Slashdot Mirror
Texting Toddlers, How Young is Too Young?
theodp writes "Toddlers don't need to be texting, concedes the NYT's Lisa Belkin, but since they have always had toy typewriters and toy telephones, why not toy Blackberrys? If your little tyke is itching to text, the NYT has a round-up of texting devices aimed at children as young as three who want to talk with their thumbs. The question of, 'when is a child is old enough for their own cell phone' has been replaced with the question of, 'what type of texting gadget is appropriate for which age group.' But don't forget to lay down the law: 'Our 13-year-old got a phone with an unlimited plan as a reward for good grades,' says HiTechMommy.com blogger Cat Schwartz. 'Each night he is required to turn the phone in at 10 p.m. and then gets it back first thing in the morning.'"
Turning it in and then getting it back the next day? Responsible Parenting? Lies! With no kids myself, I can only offer tech to my 3 nieces as their parents see fit. I think teens is a good age, but as always, it depends on when the child can show responsible behavior. Many College students in my town are not responsible enough to own phones.
If I wrote something witty, you would say I stole it from somewhere.
There is no one too young to benefit from the use of mobiles. Though, obviously, all the old folk will claim it'll ruin their childhood. It will not ruin it. Just because it's different does not mean its bad.
So whatever happen to just let the kid go outside and play. I'm all for introducing kids to technologies and educating them but this is a little to much. IMO this is just a way to train your kids not to be sociable when they are adults. It seems that more and more of the younger generation are losing their ability to to really converse face to face.
I guess if you're OK trading off spelling and penmanship for early development of skills that they'll learn soon enough anyway, then sure. Get your toddler a Leapberry, or whatever-yacallit. (I did rtfa, but my retention is poor. I started using a web browser at an early age.)
Just don't blame anybody else when they start running around speaking in acronymese like "ell-oh-ell" and "eff-oh-ay-dee," and their handwriting looks worse than your physician's.
I can see the fnords!
If the kid wants to text, then let em text. Just as long as it doesn't take such ridiculous amounts of time that it starts to negatively affect other area's, like school, playing with friends, socializing, sleeping, growing up, learning how to walk, etc.
When is that too young? What if they send naked bath pictures of themselves to unsuspecting recipients? Will they be marked forever as a sex offender?
This sounds like a load of trouble to me. I will certainly teach my children to spell and write properly before allowing them to own any texting-enabled device. Imagine a generation of people who learned texting before proper spelling and grammar. The horrors!
If they can answer 'ASL?' then they're not too young. ; )
When they are old enough to buy their own texting device and pay their own bills then I'll let my kids text.
If they're going to drool into the keys and ruin it, they're too young.
If they're going to type at me all day, they're too young.
If they're going to type at their father all day instead of me, not only are they not too young, I fully expect a call saying "Dad? Remember when you first got that Apple II and were learning to program, and I kept trying to help you? I just wanted to say I'm sorry." THEN if I get that phone call, and they keep pestering him, they're too young. But I'll still laugh. In fact, I may go buy it. They got any with drool proof keys?
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
I see many kids with cell phones not because they are old enough to text their friends, but because the parent don't think they are old enough to be on their own. Kids today don't get any alone time. They are at their parents beck and call. When I was growing up, I ran out of the house to play in the morning and did not return until the street lights came on. There was nothing to get me back home, or to micromanage my day. I was on my on to play and create. Now kids have an hourly reminder of where one is to be,and need to check in frequently from school. What is the point. No wonder we have kids graduating from college with no job prospects. They never learned to manage their own time, or complete a task on their own inititative.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
When I was in 5th grade and discovered girls, was about the same time I discovered instant messaging on AOL (back then it was v. 2.5, which only supported plain text - get off my lawn!) and got along just fine. I always wished I had a handheld IM client/device I could use while in front of the TV - with unlimited SMS that's basically what a cell phone is, and the iPhone even displays sms messages in a chat format. Age 11 might be a little late to be introducing your kid to instant messaging/sms (is there really a difference anymore with unlimited sms plans?). Sometime after 1st but well before 5th.
moox. for a new generation.
