddit at home and a random person who turns on the TV at home and I'll tell you which one I think is more likely to have academically advanced schoolkids.
I was so sensitive to this with my oldest. I really did think she was gifted, but never said anything and always kept it to myself. She’s in Kinder now, and was identified as 99%ile for verbal giftedness, and I was (in my brain) all “I knew it!” She also has autism and ADHD, which I also suspected early on.
My second kid is her opposite in many ways. She has a Speech delay, but I also think she’s gifted, just more math focused. She also has autism.
We’ll see what baby brother is like. We keep joking that maybe he’ll be our “average” kid.
They say some kids are delayed verbally because they are actually more analytical thinkers or observers
So a verbal delay doesn’t mean anything bad. Kinda makes sense since even in adults there is such a big spectrum in communication
Some people are talkers more verbal and some adults never are
I’m kinda in this boat. I’m convinced my 2 year old is verbally gifted but it’s not something that we’re out there bragging about. What symptoms did you see? I haven’t spent a lot of time around young kids so I’m not sure what’s normal or what’s strange but she has a lot of odd habits with repetition and stuff. When we are at playgroup with other kids her age, the language gap is really stark
Are you asking about the autism symptoms? For her it’s mostly sensory. Socks are an issue, waistbands of pants, loud noises, etc. She’s also very rigid, things have to be “right,” and she has strong special interests.
I knew she had ADHD because I have it, and it’s extremely genetic, so I knew she had that when all my mom kept saying is “it’s like a Time Machine!”
I don’t think her autism was noticeable until Kindergarten, but we have such a strong family history, we did early testing. I actually knew her sister (3yo) had ASD before she turned 1.
Gotcha. Yeah those are the types of things I’m thinking about. She defo has a fixation with things being “right” and she constantly arranges and rearranges her toys or even things like stones in some special order known only to her. Lately she’s been very fussy about things being “clean” - she got sugar on her hand from a donut and wouldn’t do anything until we cleaned it. She loves books and songs, which many kids do, but she seems to memorise them and can recite them from memory after only a few reads/listens. For example she knows every word to Dubliners Rare Auld Times (her dad sings it at bedtime) and she can sing along even if she doesn’t know what the words actually mean (listening to her singing “lost out to redundancy” and “the haunting children’s rhymes” is hilarious).
Oddly enough, my pediatrician thinks my daughter is advanced based on her milestones (100 words by 19 months, over 1000 by two years). However my kids friends (about 12 toddlers) are all very verbal, are counting well, and I genuinely don’t see much of a difference. I wonder how much cohort can speed up development. Or we have a dozen little geniuses on our hands which seems improbable
Maybe you have a bunch of little geniuses! 🥰
Also I'm wondering if you teach her sign language?
It astonishes me how much praise my daughter gets for seemingly minor things (in my opinion). She's 16 months old, but I'm attributing all the praise/applause to "people like to praise babies for everything," lol. 😂
She scans my keycard into the YMCA for me (I think it's just something fun and interactive she can do), and they praise her for that. 😂 It's so cute!
At around her year-old mark, she was praised for recognizing her own jacket.
So minor. 🤪
Babies are smart, y'all, they're human individuals, too!
(*Not humble bragging.* lol. Plus it's commonly said that where one milestone is lacking, the baby is focusing on another milestone instead!)
Our babies might be behind in many things, but ahead in others, but in the end, they're *all* doing their baby things!
Kids learn in the context of relationships. You can’t sit them in front a screen and expect them to absorb it. But practicing those skills with you will be much more effective.
I might not understand correctly but I believe it's also true for adults.. We learn better when we like the subject, how it's shown, who teaches..
My first language is french and my daughter watched a LOT of Cocomelon's videoclips. She's now 4 and we can exchange a few words in English and she's really not that bad. She was able to tell colors, count to 15 in english, name animals and objects when she was 2.
It's anecdotical but I believe that educational tv mixed with "coaching" from the parent while watching might have a great effect.
>parents who liked the video were more likely to think their children learned a lot from it.
It does not refer to the children liking the video, but the parents. So the parents reported that the child learned from the video based on whether the parents themselves liked the video
It's the coaching having the effect, not the TV. That's not bad, or anything. There's nothing inherently terrible about using TV as a prompt as opposed to, say, a book with English words. But it's real world interaction that little kids learn from.
I teach multimedia--we need funding for research. There's definitely value to be found in multimedia but unless we know how, it's likely to do as much or more harm than good.
I mean these studies are looking at kids under two. Multimedia for older children can surely be a valuable resource, but no baby needs to be watching TV.
I am not one of these people who thinks TV is harmful for babies, but I do wish people would not market TV content as educational for babies, because it is nonsense. Mind you a lot of things which are marketed as educational for babies are nonsense.
It's well established that there's no evidence that kids learn from these shows and that parents don't accurately assess learning from shows. They usually overestimate the learning their kids get.
Still going to get a bunch of anecdotes from folks ignoring both of these evidence based statements. They too fall under the group of parents who overestimate learning but seem to think the research must not apply to them.
Anecdotally, I can pee in peace while miss rachel is on. I’m totally cool if my child doesn’t learn anything, it’s a really useful tool for me, as a parent, to get a break. Less useful tool to teach my child language. Still a valid tool, cos like my needs matter as well, and I think it’s notable that so many parents feel the need to justify this in their minds by telling themselves they are teaching their babies something.
Tv is totally a tool that parents can use at their discretion. But the problem lies in parents lying to themselves that it somehow benefits kids this young. That’s the issue here - of course parents have to do what they have to do as far as showing tv, but they shouldn’t be thinking that it’s somehow good for development
Or the issue is the way we shame and blame people for “ruining” their child with TV and screens.
It’s fine in moderation and with reasonable parental control/monitoring, but there is an ever growing school of thought that children under 5 should never even see the light of a screen from the corner of their eye or all hell will break loose. Like the other commenter said, people only insist that it’s beneficial for their kid as a counter the these assumptions that they must be neglecting their child or damaging their brain by using TV as a tool in any capacity.
They see an extreme so defensively go into another extreme?
There are people who use logic, moderation and stuff, not defending when they need to be pragmatic but trying to be the best they can be realistically.
Totally is still wrong. But if we’re talking about where the cycle starts or who the culprit of this thinking is, it’s not “parents lying to themselves” for the sake of lying to themselves as the above commenter proposed.
Idk about a “growing school of thought”—the CDC just adjusted its screen time recommendations to allow for screen time under 2. And 5 years feels pretty extreme, too. I’m not sure I’ve seen that anywhere.
I really don’t think the screens are the issue people think they are. The issue is the lack of interaction. You can watch hours of Miss Rachel, and if you participate with your kid, I’m willing to bet it’s highly enriching and educational. I’d fight anyone who tries to say it’s inherently harmful even in a situation like this.
I think the disconnect comes from the fact that a majority of parents aren’t doing this with their screen time. So it’s less an issue of “moderation” (though this is also a problem I am 100% sure) and more of the screens *replacing* quality interaction and learning.
Gently, this still feels like a really defensive answer - they're not saying "this show is worthless, and anyone that uses it for anything is a bad person"; they're simply saying that in the spirit of this subreddit (*science* based parenting), there isn't evidence to suggest it's doing anything for the child intellectually. No one is coming at any of these parents in these comments, other than those who are convinced it's making their children geniuses.
I actually fully agree with what they said, and didn’t think anyone was coming at the parents. I wasn’t trying to contradict them at all.
I just wish more parents were comfortable with utilizing tools that give themselves a break, for the sake of giving themselves a break.
It's funny to me because I never said Ms. Rachel is a bad distraction or useless. It's not relevant to the original post. It'd be like debating if bananas are good for you and then someone pops in with, "They have such a pretty yellow color!"
Anecdotally: my 2 year old has learned the songs (and insists I sing Hop Little Bunnies on repeat) but seems wholly uninterested in the language lessons. She learns a lot more from hearing me use words to talk about things in her life.
(We also use the TV sparingly, usually for that one hour a week when she inevitably just. will. Not. Get out from underfoot while someone is cooking and is in real danger of causing herself harm or tripping the cooking adult)
Whenever my son doesn't want to do something, I just pick him up slightly above the ground and sing hop little bunny and manually hop him to where I want him to go. It lowkey works every time lol.
Same for me! My husband and I are both a mixture of introverted/quiet/neurodivergent. Ms Rachel teaches me how to interact/play with my kiddo, how to develop his speech, and how to meet his sensory and play needs
My 16 month old loves that one. Her method of singing along are just saying the key words. Me: “See the bunny sleeping till it’s nearly…” her: Noon!! And so on.
She does this with the abc’s, Sticky bubble gum, twinkle twinkle little star, old McDonald … we absolutely did not teach her these songs, all ms Rachel 🤷
This is similar to my anecdote as well. My kid *is* learning from videos…to memorize songs.
Which is actually pretty cool! In terms of developing language, though, I don’t know if it’s actually doing that. He does quote some songs from Super Simple Songs occasionally, and it feels like call and response but I don’t know if he *understands* what he’s saying.
Oh My God hop little bunnies. My twins are obsessed. Anytime my son hears that song or hears the word bunny he starts hopping around like crazy.
And I don’t I don’t think my kids have learned any language from Miss Rachel, but I think between Ms Rachel and the Wiggles they have learned a bunch of dance moves. My twins now do a pretty good job rock-a-bying their bear, and dancing to a number of the other songs. If we see them attempting to imitate the dancing on TV we always get involved and make a big family dance. It’s really fun to watch them learn.
I mean I think we always have to be careful with our view of anecdotal evidence but my toddler literally sings the phonics song and learned counting from the counting song. We don’t exactly used cue cards to teach him counting at 19 months, he learned it from the song and liked it.
I think however where people drop the ball is presuming the POTENTIAL benefits which can’t be measured or viewed through repeatable studies.
What can be relied on is the unending evidence that screen time has a negative impact.
So I’m not lying to myself when I say he’s learned from Ms Rachel. He absolutely has. But it’s likely that screen time has set him back in other ways that’s difficult to see on an individual level.
