The only genius in Baby Einstein DVDs was in the marketing

As I type this, my four-year-old son is explaining that because it's getting dark outside, it's time to fire up the DVR and watch WordWorld, his favorite PBS show. Indeed, on many nights, if I'm grading papers, prepping for class, or just trying to steal a few minutes to focus on my own stuff, he does get to watch WordWorld. While my inner ideal mother feels guilty about plunking him down in front of the boob tube, I also figure there are worse things he could be doing (licking electrical outlets, sniffing glue, watching whatever age-inappropriate movies my husband shows him). After all, he's learning some phonics, so it can't be all bad.

This very reasoning--as well as a savvy marketing campaign that preyed on parental needs, fears, desperation, and desires--led countless parents to set their infants and toddlers in front of the television to watch the saccharine programming that is Baby Einstein. We received one of these DVDs as a gift, and neither I nor my then-two-year-old son ever really got into it, with the exception of one scene where a cow puppet is nearly crushed to death by a hailstorm of apples falling from a tree. The threat of bovicide always made him cackle a bit too joyously.

I can honestly say that I never bought into the marketing efforts of the Walt Disney Company that these videos promoted better brain development in infants and toddlers. Let's get real, people: we're talking about sock puppets on a television screen, so it shouldn't come as a shock that Disney is admitting the videos have no educational benefit. The admission was brought about by a complaint to the Federal Trade Commission by the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, which has also persuaded Disney to offer refunds to parents who purchased the DVDs for their little ones.

How big a business is Baby Einstein?  The New York Times reports that "Baby Einstein controlled 90 percent of the baby media market, and sold $200 million worth of products annually." Mull over that for a moment: 90 percent and $200 million. Then consider further: there's a baby media market? Why is there a baby media market, beyond maybe music?

It's because moms and dads and other caregivers are harried, exhausted, and desperate for just a few minutes alone to get housework done, catnap on the couch while baby zones out in front of the TV, or quietly sit in a corner and try not to implode from the stress of new parenthood. And Disney was more than happy to meet this need for a few minutes--or an entire half hour!--of alone time.  Best of all, Disney suggested that TV, rather than being the dangerous pastime that the American Academy of Pedatrics makes it out to be, was actually good for your baby's brain.

How bad is TV? Let's take a look at the AAP's warning about toddlers and TV:

It may be tempting to put your infant or toddler in front of the television, especially to watch shows created just for children under age two. But the American Academy of Pediatrics says: Don't do it! These early years are crucial in a child's development. The Academy is concerned about the impact of television programming intended for children younger than age two and how it could affect your child's development. Pediatricians strongly oppose targeted programming, especially when it's used to market toys, games, dolls, unhealthy food and other products to toddlers. Any positive effect of television on infants and toddlers is still open to question, but the benefits of parent-child interactions are proven. Under age two, talking, singing, reading, listening to music or playing are far more important to a child's development than any TV show.

I totally get the temptation to parent with television.  My son watches far more television than I'm comfortable with, a fact I'm particularly aware of this week because he was home sick for four days (thanks, H1N1!), and while my husband and I took turns caring for him, both of us still had deadlines to meet and work to get done.  Accordingly, the little guy watched a ton of television this week: superhero cartoons, WordWorld, a few movies.  And I confess: last night I was so desperate to watch one of my own shows that I turned on Grey's Anatomy even though he was in the room--but I paused the TV and had him hide under his blanket (one of his favorite games) whenever things promised to get bloody.

Then again, I think about all the TV I was exposed to growing up. My parents' television was rarely on, and it was in their bedroom--only after my sister and I graduated from high school did they get a second television--so we didn't watch as much TV at home as some of our peers. That said, my grandmother, who cared for us during preschool and after school in kindergarten through sixth grade, often had the television on while she baked us cakes and cupcakes and cookies. So we watched Little House on the Prairie, Voltron, Gilligan's Island, some soap operas, afterschool specials, and whatever else happened to be on the tiny kitchen set. As a cultural studies scholar, I'm sure if I watched these shows now, I'd be horrified by the various kinds of violence, assumptions about race, and gendered norms that pervaded these shows. Despite all this TV watching, my sister and I have proven relatively successful; I had my Ph.D. by age 31 and now advise university faculty on teaching, and she was dean of a college by age 30.