Learning to move, fall and coordinate with physical moving objects is important at that age. There's hardly enough time in a day for kids to run around, learn to ride a bike or swim, skate, catch a ball, throw a ball and play with actual people. They'll sit in front of a screen to communicate with people who are somewhere else soon enough.
I'll start by saying that I genreally despise texting. It is too expensive and too time consuming for my life, and it is extremely distracting. However, there is something that toddlers with cell phones could be good for.
The US currently has a dismal literacy rate amongst children entering kindergarten. I don't know when or how it happened, but a significant portion of children in this country today enter kindergarten without even a basic understanding of the alphabet, yet alone any ability to read or write. In comparison I and every child in my kindergarten class (so many years ago) were all able to read at least Dr. Susus books.
So if giving cell phones to kids gets them reading sooner, then I guess it isn't all bad.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
They shouldnt text, or even have phones. They shouldnt be going somewhere where there arent any land-lines by themselves. If they are going somewhere without land-lines or even on their way to a place with land-lines, they should have an adult with them, which would negate the need of a cell phone. That adult would more than likely have one. I didnt get a cell phone until I was old enough to drive and had a car, and I managed fine. When I see middle school- and elementary school-aged kids with cell phones, I cringe. When you get something like that at an early age, you get to where you depend on it. Texting is already becoming a huge issue in schools, this would only make it worse.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
"Sup dog, you in your crib? Think I'm getting a tooth, my milk hole is killing me"
In my day, if we wanted to send a text message to a friend, we used an instant messenger! Or we even wrote out an email. It took time to sit down and put some thought into composing that message. None of this Twitter Trotter Twatter flim-flarn-flith. We had more than 140 characters to work with and could take the time to say something that was worth taking the time to say! And we sat at a keyboard. With a chair. Typed with our fingers instead of with our thumbs like savages.
If the little ankle-biters offer you any lip, send 'em to their rooms with nothing but bread, water, and 56k dial-up.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Texting was that tiny spot on the personal digital communications timeline between "Cell Phones Become Prevalent" and "Smartphones with E-Mail Become Prevalent." And I guess I can't really say that "smartphones have become prevalent," beyond the anecdotal "everyone I know uses a smartphone now and just e-mails from it (at no extra charge)." So, yeah, give kids the ability to text, I guess. Give 'em all an abacus and a CueCat while you're add it, too.
With this current economic mess, you'd think the conspicuous consumption, such as this, would have come to an end. I mean, please! do toddlers really need this?!? WTF are they going to text? And to whom? Their pre-school buddies?!
Jesus Christ! PT Barnum was right.
I have 2 nephews and 1 niece and they were introduced to a desktop computer right when they were a year and a half . Of course for them it was just something they could do while we fed them. But they picked up typing and mouse skills which I found my parents had a hard time picking up. My 3 year old nephew plays Mortal Kombat 4 and GTA ( yes yes I know it is too violent and I am not proud of that) I even got them cell phones when they were 4. According to me its a safety thing. If the question is technology at what age, I would say there is no such thing as an age to introduce technology. What we should always remind/warn them of is the misuse of technology. Introduce them to the dangers, make them responsible. In my case - viruses and porn at some later age. The same is the argument for texting. Dont text while driving, but I dont want any kid with a cellphone not able to text and inform in case he is lost or there is an emergency and lack of cellphone signal. Ignoring technology is a crime.