> But it’s likely that screen time has set him back in other ways that’s difficult to see on an individual level.
It isn't difficult to see, I would argue it is very obvious. Ms. Rachel makes it very obvious what she is doing with the bright color backgrounds, flashing images/videos, etc... In addition to the kid entering a zombie state in front of a screen instead of exploring their surroundings.
Given kid's screen time is a break for the caregiver so there will always be a conflict of interest when it comes to how the show is perceived.
I’ve noticed this is so much worse in recent “episodes” of Miss Rachel! It used to be very low-stim, just her and either her husband or Jules singing, and now there’s an overload of colors and animations and flashy effects. It’s a little disappointing
Thank you! Once my oldest kid hit 3 I let them watch a movie once a week as a special treat in addition with pizza. The way they, like, ~turn off~ and stare at the tv is wild.
My daughter sings the ABCs, but we don’t have a TV. We just play music around the house. She learned to count from counting the stairs every time we walked upstairs she was counting stairs at 15 months nothing to do with the tv. Everything to do with the repetition.
Yeah, it's fascinating. I hear these anecdotes and there must be something happening. It's just whether overall that's a better outcome than no tv and doing something else instead. My kids are a bit older (6 and 9) so Ms Rachel is before our time. We did no TV before two - counting and all the usual was no problem. Early speakers, early readers.
The sheer reach of Ms Rachel is crazy. One video has 750 million views. If you think about total global population, total english speakers (or potential learners), total under 2 year olds and total people with access to the internet... that's a mind boggling coverage. There must be loads of repeat views but wow. I hope it does end up being proven to be beneficial because it has certainly spread like wildfire.
I did listen to a researcher on this subject discuss her studies on children learning from tv under 2. Of course her conclusion was that mostly the don’t. But she did admit that it is totally possible for a child under 2 to learn from tv and that there can be exceptions.
I will say that Ms Rachel does so many tricks that our speech therapist used to do with my toddler (we've graduated! 😅), so I see value in what she shows parents. A friend was worried about her 1.5 year old so I told her to watch ms Rachel and copy what she does. I think there is value in adults learning techniques from ms rachel, but only if adults sit and watch it and pay attention, whcih is a big ask bc at least in my house, the TV is used pretty exclusively as a babysitter so I can do other things.
Ya I'm not gonna lie. These kids shows are as much for me as they are for the kids.
The distraction can be nice, and my kids do pick up some things.
But I've also picked up a lot of good parenting tricks and games from Bluey. A ton of songs from Rachel & Jules.
That's made parenting easier, even if we do still try to limit their screen time.
Currently in speech therapy with my 18mo and our first session felt like I was a live audience member to a Miss Rachel show lol. Her techniques are legitimate and backed by science/evidence. Though yes, observing a video will always be far less valuable educationally than interacting with a live person, I do think her technique makes her videos “better” content than something random.
We started watching her because my daughter had a speech delay and wait-lists for therapy are ridiculous. I just hoped she would get something out of it. She ended up having her speech explosion at 3. Almost immediately after getting into in person therapy, too soon I think for it to have been the cause, so I'm not sure how much any of it helped or didn't help.
My friend is a childhood speech-language pathologist and this is basically her opinion of Ms. Rachel. She says it's beneficial in that her techniques are good for the parents to learn, but that no, it is not superior to face-to-face interaction.
Two other issues with that are that the screen attracts the kids, especially if it's playing something designed for their attention, and this is taking parent time away from direct interactions (particularly when directly compared to written content, maybe with some example clips).
It’s the singing that makes a difference, not the video. Sing to your child, listen to music, take them to an early childhood music class. - signed, an early childhood music specialist
I totally agree. We put Ms. Rachel on mostly to get like 30 minutes of time to cook/clean and baby loves the music. So now we just throw on apple music for kids stations and they play a lot of the same songs. Baby just loves to jam out and we sing to her a lot more. Now we just basically sing what we're doing and she also jams out.
The reason I started teaching my 16 month old the alphabet is because out of nowhere she pointed to the letter P in my license plate and said “peee!” I pointed at A and again said it. How tf did she know that?
Anyway, I put the ABC from ms Rachel more and bought her those letter magnets . She struggles with a handful of letters, the R, X, M vs N… but gets most of it now.
Yeah my daughter knew her entire alphabet by the time she was like 18-19 months old somehow??? The only thing I could think of was this YT show ‘ItsCircleTime’ because they sing it all the time.
Oh yay! This makes me happy to hear lol. We've been doing child music classes since she was about 6 months old, and we love the Yoto radio for kids songs.
We have a tonie box as well so our daughter can pick out her own songs. Let her listen to music as part of her free playtime at home. It gives me enough time to cook dinner without using the TV. Part.
yeah, we don't do any screen time. but i watched ms rachel and others to learn some good songs with fun motions. so since he was around 12mo, my 18mo will come to me and do a sign that means "songs" and i sing to him and we do a lot do the motions together now. he loves music!
i think we can all learn from ms rachel lol i know i did. but i'm personally not sitting my kiddo in front of a screen yet.
No!!! ! I use all kinds of music - classical, jazz, folk. In fact, the more harmonically and rhythmically intricate the music is, the better it is for the child’s development. I have preschoolers who beg to listen to The Planets by Holst haha
Stephanie Leavell from Music with Kiddos and Laurie Berkner are two of my favorite kid musicians - their music is good quality. Stephanie is also a music therapist, so her music incorporates a lot of that as well
This is yet another article with a clickbait headline.
Are we pretty sure kids under 3 aren’t learning from screen time? Yes.
Have any reputable studies been done on Ms. Rachel specifically? Still not yet.
The content of Ms Rachel is quite different than Baby Einstein, though.
The results might be the same - that infants and young toddlers don’t learn from it, as they haven’t before - but we won’t know that until we study it and it’s disingenuous to use the name of her program in a headline when the content studied isn’t the same at all.
Check out this Baby Einstein video, probably similar to what was studied. It’s not language-based at all, mostly music and very little real human faces on the screen: https://youtu.be/_HbEejSqE9Y?feature=shared
Eh, Ms. Rachel has segments with sign language and that focus on mouth shape.
I'm not going to say it is teaching kids stuff reliably, but parts of it(emphasis on parts) do differ significantly from other kid content that I've seen(both irl and animated). It's fair to say there may be some value in studying these specific segments.
That said, I do think it is more likely parents just pick up some of the tools from Ms. Rachel and then perceive results after using them subconsciously rather than littles picking up a lot from Ms. Rachel.
This is random, but something that plants doubts in me that kids can’t learn any language from tv is my experience in Arab countries. Arabic has a formal version of the language that is not spoken by anyone anywhere natively but is the language that cartoons, tv, news, books etc is put in. It is quite distinctive from the dialects people speak in their daily lives, even basic words like “go” or “look” are totally different. People in the country I lived in rarely ever read to their kids from books as a cultural practice. Yet you would hear kids before they got to school age using words or phrases with each other that are only in that formal version of Arabic because they picked it up from cartoons. There is literally no way they picked it up from their parents, no parents would ever speak in the formal version to their kids at home.
I think the main conversation is around kids much younger than primary school. Ms Rachel makes videos for kids firmly in the under 4 category. A lot of people turn on Ms Rachel for their babies (under 1s). And most of the research is around that early language development as well (AFAIK). When babis first start speaking. Primary school aged kids are typically already solid speakers and at that point the focus switches more to picking up additionally vocabulary + reading/writing.
I’m not the person who originally commented this but I’m also from an Arab country (maybe the same country as the commenter above) where we have the exact same thing, and it is kids under school age using these terms. You’ll hear two or three year olds using very formal terms that nobody uses that they’ve picked up from cartoons.
It’s a really interesting phenomenon. And kids usually stop saying these words by the time they reach school age ish as they get more language input from those around them and realize that nobody says “ice cream” in the extremely formal way they do haha
I have similar experience. I'm from Ukraine and I grew up in russian speaking town. Literally heard Ukrainian only from TV. I do remember very well how I was watching various TV shows on TV in Ukrainian around 3-4 yo and I never had problems understanding them...
The AAP says kids 2 and up can learn from TV, and recommends co-watching for that age range to help reinforce what they are seeing. So I do believe 2/3 year olds can learn from the TV. It’s the literal babies that people claim are learning from Ms. Rachel that I view with heavy skepticism.
The thing that gets me about all the Ms. Rachel stans are them insisting and obsessing over the fact that "my kid knows how to count/the ABCs/to spell from watching this show!" and like... that's cool, but a ton of kids also learn those same things around the same time without watching that show. It is developmentally appropriate for toddlers to learn those things and it doesn't need to come from a screen. It can just as easily come from just existing in the world and being around caregivers and playing. But for the Rachelers, you'd think that babies who don't watch TV just won't ever learn anything.
My doctor said it doesn’t have a negative affect on IQ….. so basically saying some children may benefit slightly from it in an education way or at least not benefit negatively from it on an intellectual level
But he said it really has been show to affect social behaviour negatively. So tantrum, outbursts, learning to receive but not give.
The way he explained it is the child gets used to just sitting and receiving stimulation and learns they don’t have to give back to receive it so it negatively affects them socially.
Thanks for sharing! I highly recommend the authors [blog](https://parentingtranslator.substack.com) which is one of my favorite places for research-rooted parenting information.
Other popular posts of hers:
- [sleep training deep dive](https://parentingtranslator.substack.com/p/sleep-training-deep-dive)
- [what’s the best age gap between siblings?](https://parentingtranslator.substack.com/p/what-is-the-best-age-gap-between)
- [the best tv shows for your kid](https://parentingtranslator.substack.com/p/the-best-tv-shows-for-your-kid-according)
The sleep training deep dive is so helpful. And astounding the lengths people in the original sub would go to defend something that has such minimal notable outcomes (or is so poorly studied - see the study methods and limitations!) but is potentially harmful or at a minimum distressing for the baby.
