Recent news reports are that the Walt Disney Company "finally admits" that Baby Einstein videos are not educational, and refunds will be available to parents requesting them.

For years the American Academy of Pediatrics has recommended "screen time" for children under two years of age. Today, in The Gazette (a division of CanWest Publishing Inc.), Sarah Schmidt of the CanWest News Service reports that the Canadian Academy of Pediatrics "is poised" to make the same recommendation.

Since the Baby Einstein videos first showed up on the market there have been those who believe they could increase a child's intelligence and/or vocabulary. There have also been those who found such faith in DVD's misguided. Then, too, there have been claims that the videos are just something pleasant to offer babies and toddlers, and that any activity that exposes a young child to something pleasant is a positive thing. There have even been reports on at least one study that showed that children who watch the Baby Einstein videos actually have a lower vocabulary than those who don't. (So much debate; so much "wheel-spinning" - all over something a whole lot of mothers have known since the beginning of time - a major part of a child's reaching his potential hinges on the high-quality interaction between mother and child/parent and child from early infancy through school age and beyond.)

Normally, I'm not someone who pays much attention to what other people are doing in places like the local supermarket or mall. I'll admit to noticing a crying baby or a toddler having a temper tantrum and silently sympathizing with the parent of the child. I'll also admit to noticing the parent who speaks harshly to a very young child. In a moment of empathy for a child being spoken to that way, I am guilty of silently judging that parent before my thoughts soon return to my own business. Even with these "admissions", however, I don't spend a lot of time paying attention to what other people are doing. That's why it surprised me one day when a young mother and her baby caught my attention.

The first time I noticed them was in the grocery store. I kept meeting the mother and her child (a toddler between, probably, fifteen and eighteen months old), as the mother shopped with her child in the infant-seat in the cart. The young mother seemed so oblivious to the fact that her child was with her, it was noticeable. The young woman wasn't doing or saying anything awful, and the child sat silently but contented-seeming in the seat. There was just something striking about the lack of interaction. I didn't spend much time paying attention to them. It was just that there was something different about this young mother and most others who have toddlers with them (so different that the silence and lack of interaction between them was noticeable). I guess, in the split second I spent even thinking about the young woman, I just assumed she was engrossed in her shopping.

Later I was outside on the sidewalk, waiting for my companion. The young mother came out of the store not long after I did. The baby was still in the infant seat. The mother had a couple of bags of groceries and a large tote bag (or handbag). She had a folded stroller that had either been under the carriage or hanging from it. It was hard not to notice her as she stopped to get her baby and belongings organized, but I still didn't think I was paying much attention. I guess I wrong, though, because I realized I was kind of waiting to hear this young woman talk to her baby. When no talk came I began really paying attention, while trying not to appear to be.

It took several minutes for this young mother to get her baby and belongings organized. (We mothers all know how that it.) First she unfolded the carriage as her little girl remained in the shopping cart. Silently, she fumbled through her tote bag and eventually pulled out a cell phone and keys. She also took a while to find and pull out a hat for the baby, and when she did she silently put it on her child and tied the strings. I was still waiting to hear one of them utter a word - any word. The silence and lack of interaction between them was so peculiar. I guess it's one of those things that we don't notice what seems normal (interaction between a mother a her child), but when something appears "off" we really notice it. The woman continued to fumble with her belongings for a while before she moved her grocery bags into a carrier on the stroller. At some point she took the baby out of the shopping cart, seated her in the stroller, and put a blanket over her lap. After that there was more apparent organizing of belongings - and still not a word to the child and no apparent interaction. By the time the young woman silently pushed the stroller, with her silent little girl in it, down the sidewalk I found myself feeling bad for little girl who had seemed to be treated like yet one more object to be organized.

This child wasn't mine, but even I had the maternal instinct to say something to her or somehow interact in order to let her know that in this world her presence and value were noted.

It occurred to me that the young mother may have been too self-conscious to talk to a baby in front of a stranger, but I remembered that there had been no apparent interaction in the store either. Besides, most mothers are so wrapped up in their babies they don't think much about who is watching. As the mother and child headed off down the sidewalk, it occurred to me that this was a child who may take a little longer to learn language skills.