Off the cuff, because I'm too lazy to track down any citations, there's some evidence and theory gaining traction that we speak with an accent as well as think with an accent. The window for learning one's mother tongue may be coeval with the window for acquiring our social values and thus our prejudices. Young brains seem to abstract a subset of rules for speech, and, possibly for social values and manners of thought, from a universal set of rules, or, perhaps from a universal potential limited only by physical constraints. Much as most parents miss a golden opportunity to let their children easily acquire foreign languages during their most plastic years they may also miss the opportunity to let their children gain a broad range of ways to investigate the world. There's a innate urge to protect one's children from harmful outside influences, but it's also necessary to allow them to acquire a broad potential before the window for acquiring life long habits closes. There's no reason most children can't acquire at least 3 or 4 languages instinctively, as language is an instinct. Literacy is a very different thing and, even today, the world illiteracy rate is disgusting. It's worth remembering that a child's destruction and discarding of a new toy may mask a learning process that works at a rate most adults can only keep pace with (if at all) by having acquire "tricks of the trade". just my loose change
ideopath @ play
'Our 13-year-old got a phone with an unlimited plan as a reward for good grades,' says HiTechMommy.com blogger Cat Schwartz.
I'd tap that, for sure.
Check it out
>They never learned to manage their own time, or complete a task on their own inititative.
I found that kids who do many activities and sports are very good at managing their time as opposed to those that can sit for hours with no responsability.
our neighbour's daughter is an elite figure skater and spends hours training each day. ALL her friends in that program are excellent at managing school work with skating and still managing a small social life. They are still in grade school.
I dont think free time is a bd thing and I think kids are too structured but if you want you kid to play competitive sports, learn music and still do all the rest of the things kids do, then the kid that wants to succeed will learn to manage his time.
It's called a Speak & Spell. See Wikipedia for more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speak_%26_Spell_(toy)
You were lucky to have instant messenger. Back in my day, we were typing on our hand-me down PCs, logged onto Prodigy and waited minutes for typed responses on a bulletin board to return, day in, day out. We praised the day we got our 33.6 modem and signed on to Compuserve.
In case for the humor impaired, I'm riffing on the Four Yorkshiremen sketch.
The day my toddler texts me from the other room to tell me he wants some "gam cackers n apple joose" is the day I climb the clocktower.
The problem is that current ideas will not be the status quo when kids get to be a little older. The more we cram ideas of today into kids heads, the more they seem ... well, "un-absurd" to them.
Texting is stupid. Thumb typing is stupid. Tiny little plastic dohickies with tiny screens and keyboards are stupid. Making them seem normal to children so they can grow up to accept this silliness is good for industry, but not good for the future.
Kids need exposure to these technologies so that they can form other ideas, but they don't need to USE them on a day to day basis. Let you kid play with one one day. Then make it clear that it's an unpleasant work-thing not a fun play-thing. Then wait a decade or two, and maybe your children will help free you from this crap.
It's not the technology that's the problem. As with anything it's lazy parenting and the technology being used to replace something a parent should be doing. With proper parenting, a child learning how to text will have a head start over his friends and not being a spoiled little twat.
(I didn't read the article. I've got my own opinions and agenda) We gave our son a disabled Blackberry at 6 months, and a OLPC laptop at 14 months. He hasn't gotten bored with the laptop at all. It stays on at a workstation area he chose and arranged, and he is the only one who gets to use it. I am proud of him and certain he is better for having these gadgets in daily use.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/161960.php From the page: " - There is a risk of brain tumors from cellphone use; - Telecom funded studies underestimate the risk of brain tumors, and; - Children have larger risks than adults for brain tumors. "
Also ,
here
and here are the details, if you read science.
study.
Exception Duck - may or may not contain chicken.
You were lucky to have instant messenger. Back in my day, we were typing on our hand-me down PCs, logged onto Prodigy and waited minutes for typed responses on a bulletin board to return, day in, day out. We praised the day we got our 33.6 modem and signed on to Compuserve.
In case for the humor impaired, I'm riffing on the Four Yorkshiremen sketch.
Back in my day, we had that joke. We couldn't use it to communicate or learn anything new. We just repeated it over and over, in hopes it would ease the mind-numbing boredom...Ah, those were the days.
Dr. Susus books.