Here, then, as an educator and parent, is what I really think about young children watching TV: In an ideal world, we wouldn't alow it.  As parents, however, we need a break from our kids, and while backyard play and arts-and-crafts need some kind of supervision, television requires relatively little, assuming we've already screened the shows our kids watch.  We should be thankful, then, for Sesame Street and WordWorld and whatever other quality children's programming is available.  At the same time, however, we shouldn't allow ourselves to believe that this television is good for our kids, that it promotes critical or creative thinking, that it's forging beneficial neural pathways.  In fact, babies who watch videos made for infants learn fewer words than children who do not.

My son just finished watching the episode of WordWorld I turned on halfway through this blog post.  He's running in circles, shouting "Build a word!  C! E! O! M! B! K!  Polka-dot!  E!  I! P!  M! Fart!"  As if I needed more evidence that the show does little for him. . .

Other bloggers have had a ton to say about this subject, of course.  Here's a sampling:

Stephanie Brown of Stephanie's Toddler Blog writes,

Still, we're adults and we're capable of making decisions about what our kids see on television. I can't imagine there are many parents who are honestly disappointed that their baby or toddler isn't some sort of genius after watching these DVDs. If there are, then the issues there are probably much bigger than anything a class action lawsuit can solve, I'm afraid.

The Children's Hospital Boston Thrive health and science blog shares this additional research, which includes some benefits of TV viewing for slightly older children:

The evidence collected by the CMCH Database of Research demonstrates that [these claims by Disney et. al. are] anything but true. Not only do babies who watch infant videos not show any evidence of improved cognitive development or learning, but one study shows language delays among 8-16 month olds of six to eight words per hour of infant videos watched. CMCH research does show that appropriate amounts of well-designed educational TV programs can improve language skills, reading, math, and school readiness among preschoolers.

These advantages persist in form of higher grades, greater creativity, more reading, placing higher value on achievement, and less anxiety and aggression among high school seniors who watched educational TV during their preschool years. Unfortunately, all that videos teach infants is to watch TV – and CMCH has a large and growing body of evidence linking early TV watching to increased risks for obesity, attention problems, school difficulties, sleep disturbances and anxiety.

The Addiction in Society blog at Psychology Today asks if infant video viewing contributes to autism, and quotes a passage from CleverParents.com:

Something important has happened gradually over the past 20 years to children's play. The play in schoolyards and preschools has slid toward more scripted acting. . . . An important determinant of a child's empathy and flexibility in play is how much TV and video programming he is exposed to. [emphasis in original]. . . .The TV or video experience tends to isolate the child. As he plays, his attention is on the images in his mind, not on the child next to him.

Does acting in terms of an internal script - as opposed to reacting and being sensitive to others - sound familiar? It certainly has tones reminiscent of autism.

The Addiction in Society blogger also adds this insight to the mix:

Of course, one prime motivator for parents' reliance on video babysitters is the rampant fear in our society of sending children outdoors due to the perceived threat from infections, kidnappings, violence, et al.

Deborah Newell Tornello at litbit has these thoughts to share:

Every child is different; there are different "brands" of intelligence; and every child develops at a unique pace. And most importantly, none of these different kinds of intelligence can reasonably be expected to benefit in any meaningful and measurable way from something as easily-packaged and mass-marketed as a series of dull, condescendingly simplistic videos, which, after all, are just slide-show-style image displays of familiar objects accompanied by single-word statements set to various commercially-accepted and (considerably) less-challenging classical pieces.

Hey, here's a bold idea: Why not just play the damned Mozart in the car? That way, you'll be pleasantly surprised when your four-year-old hums things like Eine Kleine Nachtmusik in the checkout line and can tell people exactly what it is he's singing (okay, so they didn't always get the Köchel numbers right, but still). Who knows--you might then find yourself and your progeny moving on to Schubert, Shostakovitch, Glass, and Zappa. (Be still, my beating heart.)

Earlier this year, Shannon Lowe of Rocks in My Dryer wrote this piece at BlogHer on preschool TV.  She observes,

I think that preschool television, used wisely and in moderation, is a very visual way to reinforce what we're teaching our kids away from the TV.  My own four-year-old daughter rarely watches more than an hour a day, but I've seen her already apply some problem-solving skills (thanks, at least in part, to Dora) and some phonics (courtesy of WordWorld).

What about you?  What are your thoughts on Baby Einstein and children's television viewing more generally?

Leslie Madsen-Brooks develops learning experiences for K-12, university, and museum clients. She blogs at The Clutter Museum, Museum Blogging, and is the founder of Eager Mondays, a consultancy providing unconventional professional development.