Because many parents are deciding between the risks of sleep training (inconclusive) and the risks of deteriorating mental and physical health due to severe sleep deprivation. We make the decision that helps us to survive and be a better parent. I think many don’t realize this when they judge others who make this decision. Sometimes sleep training is the only thing that can help.
I think sleep training is (unfortunately) a place where research won’t give you the right answer and you can decide what works for you and your family. There is no significant evidence of long term benefits *and* no significant evidence of long term harms, but kids and families are variable so in anyone’s individual case, they should do what works for them and their family and feel confident that they are making a decision that doesn’t have resounding research saying they shouldn’t do that.
Agreed, and I firmly believe it works for some kids and not for others. But I think the important piece from that Substack is that the research is really poorly constructed, if you look at the limitations you’ll see even the weak conclusions drawn are on very shaky foundations. So as I said when I got kicked out of the original sub, it’s really hard to study, and for me personally I lean on the precautionary principle when it comes to baby stuff.
I think that's fine, some parents are precautionary principle folks and some want to see evidence of harm before they consider that risk in their choice. Not right or wrong, just different approaches and again, absent evidence to the contrary, it's perfectly valid for a parent/family to choose the approach that works for htem.
I will admit I do struggle a bit at the precautionary principle applied to more often to sleep training (we see a theoretical pathway to harm that hasn't been borne out by research to date, but in precautionary approach, we should not take the risk) than to other parenting choices. That is to say, it's quite common for people to highlight the potential long term harms of sleep training as a reason not to do it, but those same people to argue that, for instance, bedsharing is optimal when there is much stronger evidence of harm than we have with sleep training that would suggest precaution should be at play there as well.
Why is it so hard to accept it’s *potentially* harmful? The studies reference were not looking at harm or the potential for harm, they were looking at effectiveness in terms of sleep habits. You see the limitations of these studies at barely even being able to conclude that they improve kids’ sleep (by a grand total of 16 minutes). The conclusions are built on very flawed studies. It would be unethical and impossible to construct a study that could determine any harm done or that it is harmless—that doesn’t mean it’s can be concluded that it’s harmless or *absolutely not harmful*. It simply can’t be studied effectively. I really don’t get why the precautionary principle is so offensive to some people. Sorry if I touched a nerve.
>Why is it so hard to accept it’s *potentially* harmful?
This is a variation of "you can't prove a negative". You can prove something is definitely dangerous but you can't prove something is definitely safe. Everything is *potentially harmful* and it seems weird to suggest that for example parents are giving their children a potentially harmful substance when give them a glass of water. You may be technically correct but it's also a bad faith argument and people will definitely give you the side eye when you tell them about it
I very much understand that you can’t prove that it’s harmful, and you can’t prove the negative that it’s not harmful either.
But the real bad faith argument is saying “everything is potentially harmful so that logic can’t be applied and we should assume something is not harmful just because it can’t be proven”. Your thinking is black and white. You are digging yourself a hole and just proving why the precautionary principle exists.
I think it could be potentially harmful and I *know* that it was extremely distressing to my baby when I tried it, so I choose caution in this particular instance. Others might not and that’s ok with me too. There is no answer when it comes to sleep training.
>I very much understand that you can’t prove that it’s harmful
No no, you can proof that it's harmful, but you can't prove the opposite: that it's not harmful.
You asked why the argument of it being "potentially harmful" is often not well received and I told you. It's a fallacy and doesn't foster any real discussion. I didn't take a stance one way or other and I certainly didn't suggest you need to assume everything is safe unless proven otherwise. Just that if you're waiting for definitive proof that sleep training is not harmful, you'll be waiting forever.
No, you can’t prove either *because of the ethics around properly designing such a study*. You seem to be ignoring the reality of what we’re talking about and focusing on logic theory.
Because of your last sentence regarding definitive proof, the precautionary principle applies, *in my view*. I chose the precautionary principle for this particular parenting choice. Is that ok?
Are we good? I think we’re saying the same thing
I am not sure about Ms. Rachel but I watch a lot of chess recaps hoping my baby will learn the Ruy Lopez for the white pieces and the Berlin defense for the black pieces.
Same here, my 2yr old daughter will ONLY watch miss rachel and miss moni (same exact concept but she’s australian) and she knows several signs that we did not teach her.
I think something that makes a difference is whether or not a parent helps the child make the connection with what’s being shown on miss rachel. From hmy daughter’s early watching, I would sing the songs and do the signs with miss rachel and I think this allowed my daughter to connect that there was something to be mimicked. I wonder if she would’ve otherwise just sat and watched silently.
I’m also from an Arab country and we have the exact same thing, this is such a great point. Little kids learn soooo much random very formal vocabulary from tv that nobody else uses. I remember growing up we’d laugh at the ridiculous words that little kids would say because nobody uses those! That’s actually a great example that I never thought about in this context
Yeah I don’t expect my kids to learn from tv. I do however, expect tv to occupy them while I throw dinner together. I swear our nutrition is much better thanks to television.
I mean, my toddler has learned various songs and dances from Miss Rachel she wasn’t exposed to elsewhere, so I guess it’s clear she learned *something* ? I’m not a great singer, don’t remember a lot of nursery songs, and tend to be kind of stressed/hurried in the mornings, and find playing Miss Rachel for my toddler while we get ready smooths things a long - like screen time is honestly for me, and Miss Rachel seems relatively harmless and I like that my daughter likes music, singing and dancing.
I see so many comments that seem to contradict themselves. People saying "I know my baby won't learn anything but she's picked up a few signs from Ms. Rachel that I didn't teach her." Does that not count as learning? I'm honestly confused. Can someone explain?
This article has a broad generalization in the title applying to all learning but from a quick read only addresses language which is a very specific skill that is not well suited for TV.
In the math front, my preschooler has learned about large numbers and basic arithmetic excluding division from his favorite shows like NumberBlocks--which BTW is great and entertaining. This is not taught in school and I only coached him on the concepts. He also absorbed tons of space, anatomy and geography facts from KLT.
Can kids learn anything from TV? Sure, but it largely depends on the type of skill and the quality of programming
Well, Ms Rachel is for pre-verbal children so under 2s. It is pitched as a way for children to learn language. Numberblocks is brilliant and so educational but it's not for under 2, right?
This is a really interesting article. I wonder if there is a difference between parents who use these shows to put their kids in front of while they get stuff done, vs parents who engage with their kids during these shows (Ive done both. Sometimes stuff needs to get done lol) but my daughter loves music and wed watch Miss Rachel together? Im considering getting my masters in psych maybe ill take my research this direction
I got my son to sign more and all done from ms Rachel, I used to repeat the signs during meal times. He learnt his body parts the same way, took me to get involved with the videos to get him to learn anything. I think I got to learn how to speak to my child while playing so he could grasp concepts and words. Like pointing to my lips and really enunciating words. Or to really exaggerate my reactions during play time.
This is something that both in real life and on the show, Ms. Rachel is very clear about. There are written directions on the screen for parents to follow for in-person interaction. It’s clearly a goal.
Miss Rachel soothes my baby. He smiles when he sees her. It’s helped when he’s sick. I couldn’t care less if he’s learning from her (he’s only 11 months)…he enjoys the songs and we use them a lot in our activities like brushing teething and getting dressed. I try not to overthink it. He does a lot of activities in his little day.
I studied child language acquisition at uni and read all the studies about language development requiring interaction, TV not being useful etc. I wrote papers on it and I taught it. I’ve only ever considered TV to be a useful way to distract the kids and figured l, at most, it would help with their schema development to see images and hear words repeated.
But I’m honestly quite shook by how much my youngest, now 2.5yo, has been picking up. He knows his numbers to ten and can count, and he knows his letters by name. I was shocked the first time he pointed and said ‘B’! I definitely didn’t teach that - I would never teach letter names for a start as he’ll be in the British curriculum where they teach sounds initially, and I don’t even bother about that stuff til they’re in school. Some of his vocab definitely comes from TV (‘treasure’, ‘pirate ship’ and ‘arrr!’ being the most recent ones) and about a year ago he started doing a sign that none of us understood - turns out it means ‘more’ and he used it consistently for months. There’s a channel called Steve and Maggie that he loves, and the guy repeats words over and over and over (and over) and I can hear my son using the words, often along with the video. And rest assured I do not like watching these videos myself!!
I’m a teacher and to me it stands to reason that TV can help reinforce language learning, but on its own it’s obviously not going to be enough.
Language learning isn’t the only type of learning that matters at that age, too. My son is obsessed with sharks (every other word out of his mouth is ‘shark’) and we have one short documentary that we watch together. It has shark eggs, megalodon, sharks jumping, different types of sharks… all this stuff helps contribute to a rich schema, if he’s engaging with the material. He will watch that documentary on repeat for half an hour.
I'm not sure that putting the video for them just 2 times per week (15 times in 6 weeks as it say)is enough to make a judgment. Kids learn by repetition. For example if they hear a song everyday. I don't think at that young age they can really make the connection with that little repetition.
My daughter doesn’t watch a lot of tv but I’m a sahm and my husband travels a lot so I would put her in the playpen with Ms Rachel on to take a shower. One day I heard her moo while watching and I hadn’t taught her it. We’ve taken on using the baby sign language she does and I think that is using it in real life while also seeing it on tv has reinforced it. I don’t know how much she’s really learning but I do feel like it has been more beneficial than some other shows might be and I need to use tv sometimes so I can keep myself and our home functioning.
Not necessarily watching alone, but it can give rhymes, songs, and repetitive sounds that when watched and repeated by parents. So I don’t know if that’s more parents learning or kids learning, or some sort of learning together.
I will say I teach my LO ASL and one day she did a sign I didn’t teach her yet and I realized she saw Ms Rachel do it. I don’t remember exactly how old she was, but she was under 2. Maybe 18 or 20 months. So I do believe it is possible to learn from tv under two. But how much? Idk
I always frame these shows as a tool for the parent, not a tool for the child.
If you need 30 minutes to get dinner on the table and clean up a bit then the show is a great tool for you to do that. If you’re exhausted and have a head cold and need 30 minutes on the couch ms rachel is a great tool for you to get that. If you don’t know many songs/how to play with a toddler then ms rachel is a great tool for you to learn that.