I'm not someone who thinks all parents should be the same kind of parent I was when my children were young. I respect different personalities, parenting styles, etc. etc. With this, though, the "offness" to it was just too striking. I imagined how the scenario would have been with most mothers. Maybe it would go something like this:

The mother pushes the shopping cart out the door of the store, and upon hitting the outside air says something like, "Ooh - it's windy out. We need to get your hat on." Maybe the mother would then say something like, "First we need to get your stroller ready." Maybe she'd first get out the hat, though; and as she put it on the child, say something like, "Let's keep your head warm. We don't have cold heads. Ooh - nice warm head. Now we have to tie to it. There. Now hold on until we get your stroller ready."

This kind of talk is interacting. The child may or may not understand all or some of what her mother is saying, but she knows her mother is paying attention. She knows her mother is trying to "fill her in" on what's going on (a sign of respect, and a child doesn't need to know what the word, "respect," means in order to feel respected). Mothers usually spend a lot of time looking into their child's eyes, and babies spend a lot of time looking into their mother's. Using words like, "we," and "let's," can send the child the message that mother and child are a team. If the child is too young to understand words like this, no harm done. Such talk sets the foundation for future talking to the child. Even babies, however, often understand far more words than they can say, or than anyone thinks they can.

In the imaginary scenario the mother may then place her baby in the stroller and put the blanket over her lap (maybe saying, "Now let's get your blanket. Ooh - nice and warm," and looking into the child's eyes frequently during the process). Once the child had been made warm and comfortable in her own stroller, the mother might then say, "Now we need to get the bags. Here's one. Here's two," as she placed them in the stroller carrier. With the baby and groceries all in the stroller, maybe the mother would say, "OK, hold on just one minute until I find my keys and phone. Here's the keys. Now where's my phone? Ooh - here's the phone. OK. We're all set. Let's go to the flower store now."

In a five-or-so-minute scenario like this, the mother would have the opportunity to use words for objects, as well as helping the child feel engaged and valued. It is now understood that the process by which we learn language can be compared to seeing a blurry picture that gradually becomes clear. The first time we hear a word like "plate," in association with seeing, say, a white plate, we develop a fuzzy picture of what the word means. If we then see a red plate but hear the word, "plate," used we learn that "that this, plate" can come in more than one color. With repeated exposure to the word, "plate," we will eventually have the "picture" become clearer, as we realize that plates come in all sizes and colors. Obviously, when it comes to learning simple words like, "plate" (or "phone" or "blanket") we human beings are pretty young when this process has to take place. In even a brief scenario like this, though, it isn't just about being exposed to words like "phone" and "keys" for the first or hundredth time. It's about words like "windy" or "cold" and "warm", and it's also about exposing the child to ideas like hats being used to keep heads warm, what "look for" means, and what "here it is" means.

More importantly, children's brains are forming more connections in the first three years of life than they ever will again. If the right synapses are not formed when they are supposed to be the opportunities to form them later can be lost. Imagine the baby or toddler, who needs to experience the feeling of relating to his mother and others (which isn't always just about talking but which is also about emotionally relating, reaching out, and having other try to reach the child) but who spends too little time having anyone attempt to communicate with him and/or relate to him. What experience will any child's brain have with using the part of the brain associated with language skills? What experience will that same brain have using the part of the brain associate with relating to, and interacting with, people?

As I looked at that silent and seemingly ignored little girl that day, I hoped her mother was just too preoccupied for the moment. Still, children (especially babies and toddlers with brains that are developing at the rate at which they do) can't always afford to spend too much time being left without talking and relating just because their parent is too preoccupied. Being preoccupied can happen too often to parents who let it, and if it happens to often children pay the price - and sometimes a hefty one.

Language development helps a young child learn other things. The sooner a child develops language skills, the earlier he will be able to go on learn those other things. While it is generally believed that Albert Einstein, himself, was a later talker; it is is also generally believed he showed signs of possibly having Asperger's Syndrome. Unlike Einstein, Mensa's latest, youngest, member (with an IQ said to be comparable to that of Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein) is two-year-old Oscar Wrigley, who spoke at nine months old. The point here is that if it's true Einstein talked late (although even that has been disputed by those asking whether he simply had an impatient mother, in view of the fact that the same family legend that says Einstein was late talking also included reports of his remarks upon having a newborn baby sister), Einstein-level IQ's are not always associated with late talking.