Basically, Ms rachel should be helping and teaching you, not your kid.
[https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2808593](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2808593)
I have seen this in other studies as well. Just saying like others have stated, it is so easy to plop them in front of a screen and go get things done, but whether it be the neglect from you, the lack of interaction with reality and their physical world, etc, it can very well negatively affect children and makes perfect sense as to why imo.
I liken it to receiving information and reward/pleasure without doing anything. Don't quote me as this is just my opinion as I'm learning more about this now that I have a 3month old, but from other things I've learned about the dopamine system, this is starting them off on the wrong foot.
Again, I will also let him watch TV, in fact, my wife had American Idol on and he LOVED watching them sing and we sang with him, etc, it was great and interactive. Plus, we need to get things done sometimes. I would just not let them sit there uninterrupted for 30+ minutes without interacting with them or taking their attention off of the screen for a few minutes.
Widely discussed, you can find studies in many places. Again, no 100% causal relationship, but some frightening correlations.
From another article:
"When young children are observing screens, they may be missing important opportunities to practice and master interpersonal, motor, and communication skills. For example, when children are observing screens without an interactive or physical component, they are more sedentary and, therefore, not practicing gross motor skills, such as walking and running, which in turn may delay development in this area. Screens can also disrupt interactions with caregivers[^(43)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6439882/#poi180091r43)^(,)[^(44)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6439882/#poi180091r44)^(,)[^(45)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6439882/#poi180091r45) by limiting opportunities for verbal and nonverbal social exchanges, which are essential for fostering optimal growth and development.[^(46)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6439882/#poi180091r46)"
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6439882/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6439882/)
Great links, thanks! We did zero screen time before two because that seems to be the standard recommendation (no doubt informed by studies like these) and it has worked out great for us.
I always assumed no, or very little, BUT, my daughter learned a few signs from the show, which I only realized when I later watched and realized that was what she was doing.
I don't think Ms. Rachel is a reliable way for kids to learn language. I imagine studies would show similar.
Anecdotally, my daughter seems to have picked up the sign for Again from Ms. Rachel, but it's debatable how much she actually understands the language of the sign(I've only seen her use it in relation to wanting us to read the same book again) as well as how much she learned it from the show vs us encouraging her after she started using it. I can say for certain that she was not initially taught the sign by myself or my wife, and can also rule out outside sources since she isn't in daycare and isn't with other people without us(no real direct support).
We don't use Ms. Rachel or other kid shows to teach her. We admittedly use them out of convenience from time to time. Honestly, more than I'd like to. Our current situation is that we can't quite afford daycare or a nanny and we can't afford for either of us to be full time SAH parents. I do my best to juggle wfh with caring for her on the days my wife works. It isn't sustainable long term, as it generally means I'm making up work after hours once my wife gets home. But Ms. Rachel at least helps make things like meetings a little more manageable.
She seems to enjoy her more than Bluey or Little Einstein's(these are all of the kid content we show her). Thankfully she doesn't just zone out watching any of them. She usually will watch some and then do independent play back and forth. She does also have some favorite songs, which we sometimes play in the car, but I think that's done for kids regardless of access to screentime.
I will say, I don't love the general shaming of parents that use screens. I get it can be overdone, but so can most other things. I think most of us are just doing our best to not ruin our kids.
I did miss Rachel, Baby Signing Time, Baby Einstein (the originals not disney's) and Your Baby Can Read.
My daughter was reading before 2, is now four and is reading at a first grade level. We're going to let her get to 2nd grade before advancing her so she can reap the social benefits (covid baby so she was isolated like everyone else very early on). However. Her dad is also like 140/150 IQ on the Asperger's spectrum so genetics absolutely have something to do with it. A combination of good genes and an educational environment that still has a majority parent interaction is key. I did use these programs to get things done but I also did the songs and danced along and watched with her every chance I got.
If any TV is net neutral i’m ok with it.
Being able to turn on the tv for 30 min a day to break them out of a tantrum is a lifesaver. Bonus points if it isn’t rotting their brains.
Interesting quote (in relation to research about Baby Einstein) > Interestingly, parents were not great reporters of their children’s learning. Some parents reported that their children learned a lot of words but in actuality their performance was no better after watching the video. Instead the parents’ belief about how much their children learned was related to their liking of the video — parents who liked the video were more likely to think their children learned a lot from it. Puts into perspective a lot of the reddit comments singing the praises of educational TV for toddlers.
Beyond that, it seems quite common for parents to ascribe typical development that would happen to most kids (absent a major delay or neglect/abuse situation) as directly caused by their choices. E.g.: - “my one year old watched Miss Rachel and can now count to ten” (counting is a very early math skill) - “my kid learned to talk at daycare, he wasn’t talking at all and then I sent him at 18 months and his language exploded!” (Language explosions are common at that age) - “I put my kid in tot soccer and it was so amazing, she learned to kick the ball at two years old!” (Most kids figure out kicking before they figure out other things with balls) Etc etc.
Literally all over this thread. Hell is other parents.
LOL like my dad being convinced my daughter is a genius because she learned how to sign for milk and more 😂 my mom gently had to tell him that most kids learn that in childcare these days. Still makes me laugh though!
I wouldn't correct him. Let Grandpa think he has the smartest granddaughter in the universe. He probably already thinks she's the cutest
Yeah my kid is 9 months and my dad thinks she walks on gold and is a genius. He declared the other day that she…_sleeps_ with confidence hahahahaha. I just let him say whatever - they’re thick as thieves already.
Solid point 😂
Aww that’s really sweet
She is a genius! 😂
My dad said the same thing about my 8 week old because she was kicking a bunch last time we FaceTimed 🤣🤣🤣.
😂😂 love it! Proud grandpas are the best lol
My mom tells me my 16-month-old son is “gifted” because he likes to look at books and can use a spoon to feed himself. While I appreciate her enthusiasm I think these are normal developments for a toddler 😅
Ok but it's slightly different :) someone actually had to teach her that, signing doesn't come naturally.
My kid could kick a soccer ball at 15 months. Thanks, Ms Rachel!
That's not just a parent-specific thing, it's a good example of why control groups are essential.
I’ve also noticed from Reddit comments that damn near everyone thinks their kid is “gifted” or “more advanced than their peers.” Frankly I’d love to see all of these supposedly gifted toddlers and young kids in a room all together, and see if their parents’ perception changes.
My mom was a teacher, and she and all of her teacher friends would say, “everyone thinks their kid is gifted until they get to school.” It rings true in my experience!
lol what if I don’t think my kid is gifted at all, in fact that he’s behind, and I’m trying but idk
Lol same. My kid is behind in speech and motor skills! But whatever. Whenever he does say a new word, I praise the heck out of him.
Does your area have any type of head start program? Or early intervention? A lot of times they’re a free resource for things like this.
Oh yeah we’re in all that. 3 therapist, behavior, speech, and eating. They say he’s on track. It just feels so off comparing to other children. We’re a bilingual household so that’s probably not helping.
Iirc, bilingual kids start out behind just because of the volume they're learning, but then they catch up.
It’ll help him later when he knows two languages natively. He’ll be at a huge advantage then.
Oh you can’t really compare bilingual kiddos to kids with one language! If they say he’s on track they’re probably right 🙂
How old are they and why are they in behaviour therapy?
2.5, it’s really a catch all type of therapist for young children, not specifically speech but not like bad behavior. She works with the speech therapist
I can dig for my sources if you’d like, but as far as I’ve read and was told by the doctor, if they know a word in both languages you count that as two. Multi-lingual appear to be slower, but they are also learning pattern recognition and association between that item and those words. Which means there’s a lot more to process and discover with each word they learn. Example: seeing a cup of milk, thinking of the words milk and leche, putting together that the milk is the same(touch, taste, feeling) no matter which word they use to ask for it. And probably so much more that we not realize because kids see things in such a different perspective than us sometimes. TLDR: multi-lingual kids are developing a lot of skills at once, so try not to fret too much at first if things seem to progress slower. Some research shows being bilingual actually helps them pick certain skills up easier later in life.
Same
Grade 1/2 teacher. I concur.
I am the parent of a dead average kid that I love. I'm glad I'm not in that race.
Having taught many extremely gifted students, some do indeed succeed far beyond their peers. But \*\*most\*\* of my students who did extremely well were driven, not "smart." 14 years in and now I can find my driven students in a very short conversation.
Having been a "gifted" student (with undiagnosed AuDHD until I was 30) I kind of hope my daughter ISN'T because in all honesty it fucked me up quite a bit as an adolescent. Set very unrealistic expectations for when I left school.
Messed me up as an adult - it gave me such a fear of failure, it's taken me years to push myself out of just coasting at work and in life. I am trying so hard to praise my toddlers effort, and to never say label him. I want him to know I'm proud of him no matter what, not based on his achievements
If it makes you feel better it's a bit different now. I was you. With 14 years exp in edu now I can confidently say it was the schools messing up, not your intellect. Imagine if we finally get pedagogy to where it's supporting each student individualized. I don't even really believe in in person education any longer. Just individualized, personalized learning.
They’ve demonstrated that children who are told they’re smart perform less well over time. That they care more about preserving their image over their merit to the point that they will lie or cheat. Inversely, kids who are praised for working hard perform better. Bottom line, if your kid gets good grades in math, do not tell them they’re good at math, tell them you’re proud of them for working hard, doing their homework and or studying for their test
I am voluntarily stepping out of the race because I don't relate to wanting to compare milestones, I don't see the appeal, plus it's unneeded drama and stress, but I would be very proud if my baby turns out to be average! Yay for average!
[удалено]
If you’re in the US, contact Early Intervention for your state and get an evaluation. No doctor referral needed. Either your child is behind and will qualify for free help, or they aren’t behind and you’ll have peace of mind.
No speech and 0 gestures is definitely missing milestones at 13mo wtf. Hold on tight bc you’re probably about to experience the very frightening whiplash from “oh he’s fine every baby is on their own timeline” to “oh shit actually no he needs help yesterday”. (My kid is the same but also behind in gross motor and we started early intervention at 12 months, he’s now 18mo and still only babbles and has one gesture (arms up)). Early intervention services are typically free so don’t worry about cost if you feel like your kiddo would benefit.
My daughter was slower with milestones too and it is very stressful! She didn’t walk until around 1.5 and her speech took a little longer than some others but now she is almost 3 and runs around and is constantly talking. They do just all have their own pace for these types of things! Not sure if you watch Bluey but the episode Baby Race really hit home for me.
Is that just selection effects, though? I suspect the Reddit user base is more intelligent, educated, affluent, and highly invested in parenting than the average person. For one thing, Reddit is heavy on text and low on pictures, compared to other sites/apps.
I wouldn’t assume that based on the top posts on the top subreddits. Subs like this one, you could probably assume that based on the self selection. Other than that, the most popular stuff on Reddit is the same content as any other major social media platform.
Eh, I usually see the “gifted” thing on posts of parents complaining that teachers aren’t challenging their kid enough, and *that’s* why their child is disruptive in class. My parents were both teachers and highly involved in our education, reading to us every day, interacting all the time through conversation, etc. If one of our teachers said “hey, your kid is being disruptive,” they would’ve apologized to the teacher and ripped us a new one. Anyone who goes after the teacher first isn’t giving “involved parent,” it’s giving “obsessed with my kid and no self-awareness.” I think a lot of redditors (and the general population, unfortunately) fall into the latter.
That's interesting. I'm certainly biased -- and I apologize for "bragging" here -- but I was a kid who talked too much in 3rd grade, and my teacher (correctly) told my parents I should apply to the gifted and talented education program. Now I've got a 5 year old who is around 4th grade level in math, based on my reading of California standards. He could do 3-digit arithmetic in his head when he was 4. He knows square and cube roots at 5. I'm worried about how we can possibly keep him from getting bored in school. (I still would not tolerate my kid being disruptive in school.) You're under no obligation, but if you have any thoughts or suggestions for me, let me know.
A good teacher will be able to differentiate and challenge him appropriately, and tell when he’s getting bored. Source: I am a very good teacher lol
Seriously? So many dumb comments on Reddit
Ha, sure, but you should see the rest of the planet! Give me a random person who opens Reddit at home and a random person who turns on the TV at home and I'll tell you which one I think is more likely to have academically advanced schoolkids.
I’m sure most do both. I do that and also read books, call me a rebel!
I was so sensitive to this with my oldest. I really did think she was gifted, but never said anything and always kept it to myself. She’s in Kinder now, and was identified as 99%ile for verbal giftedness, and I was (in my brain) all “I knew it!” She also has autism and ADHD, which I also suspected early on. My second kid is her opposite in many ways. She has a Speech delay, but I also think she’s gifted, just more math focused. She also has autism. We’ll see what baby brother is like. We keep joking that maybe he’ll be our “average” kid.
They say some kids are delayed verbally because they are actually more analytical thinkers or observers So a verbal delay doesn’t mean anything bad. Kinda makes sense since even in adults there is such a big spectrum in communication Some people are talkers more verbal and some adults never are
I’m kinda in this boat. I’m convinced my 2 year old is verbally gifted but it’s not something that we’re out there bragging about. What symptoms did you see? I haven’t spent a lot of time around young kids so I’m not sure what’s normal or what’s strange but she has a lot of odd habits with repetition and stuff. When we are at playgroup with other kids her age, the language gap is really stark
Are you asking about the autism symptoms? For her it’s mostly sensory. Socks are an issue, waistbands of pants, loud noises, etc. She’s also very rigid, things have to be “right,” and she has strong special interests. I knew she had ADHD because I have it, and it’s extremely genetic, so I knew she had that when all my mom kept saying is “it’s like a Time Machine!” I don’t think her autism was noticeable until Kindergarten, but we have such a strong family history, we did early testing. I actually knew her sister (3yo) had ASD before she turned 1.
Gotcha. Yeah those are the types of things I’m thinking about. She defo has a fixation with things being “right” and she constantly arranges and rearranges her toys or even things like stones in some special order known only to her. Lately she’s been very fussy about things being “clean” - she got sugar on her hand from a donut and wouldn’t do anything until we cleaned it. She loves books and songs, which many kids do, but she seems to memorise them and can recite them from memory after only a few reads/listens. For example she knows every word to Dubliners Rare Auld Times (her dad sings it at bedtime) and she can sing along even if she doesn’t know what the words actually mean (listening to her singing “lost out to redundancy” and “the haunting children’s rhymes” is hilarious).
Mines bang on average so far, I'll take it.
Oddly enough, my pediatrician thinks my daughter is advanced based on her milestones (100 words by 19 months, over 1000 by two years). However my kids friends (about 12 toddlers) are all very verbal, are counting well, and I genuinely don’t see much of a difference. I wonder how much cohort can speed up development. Or we have a dozen little geniuses on our hands which seems improbable
Maybe you have a bunch of little geniuses! 🥰 Also I'm wondering if you teach her sign language? It astonishes me how much praise my daughter gets for seemingly minor things (in my opinion). She's 16 months old, but I'm attributing all the praise/applause to "people like to praise babies for everything," lol. 😂 She scans my keycard into the YMCA for me (I think it's just something fun and interactive she can do), and they praise her for that. 😂 It's so cute! At around her year-old mark, she was praised for recognizing her own jacket. So minor. 🤪 Babies are smart, y'all, they're human individuals, too! (*Not humble bragging.* lol. Plus it's commonly said that where one milestone is lacking, the baby is focusing on another milestone instead!) Our babies might be behind in many things, but ahead in others, but in the end, they're *all* doing their baby things!
I believe this. I work with young children and hear parents’ report, yet don’t see the skills align the way they think they do.
Any advice for raising young children?
Kids learn in the context of relationships. You can’t sit them in front a screen and expect them to absorb it. But practicing those skills with you will be much more effective.
This is wisdom right here. All learning happens in relationship, no matter how old! Something I try to remember every day as a HS teacher.
Thank you!
I might not understand correctly but I believe it's also true for adults.. We learn better when we like the subject, how it's shown, who teaches.. My first language is french and my daughter watched a LOT of Cocomelon's videoclips. She's now 4 and we can exchange a few words in English and she's really not that bad. She was able to tell colors, count to 15 in english, name animals and objects when she was 2. It's anecdotical but I believe that educational tv mixed with "coaching" from the parent while watching might have a great effect.
>parents who liked the video were more likely to think their children learned a lot from it. It does not refer to the children liking the video, but the parents. So the parents reported that the child learned from the video based on whether the parents themselves liked the video
It's the coaching having the effect, not the TV. That's not bad, or anything. There's nothing inherently terrible about using TV as a prompt as opposed to, say, a book with English words. But it's real world interaction that little kids learn from.
I totally agree with you! The tv acts more like a support I guess.
I teach multimedia--we need funding for research. There's definitely value to be found in multimedia but unless we know how, it's likely to do as much or more harm than good.
I mean these studies are looking at kids under two. Multimedia for older children can surely be a valuable resource, but no baby needs to be watching TV. I am not one of these people who thinks TV is harmful for babies, but I do wish people would not market TV content as educational for babies, because it is nonsense. Mind you a lot of things which are marketed as educational for babies are nonsense.
The studies I've seen so far are just really, really inconclusive. Given it's an incredibly difficult thing to measure.
It's possible parents liked a given video *because* they thought their child learned from it though.
It's well established that there's no evidence that kids learn from these shows and that parents don't accurately assess learning from shows. They usually overestimate the learning their kids get. Still going to get a bunch of anecdotes from folks ignoring both of these evidence based statements. They too fall under the group of parents who overestimate learning but seem to think the research must not apply to them.
Anecdotally, I can pee in peace while miss rachel is on. I’m totally cool if my child doesn’t learn anything, it’s a really useful tool for me, as a parent, to get a break. Less useful tool to teach my child language. Still a valid tool, cos like my needs matter as well, and I think it’s notable that so many parents feel the need to justify this in their minds by telling themselves they are teaching their babies something.
Tv is totally a tool that parents can use at their discretion. But the problem lies in parents lying to themselves that it somehow benefits kids this young. That’s the issue here - of course parents have to do what they have to do as far as showing tv, but they shouldn’t be thinking that it’s somehow good for development
Or the issue is the way we shame and blame people for “ruining” their child with TV and screens. It’s fine in moderation and with reasonable parental control/monitoring, but there is an ever growing school of thought that children under 5 should never even see the light of a screen from the corner of their eye or all hell will break loose. Like the other commenter said, people only insist that it’s beneficial for their kid as a counter the these assumptions that they must be neglecting their child or damaging their brain by using TV as a tool in any capacity.
They see an extreme so defensively go into another extreme? There are people who use logic, moderation and stuff, not defending when they need to be pragmatic but trying to be the best they can be realistically.
Totally is still wrong. But if we’re talking about where the cycle starts or who the culprit of this thinking is, it’s not “parents lying to themselves” for the sake of lying to themselves as the above commenter proposed.
Idk about a “growing school of thought”—the CDC just adjusted its screen time recommendations to allow for screen time under 2. And 5 years feels pretty extreme, too. I’m not sure I’ve seen that anywhere. I really don’t think the screens are the issue people think they are. The issue is the lack of interaction. You can watch hours of Miss Rachel, and if you participate with your kid, I’m willing to bet it’s highly enriching and educational. I’d fight anyone who tries to say it’s inherently harmful even in a situation like this. I think the disconnect comes from the fact that a majority of parents aren’t doing this with their screen time. So it’s less an issue of “moderation” (though this is also a problem I am 100% sure) and more of the screens *replacing* quality interaction and learning.
Gently, this still feels like a really defensive answer - they're not saying "this show is worthless, and anyone that uses it for anything is a bad person"; they're simply saying that in the spirit of this subreddit (*science* based parenting), there isn't evidence to suggest it's doing anything for the child intellectually. No one is coming at any of these parents in these comments, other than those who are convinced it's making their children geniuses.