Some people believe genetics plays a larger role in a child's potential than others do. There are also parents who will point out that preschoolers have been known to pick up a thing or two by watching programs like Sesame Street. These points are not the issue here, because any role genetics play will either be affected or not affected by nurturing, depending on a number of variables. If there is such a thing as a child with the genes to develop profound giftedness in spite of his nurturing, obviously that child doesn't need DVD's. On the other hand, if children have the potential (and more may than most people believe) to develop profound giftedness if given the right nurturing, few would argue that the highest quality of nurturing is the provided by a mother who knows how to nurture correctly.

In other words, any parent who looks to DVD's to nurture a baby's/toddler's potential is obviously looking to the wrong thing. The sad thing is that sometimes looking to maternal nurturing is also looking to the wrong thing.

Common sense would tell us that for every minute a baby or toddler spends looking at a video (even with Mom's involvement), that's a minute not spent just plain interacting with his mother without the "interference"/"complication" of a television or computer screen. Technology serves its purpose as a teaching aid for older children; but screens and videos have no place in the mother/child (or parent/child) relationship in the first three years of life.

The human brain has remarkable potential that dates back long before Einstein walked the face of the Earth. Mothers have eyes with which to engage with and adore their child. They have arms and voices to make their child feel secure, attached, and interested in learning about the world. Through words they can share ideas, thoughts, and concepts with their child. With a maternal instinct and heart that won't let them be "too preoccupied", mothers have everything it takes to make a baby/toddler develop well enough to go on to learn and be productive (and even brilliant).
It stands to reason that Nature wouldn't give mothers the responsibility of having the children if it also didn't give them (at least not those so damaged they have little maternal instinct) what they need to raise children with the potential to change the world.

We live in a technology and "high-screen-time" world, and in many ways that's a great thing. Still, we've often become a little more enamored with technology and electronics than we sometimes should be. Maybe it's time parents (especially mothers) remember the value of the best kind of nurturing; pay less attention to what manufacturers, marketers, and media have to say about child development, and demand that the world acknowledge the importance of the right and natural kind of nurturing, especially in the first few years of life.

We so often hear how "children these days are different" and "times have changed". The requirements for having a well nurtured child today are no different than they've ever been. Child development today is no different than it has ever been. It's time mothers/parents tell this technological world in which we live that enough is enough. It's time we tell technology and manufacturers that when it comes to babies and toddlers there is no substitute for, or supplementing of, a mother's/parent's high-quality nurturing and interaction with a child.

I'll never know whatever happened to that little girl in the carriage. I'll never know if her mother had laryngitis or maybe depression, or if she was just awfully, awfully, preoccupied. I do know that on that one day, for just that short time, I saw the face of a tiny, little, strawberry-blond-haired girl with an expression that could only be described as, "a little lonely looking". No baby should look that lonely when she's with her mother. No mother/parent should ever forget that just because a child is not crying that doesn't necessarily mean she doesn't need something.

A Formula for Smart Babies?  It Doesn't Add Up

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/opinion/l28einstein.html?_r=1

Baby Einstein's Refund:  Not So Smart

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/baby-einsteins-refund-not-so-smart/

Absolutely No TV for Kids Under Two Canadian Academy of Pediatrics (and American Academy of Pediatrics)

http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/Absolutely+kids+under+pediatricians+advise/2152782/story.html

CCFC Urges Baby Einstein to Come Clean with Parents; Advocates Document Years of Educational Claims

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2009/10/28-6

The Legend of the Dull-Witted Child Who Grew Up to Be A Genius

http://www.albert-einstein.org/article_handicap.html

Albert Einstein:  Behind the Scenes with Science's Super-Star

http://www.eioba.com/a81331/albert_einstein_behind_the_scenes_with_sciences_superstar

The Two-Year-Old Mensa Member