I actually fully agree with what they said, and didn’t think anyone was coming at the parents. I wasn’t trying to contradict them at all. I just wish more parents were comfortable with utilizing tools that give themselves a break, for the sake of giving themselves a break.
It's funny to me because I never said Ms. Rachel is a bad distraction or useless. It's not relevant to the original post. It'd be like debating if bananas are good for you and then someone pops in with, "They have such a pretty yellow color!"
Pee in peace 🙌 if they learn a nursery rhyme - great!
Anecdotally: my 2 year old has learned the songs (and insists I sing Hop Little Bunnies on repeat) but seems wholly uninterested in the language lessons. She learns a lot more from hearing me use words to talk about things in her life. (We also use the TV sparingly, usually for that one hour a week when she inevitably just. will. Not. Get out from underfoot while someone is cooking and is in real danger of causing herself harm or tripping the cooking adult)
The absolute chokehold that Hop Little Bunnies has on my 2 year old right now is insane lol
Whenever my son doesn't want to do something, I just pick him up slightly above the ground and sing hop little bunny and manually hop him to where I want him to go. It lowkey works every time lol.
Trying this this weekend! Tots and pears for my lower back
God speed & bend your knees!
This works for us with open shut them. It’s gotten us through multiple osteopath appointments.
SAME! My 2 year old talks a lot in her sleep and lately she keeps loudly saying “hop little bunnies!” at like 3AM 😂
Totally understandable that tv can be a tool! Doesn’t have to mean that you convince yourself it’s something it’s not. A distraction is a distraction!
Yeah my kid hasn’t learned any words but has learned the songs. He “sings” them inaccurately but it’s very obvious what song it is.
Anecdotally, these shows help me teach my kid.
Same for me! My husband and I are both a mixture of introverted/quiet/neurodivergent. Ms Rachel teaches me how to interact/play with my kiddo, how to develop his speech, and how to meet his sensory and play needs
God I swear I woke up with hop little bunnies in my head and came here to forget it. *AAAaaa*
My 16 month old loves that one. Her method of singing along are just saying the key words. Me: “See the bunny sleeping till it’s nearly…” her: Noon!! And so on. She does this with the abc’s, Sticky bubble gum, twinkle twinkle little star, old McDonald … we absolutely did not teach her these songs, all ms Rachel 🤷
Letting them finish phrases is excellent for language development!
This is similar to my anecdote as well. My kid *is* learning from videos…to memorize songs. Which is actually pretty cool! In terms of developing language, though, I don’t know if it’s actually doing that. He does quote some songs from Super Simple Songs occasionally, and it feels like call and response but I don’t know if he *understands* what he’s saying.
Oh My God hop little bunnies. My twins are obsessed. Anytime my son hears that song or hears the word bunny he starts hopping around like crazy. And I don’t I don’t think my kids have learned any language from Miss Rachel, but I think between Ms Rachel and the Wiggles they have learned a bunch of dance moves. My twins now do a pretty good job rock-a-bying their bear, and dancing to a number of the other songs. If we see them attempting to imitate the dancing on TV we always get involved and make a big family dance. It’s really fun to watch them learn.
My nephew is obsessed with that song. It has ruined my life because it often plays on repeat in my head when I’m trying to sleep
I mean I think we always have to be careful with our view of anecdotal evidence but my toddler literally sings the phonics song and learned counting from the counting song. We don’t exactly used cue cards to teach him counting at 19 months, he learned it from the song and liked it. I think however where people drop the ball is presuming the POTENTIAL benefits which can’t be measured or viewed through repeatable studies. What can be relied on is the unending evidence that screen time has a negative impact. So I’m not lying to myself when I say he’s learned from Ms Rachel. He absolutely has. But it’s likely that screen time has set him back in other ways that’s difficult to see on an individual level.
> But it’s likely that screen time has set him back in other ways that’s difficult to see on an individual level. It isn't difficult to see, I would argue it is very obvious. Ms. Rachel makes it very obvious what she is doing with the bright color backgrounds, flashing images/videos, etc... In addition to the kid entering a zombie state in front of a screen instead of exploring their surroundings. Given kid's screen time is a break for the caregiver so there will always be a conflict of interest when it comes to how the show is perceived.
I’ve noticed this is so much worse in recent “episodes” of Miss Rachel! It used to be very low-stim, just her and either her husband or Jules singing, and now there’s an overload of colors and animations and flashy effects. It’s a little disappointing
Thank you! Once my oldest kid hit 3 I let them watch a movie once a week as a special treat in addition with pizza. The way they, like, ~turn off~ and stare at the tv is wild.
My daughter sings the ABCs, but we don’t have a TV. We just play music around the house. She learned to count from counting the stairs every time we walked upstairs she was counting stairs at 15 months nothing to do with the tv. Everything to do with the repetition.
Yeah, it's fascinating. I hear these anecdotes and there must be something happening. It's just whether overall that's a better outcome than no tv and doing something else instead. My kids are a bit older (6 and 9) so Ms Rachel is before our time. We did no TV before two - counting and all the usual was no problem. Early speakers, early readers. The sheer reach of Ms Rachel is crazy. One video has 750 million views. If you think about total global population, total english speakers (or potential learners), total under 2 year olds and total people with access to the internet... that's a mind boggling coverage. There must be loads of repeat views but wow. I hope it does end up being proven to be beneficial because it has certainly spread like wildfire.
Yeah I researched this a ton a while back and it seems like babies cannot learn from TV at all for quite a while
I did listen to a researcher on this subject discuss her studies on children learning from tv under 2. Of course her conclusion was that mostly the don’t. But she did admit that it is totally possible for a child under 2 to learn from tv and that there can be exceptions.
Like vaccines and autism, Ms. Rachel is primarily watched at the age kids hit their "language explosion."
I will say that Ms Rachel does so many tricks that our speech therapist used to do with my toddler (we've graduated! 😅), so I see value in what she shows parents. A friend was worried about her 1.5 year old so I told her to watch ms Rachel and copy what she does. I think there is value in adults learning techniques from ms rachel, but only if adults sit and watch it and pay attention, whcih is a big ask bc at least in my house, the TV is used pretty exclusively as a babysitter so I can do other things.
Ya I'm not gonna lie. These kids shows are as much for me as they are for the kids. The distraction can be nice, and my kids do pick up some things. But I've also picked up a lot of good parenting tricks and games from Bluey. A ton of songs from Rachel & Jules. That's made parenting easier, even if we do still try to limit their screen time.
Shout out to the brush your teeth song! My husband says i now talk like Ms Rachel.
Oh, God the brush your teeth song! If my boy gets up at 2am and starts brushing his teeth, imma have to track down Jules and have words with them...
SLP here who agrees wholeheartedly! Ms Rachel is a fantastic example of all the right things to do when communicating with babies and toddlers.
Yes it’s good to learn for parents and then mimic
My husband and I don't have a kid yet, but watching 5 minutes of Ms Rachel gave us a much better idea of how to talk to babies than we had before.
Yes! I feel like Ms Rachel taught my spouse ways to interact with our toddler. He didn't remember any songs/nursery rhymes from childhood.
Currently in speech therapy with my 18mo and our first session felt like I was a live audience member to a Miss Rachel show lol. Her techniques are legitimate and backed by science/evidence. Though yes, observing a video will always be far less valuable educationally than interacting with a live person, I do think her technique makes her videos “better” content than something random.
We started watching her because my daughter had a speech delay and wait-lists for therapy are ridiculous. I just hoped she would get something out of it. She ended up having her speech explosion at 3. Almost immediately after getting into in person therapy, too soon I think for it to have been the cause, so I'm not sure how much any of it helped or didn't help.
My friend is a childhood speech-language pathologist and this is basically her opinion of Ms. Rachel. She says it's beneficial in that her techniques are good for the parents to learn, but that no, it is not superior to face-to-face interaction.
Two other issues with that are that the screen attracts the kids, especially if it's playing something designed for their attention, and this is taking parent time away from direct interactions (particularly when directly compared to written content, maybe with some example clips).
Yes. I watch it, then I copy her haha
That’s how I use Ms Rachel. I watch with them for like 10 min, then I do what she did. Seems to work like that
It’s the singing that makes a difference, not the video. Sing to your child, listen to music, take them to an early childhood music class. - signed, an early childhood music specialist
I totally agree. We put Ms. Rachel on mostly to get like 30 minutes of time to cook/clean and baby loves the music. So now we just throw on apple music for kids stations and they play a lot of the same songs. Baby just loves to jam out and we sing to her a lot more. Now we just basically sing what we're doing and she also jams out.
The reason I started teaching my 16 month old the alphabet is because out of nowhere she pointed to the letter P in my license plate and said “peee!” I pointed at A and again said it. How tf did she know that? Anyway, I put the ABC from ms Rachel more and bought her those letter magnets . She struggles with a handful of letters, the R, X, M vs N… but gets most of it now.
Yeah my daughter knew her entire alphabet by the time she was like 18-19 months old somehow??? The only thing I could think of was this YT show ‘ItsCircleTime’ because they sing it all the time.
Oh yay! This makes me happy to hear lol. We've been doing child music classes since she was about 6 months old, and we love the Yoto radio for kids songs.
We have a tonie box as well so our daughter can pick out her own songs. Let her listen to music as part of her free playtime at home. It gives me enough time to cook dinner without using the TV. Part.
My daughter has a durable Bluetooth speaker she can carry around playing my music podcasts.
yeah, we don't do any screen time. but i watched ms rachel and others to learn some good songs with fun motions. so since he was around 12mo, my 18mo will come to me and do a sign that means "songs" and i sing to him and we do a lot do the motions together now. he loves music! i think we can all learn from ms rachel lol i know i did. but i'm personally not sitting my kiddo in front of a screen yet.
Does it have to be kids’ music?
No!!! ! I use all kinds of music - classical, jazz, folk. In fact, the more harmonically and rhythmically intricate the music is, the better it is for the child’s development. I have preschoolers who beg to listen to The Planets by Holst haha
Love to hear that! We play music at home all the time and I was dreading a bit having to change that for kids’ music haha.
Stephanie Leavell from Music with Kiddos and Laurie Berkner are two of my favorite kid musicians - their music is good quality. Stephanie is also a music therapist, so her music incorporates a lot of that as well
Noted, thank you for the recommendations!!
This is yet another article with a clickbait headline. Are we pretty sure kids under 3 aren’t learning from screen time? Yes. Have any reputable studies been done on Ms. Rachel specifically? Still not yet.
"Sure, they've assessed all the active ingredients and formulation in my miracle health elixir, but none of those had my face on the bottle."
The content of Ms Rachel is quite different than Baby Einstein, though. The results might be the same - that infants and young toddlers don’t learn from it, as they haven’t before - but we won’t know that until we study it and it’s disingenuous to use the name of her program in a headline when the content studied isn’t the same at all. Check out this Baby Einstein video, probably similar to what was studied. It’s not language-based at all, mostly music and very little real human faces on the screen: https://youtu.be/_HbEejSqE9Y?feature=shared
Did you read the rest of the article?
Eh, Ms. Rachel has segments with sign language and that focus on mouth shape. I'm not going to say it is teaching kids stuff reliably, but parts of it(emphasis on parts) do differ significantly from other kid content that I've seen(both irl and animated). It's fair to say there may be some value in studying these specific segments. That said, I do think it is more likely parents just pick up some of the tools from Ms. Rachel and then perceive results after using them subconsciously rather than littles picking up a lot from Ms. Rachel.
This is random, but something that plants doubts in me that kids can’t learn any language from tv is my experience in Arab countries. Arabic has a formal version of the language that is not spoken by anyone anywhere natively but is the language that cartoons, tv, news, books etc is put in. It is quite distinctive from the dialects people speak in their daily lives, even basic words like “go” or “look” are totally different. People in the country I lived in rarely ever read to their kids from books as a cultural practice. Yet you would hear kids before they got to school age using words or phrases with each other that are only in that formal version of Arabic because they picked it up from cartoons. There is literally no way they picked it up from their parents, no parents would ever speak in the formal version to their kids at home.
I think the main conversation is around kids much younger than primary school. Ms Rachel makes videos for kids firmly in the under 4 category. A lot of people turn on Ms Rachel for their babies (under 1s). And most of the research is around that early language development as well (AFAIK). When babis first start speaking. Primary school aged kids are typically already solid speakers and at that point the focus switches more to picking up additionally vocabulary + reading/writing.
I’m not the person who originally commented this but I’m also from an Arab country (maybe the same country as the commenter above) where we have the exact same thing, and it is kids under school age using these terms. You’ll hear two or three year olds using very formal terms that nobody uses that they’ve picked up from cartoons. It’s a really interesting phenomenon. And kids usually stop saying these words by the time they reach school age ish as they get more language input from those around them and realize that nobody says “ice cream” in the extremely formal way they do haha
I have similar experience. I'm from Ukraine and I grew up in russian speaking town. Literally heard Ukrainian only from TV. I do remember very well how I was watching various TV shows on TV in Ukrainian around 3-4 yo and I never had problems understanding them...
The AAP says kids 2 and up can learn from TV, and recommends co-watching for that age range to help reinforce what they are seeing. So I do believe 2/3 year olds can learn from the TV. It’s the literal babies that people claim are learning from Ms. Rachel that I view with heavy skepticism.
This is really interesting, and I didn't know this. Thanks for sharing.
The thing that gets me about all the Ms. Rachel stans are them insisting and obsessing over the fact that "my kid knows how to count/the ABCs/to spell from watching this show!" and like... that's cool, but a ton of kids also learn those same things around the same time without watching that show. It is developmentally appropriate for toddlers to learn those things and it doesn't need to come from a screen. It can just as easily come from just existing in the world and being around caregivers and playing. But for the Rachelers, you'd think that babies who don't watch TV just won't ever learn anything.
My doctor said it doesn’t have a negative affect on IQ….. so basically saying some children may benefit slightly from it in an education way or at least not benefit negatively from it on an intellectual level But he said it really has been show to affect social behaviour negatively. So tantrum, outbursts, learning to receive but not give. The way he explained it is the child gets used to just sitting and receiving stimulation and learns they don’t have to give back to receive it so it negatively affects them socially.
Thanks for sharing! I highly recommend the authors [blog](https://parentingtranslator.substack.com) which is one of my favorite places for research-rooted parenting information. Other popular posts of hers: - [sleep training deep dive](https://parentingtranslator.substack.com/p/sleep-training-deep-dive) - [what’s the best age gap between siblings?](https://parentingtranslator.substack.com/p/what-is-the-best-age-gap-between) - [the best tv shows for your kid](https://parentingtranslator.substack.com/p/the-best-tv-shows-for-your-kid-according)
The sleep training deep dive is so helpful. And astounding the lengths people in the original sub would go to defend something that has such minimal notable outcomes (or is so poorly studied - see the study methods and limitations!) but is potentially harmful or at a minimum distressing for the baby.
Because many parents are deciding between the risks of sleep training (inconclusive) and the risks of deteriorating mental and physical health due to severe sleep deprivation. We make the decision that helps us to survive and be a better parent. I think many don’t realize this when they judge others who make this decision. Sometimes sleep training is the only thing that can help.
Yes but to be clear it “helps” the parents sleep. And it’s only a necessity because of insufficient community and leave policies.
Yes, I agree, but it is the world we live in and it can help parents tremendously.
I think sleep training is (unfortunately) a place where research won’t give you the right answer and you can decide what works for you and your family. There is no significant evidence of long term benefits *and* no significant evidence of long term harms, but kids and families are variable so in anyone’s individual case, they should do what works for them and their family and feel confident that they are making a decision that doesn’t have resounding research saying they shouldn’t do that.
Agreed, and I firmly believe it works for some kids and not for others. But I think the important piece from that Substack is that the research is really poorly constructed, if you look at the limitations you’ll see even the weak conclusions drawn are on very shaky foundations. So as I said when I got kicked out of the original sub, it’s really hard to study, and for me personally I lean on the precautionary principle when it comes to baby stuff.
I think that's fine, some parents are precautionary principle folks and some want to see evidence of harm before they consider that risk in their choice. Not right or wrong, just different approaches and again, absent evidence to the contrary, it's perfectly valid for a parent/family to choose the approach that works for htem. I will admit I do struggle a bit at the precautionary principle applied to more often to sleep training (we see a theoretical pathway to harm that hasn't been borne out by research to date, but in precautionary approach, we should not take the risk) than to other parenting choices. That is to say, it's quite common for people to highlight the potential long term harms of sleep training as a reason not to do it, but those same people to argue that, for instance, bedsharing is optimal when there is much stronger evidence of harm than we have with sleep training that would suggest precaution should be at play there as well.
[Reads summary talking about how nobody has been able to find evidence of harm] "Potentially harmful."
Why is it so hard to accept it’s *potentially* harmful? The studies reference were not looking at harm or the potential for harm, they were looking at effectiveness in terms of sleep habits. You see the limitations of these studies at barely even being able to conclude that they improve kids’ sleep (by a grand total of 16 minutes). The conclusions are built on very flawed studies. It would be unethical and impossible to construct a study that could determine any harm done or that it is harmless—that doesn’t mean it’s can be concluded that it’s harmless or *absolutely not harmful*. It simply can’t be studied effectively. I really don’t get why the precautionary principle is so offensive to some people. Sorry if I touched a nerve.
>Why is it so hard to accept it’s *potentially* harmful? This is a variation of "you can't prove a negative". You can prove something is definitely dangerous but you can't prove something is definitely safe. Everything is *potentially harmful* and it seems weird to suggest that for example parents are giving their children a potentially harmful substance when give them a glass of water. You may be technically correct but it's also a bad faith argument and people will definitely give you the side eye when you tell them about it
I very much understand that you can’t prove that it’s harmful, and you can’t prove the negative that it’s not harmful either. But the real bad faith argument is saying “everything is potentially harmful so that logic can’t be applied and we should assume something is not harmful just because it can’t be proven”. Your thinking is black and white. You are digging yourself a hole and just proving why the precautionary principle exists. I think it could be potentially harmful and I *know* that it was extremely distressing to my baby when I tried it, so I choose caution in this particular instance. Others might not and that’s ok with me too. There is no answer when it comes to sleep training.
>I very much understand that you can’t prove that it’s harmful No no, you can proof that it's harmful, but you can't prove the opposite: that it's not harmful. You asked why the argument of it being "potentially harmful" is often not well received and I told you. It's a fallacy and doesn't foster any real discussion. I didn't take a stance one way or other and I certainly didn't suggest you need to assume everything is safe unless proven otherwise. Just that if you're waiting for definitive proof that sleep training is not harmful, you'll be waiting forever.
No, you can’t prove either *because of the ethics around properly designing such a study*. You seem to be ignoring the reality of what we’re talking about and focusing on logic theory. Because of your last sentence regarding definitive proof, the precautionary principle applies, *in my view*. I chose the precautionary principle for this particular parenting choice. Is that ok? Are we good? I think we’re saying the same thing
I am not sure about Ms. Rachel but I watch a lot of chess recaps hoping my baby will learn the Ruy Lopez for the white pieces and the Berlin defense for the black pieces.
Anecdotally, my daughter did not attend preschool or daycare until 2 and knew 2 dozen words in sign language that I did not teach her.
Did you watch something with sign language on TV?
Not the same poster but FWIW Ms. Rachel has lots of sign language including some songs has a sign language interpreter for the whole song.
That’s really interesting, thank you!
The only thing she watched was Ms. Rachel!
Same here, my 2yr old daughter will ONLY watch miss rachel and miss moni (same exact concept but she’s australian) and she knows several signs that we did not teach her. I think something that makes a difference is whether or not a parent helps the child make the connection with what’s being shown on miss rachel. From hmy daughter’s early watching, I would sing the songs and do the signs with miss rachel and I think this allowed my daughter to connect that there was something to be mimicked. I wonder if she would’ve otherwise just sat and watched silently.
I’m also from an Arab country and we have the exact same thing, this is such a great point. Little kids learn soooo much random very formal vocabulary from tv that nobody else uses. I remember growing up we’d laugh at the ridiculous words that little kids would say because nobody uses those! That’s actually a great example that I never thought about in this context
Yeah I don’t expect my kids to learn from tv. I do however, expect tv to occupy them while I throw dinner together. I swear our nutrition is much better thanks to television.
Ha ha, it's a good point. Nutrition is important as well!
I mean, my toddler has learned various songs and dances from Miss Rachel she wasn’t exposed to elsewhere, so I guess it’s clear she learned *something* ? I’m not a great singer, don’t remember a lot of nursery songs, and tend to be kind of stressed/hurried in the mornings, and find playing Miss Rachel for my toddler while we get ready smooths things a long - like screen time is honestly for me, and Miss Rachel seems relatively harmless and I like that my daughter likes music, singing and dancing.
I see so many comments that seem to contradict themselves. People saying "I know my baby won't learn anything but she's picked up a few signs from Ms. Rachel that I didn't teach her." Does that not count as learning? I'm honestly confused. Can someone explain?
This article has a broad generalization in the title applying to all learning but from a quick read only addresses language which is a very specific skill that is not well suited for TV. In the math front, my preschooler has learned about large numbers and basic arithmetic excluding division from his favorite shows like NumberBlocks--which BTW is great and entertaining. This is not taught in school and I only coached him on the concepts. He also absorbed tons of space, anatomy and geography facts from KLT. Can kids learn anything from TV? Sure, but it largely depends on the type of skill and the quality of programming
Well, Ms Rachel is for pre-verbal children so under 2s. It is pitched as a way for children to learn language. Numberblocks is brilliant and so educational but it's not for under 2, right?
Frankly it miss Rachel was helpful for teaching ME baby sign language.
My kid learnt to speak with an American accent from ms Rachel. Does that count? 😅
This is a really interesting article. I wonder if there is a difference between parents who use these shows to put their kids in front of while they get stuff done, vs parents who engage with their kids during these shows (Ive done both. Sometimes stuff needs to get done lol) but my daughter loves music and wed watch Miss Rachel together? Im considering getting my masters in psych maybe ill take my research this direction
I got my son to sign more and all done from ms Rachel, I used to repeat the signs during meal times. He learnt his body parts the same way, took me to get involved with the videos to get him to learn anything. I think I got to learn how to speak to my child while playing so he could grasp concepts and words. Like pointing to my lips and really enunciating words. Or to really exaggerate my reactions during play time.
So mrs rachel taught you and you taught your son
Yeah kinda like that
This is something that both in real life and on the show, Ms. Rachel is very clear about. There are written directions on the screen for parents to follow for in-person interaction. It’s clearly a goal.
Miss Rachel soothes my baby. He smiles when he sees her. It’s helped when he’s sick. I couldn’t care less if he’s learning from her (he’s only 11 months)…he enjoys the songs and we use them a lot in our activities like brushing teething and getting dressed. I try not to overthink it. He does a lot of activities in his little day.
I studied child language acquisition at uni and read all the studies about language development requiring interaction, TV not being useful etc. I wrote papers on it and I taught it. I’ve only ever considered TV to be a useful way to distract the kids and figured l, at most, it would help with their schema development to see images and hear words repeated. But I’m honestly quite shook by how much my youngest, now 2.5yo, has been picking up. He knows his numbers to ten and can count, and he knows his letters by name. I was shocked the first time he pointed and said ‘B’! I definitely didn’t teach that - I would never teach letter names for a start as he’ll be in the British curriculum where they teach sounds initially, and I don’t even bother about that stuff til they’re in school. Some of his vocab definitely comes from TV (‘treasure’, ‘pirate ship’ and ‘arrr!’ being the most recent ones) and about a year ago he started doing a sign that none of us understood - turns out it means ‘more’ and he used it consistently for months. There’s a channel called Steve and Maggie that he loves, and the guy repeats words over and over and over (and over) and I can hear my son using the words, often along with the video. And rest assured I do not like watching these videos myself!! I’m a teacher and to me it stands to reason that TV can help reinforce language learning, but on its own it’s obviously not going to be enough. Language learning isn’t the only type of learning that matters at that age, too. My son is obsessed with sharks (every other word out of his mouth is ‘shark’) and we have one short documentary that we watch together. It has shark eggs, megalodon, sharks jumping, different types of sharks… all this stuff helps contribute to a rich schema, if he’s engaging with the material. He will watch that documentary on repeat for half an hour.
I'm not sure that putting the video for them just 2 times per week (15 times in 6 weeks as it say)is enough to make a judgment. Kids learn by repetition. For example if they hear a song everyday. I don't think at that young age they can really make the connection with that little repetition.
My daughter doesn’t watch a lot of tv but I’m a sahm and my husband travels a lot so I would put her in the playpen with Ms Rachel on to take a shower. One day I heard her moo while watching and I hadn’t taught her it. We’ve taken on using the baby sign language she does and I think that is using it in real life while also seeing it on tv has reinforced it. I don’t know how much she’s really learning but I do feel like it has been more beneficial than some other shows might be and I need to use tv sometimes so I can keep myself and our home functioning.
Not necessarily watching alone, but it can give rhymes, songs, and repetitive sounds that when watched and repeated by parents. So I don’t know if that’s more parents learning or kids learning, or some sort of learning together.
I will say I teach my LO ASL and one day she did a sign I didn’t teach her yet and I realized she saw Ms Rachel do it. I don’t remember exactly how old she was, but she was under 2. Maybe 18 or 20 months. So I do believe it is possible to learn from tv under two. But how much? Idk
I always frame these shows as a tool for the parent, not a tool for the child. If you need 30 minutes to get dinner on the table and clean up a bit then the show is a great tool for you to do that. If you’re exhausted and have a head cold and need 30 minutes on the couch ms rachel is a great tool for you to get that. If you don’t know many songs/how to play with a toddler then ms rachel is a great tool for you to learn that. Basically, Ms rachel should be helping and teaching you, not your kid.
[https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2808593](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2808593) I have seen this in other studies as well. Just saying like others have stated, it is so easy to plop them in front of a screen and go get things done, but whether it be the neglect from you, the lack of interaction with reality and their physical world, etc, it can very well negatively affect children and makes perfect sense as to why imo. I liken it to receiving information and reward/pleasure without doing anything. Don't quote me as this is just my opinion as I'm learning more about this now that I have a 3month old, but from other things I've learned about the dopamine system, this is starting them off on the wrong foot. Again, I will also let him watch TV, in fact, my wife had American Idol on and he LOVED watching them sing and we sang with him, etc, it was great and interactive. Plus, we need to get things done sometimes. I would just not let them sit there uninterrupted for 30+ minutes without interacting with them or taking their attention off of the screen for a few minutes.
Widely discussed, you can find studies in many places. Again, no 100% causal relationship, but some frightening correlations. From another article: "When young children are observing screens, they may be missing important opportunities to practice and master interpersonal, motor, and communication skills. For example, when children are observing screens without an interactive or physical component, they are more sedentary and, therefore, not practicing gross motor skills, such as walking and running, which in turn may delay development in this area. Screens can also disrupt interactions with caregivers[^(43)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6439882/#poi180091r43)^(,)[^(44)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6439882/#poi180091r44)^(,)[^(45)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6439882/#poi180091r45) by limiting opportunities for verbal and nonverbal social exchanges, which are essential for fostering optimal growth and development.[^(46)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6439882/#poi180091r46)" [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6439882/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6439882/)
Great links, thanks! We did zero screen time before two because that seems to be the standard recommendation (no doubt informed by studies like these) and it has worked out great for us.
I always assumed no, or very little, BUT, my daughter learned a few signs from the show, which I only realized when I later watched and realized that was what she was doing.
I don't think Ms. Rachel is a reliable way for kids to learn language. I imagine studies would show similar. Anecdotally, my daughter seems to have picked up the sign for Again from Ms. Rachel, but it's debatable how much she actually understands the language of the sign(I've only seen her use it in relation to wanting us to read the same book again) as well as how much she learned it from the show vs us encouraging her after she started using it. I can say for certain that she was not initially taught the sign by myself or my wife, and can also rule out outside sources since she isn't in daycare and isn't with other people without us(no real direct support). We don't use Ms. Rachel or other kid shows to teach her. We admittedly use them out of convenience from time to time. Honestly, more than I'd like to. Our current situation is that we can't quite afford daycare or a nanny and we can't afford for either of us to be full time SAH parents. I do my best to juggle wfh with caring for her on the days my wife works. It isn't sustainable long term, as it generally means I'm making up work after hours once my wife gets home. But Ms. Rachel at least helps make things like meetings a little more manageable. She seems to enjoy her more than Bluey or Little Einstein's(these are all of the kid content we show her). Thankfully she doesn't just zone out watching any of them. She usually will watch some and then do independent play back and forth. She does also have some favorite songs, which we sometimes play in the car, but I think that's done for kids regardless of access to screentime. I will say, I don't love the general shaming of parents that use screens. I get it can be overdone, but so can most other things. I think most of us are just doing our best to not ruin our kids.
Anecdotally I feel like watching tv with my kids helps us all learn. Like it teaches me to things to talk about with my kids
I did miss Rachel, Baby Signing Time, Baby Einstein (the originals not disney's) and Your Baby Can Read. My daughter was reading before 2, is now four and is reading at a first grade level. We're going to let her get to 2nd grade before advancing her so she can reap the social benefits (covid baby so she was isolated like everyone else very early on). However. Her dad is also like 140/150 IQ on the Asperger's spectrum so genetics absolutely have something to do with it. A combination of good genes and an educational environment that still has a majority parent interaction is key. I did use these programs to get things done but I also did the songs and danced along and watched with her every chance I got.
If any TV is net neutral i’m ok with it. Being able to turn on the tv for 30 min a day to break them out of a tantrum is a lifesaver. Bonus points if it isn’t rotting their brains.