Not sure who Dr. Susus is. It appears my fingers betrayed me, that should have been Dr Seuss.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Bought one of those Go-Phones so she can play with it. She can watch everything light up, beep, push buttons, etc. instead of destroy my phone. Total price $10. Just make sure you don't activate it.
I am sorry, but you are not familiar with linguistics.
Linguistic drift and your inability to read Beowulf are not related. Language drifts with or without literacy, they are only casually related. HOWEVER, you can prevent the written expression of a language from drifting. The French have done this. You can pick up the MoliÃre and read it pretty easily today.
However, if you compare spoken and written French, the problems accumulate fast because the language has drifted while the writing system is pegged to the 17th century. French has tons of unspoken syllables (think about it: there are frequently words with up to three silent letters). Now, the French love this system and will defend it to the death. They will extol its systemic nature, ignoring the fact all languages are systemic, the difference being that in French it is more obvious because you have to consciously learn a 400 year old writing system. But if you fast forward another 1000 years, and you have a writing system that is essentially pictograms. This is what the Chinese face: they can read texts from several thousands of years, but it is an enormous effort to teach children basic literacy. This archaic system has other costs, such as significantly raising the entry barrier for people wishing to learn the language.
Personally, I think that the English speaking world has taken the correct decision in keeping its writing system more aligned with the spoken language than French*. I value communication today with peers more than Beowulf, or, quite honestly, Shakespeare. It will take millenia for the language to drift enough that a sufficiently interested person cannot learn the dialect of a few hundred years before, so I do not see the benefit of a static writing system at all.
*: yes, I know English has its kinks. This is because the writing system does more than simply phonetically reproduce the word. For example, it also tries to communicate a word's roots. For example, /subtle/ entered English from Latin via French. It had already lost the /b/ by the time that it entered French, but English dictionaries reinstated it to allow users of the writing system to see the relationship between this work and other words using the /sub/ prefix. This has nothing to do with pedantic continuity (the /b/ was already gone), it was designed to allow readers who did not know this fairly uncommon word to guess at the meaning.
Taxing Toddlers, How Young is Too Young? If dyslexic lets say at the age of 1, and 2 years if healthy. This will reduce the national debt particularly the tax on future generations
Just as when you're discussing the "right age" to start texting, you have to remember that all kids are different. I'm 18, live in the "swankier part of town" and have been driving my little Scion xA for two years and it's in about as good condition as one could possibly expect. Just because my parents paid for my car doesn't mean that I don't value it and treat it with respect.
While that particular kid might treat his BMW like a piece of trash, there are other kids (like myself) who would treat that car like gold.
It is essential for the American Economy for all responsible citizens to consume, consume, consume.
When my kids were 3, they loved to play outside. But they also loved to text. I definitely didn't get them their own texting device, though. Just let them use my phone.
What I'm trying to say, is that texting and playing outside are not mutually exclusive. No 3 year old wants to sit still and text all day long.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
One thing that is often overlooked is the special needs community. My son is 9 years old and non-verbal. His mind is clear and bright (he's very intelligent), but he cannot communicate with the spoken word. As his parent, I can understand approximately 25% of what he says, and most other people are at less then 10%.
For him, one of these devices could be the difference between being a part of the rest of the world or being shut off and not able to interact with others.
I am a parent that is very grateful for this technology.
It's not necessarily that being rich makes one an automatic ass, but often more that earning something means appreciating it more. When the cost of a car is equivalent to saving up a year or more's worth of hard work, it's a fairly natural reaction to try and preserve said vehicle.
A kid whose dad buys him a basic car isn't necessarily going to appreciate the *value* of the item any more than a kid handed the keys to a jag, but to others the jag is more obviously not the result of "working for one's ride" as it's a rare teenager indeed that could afford one based on the income-level for that age-group. On the other hand, the kid who is given a semi-beater is likely going to worry less about the occasional nick+scratch than the kid with the jag, and almost ANY kid is going to have to go through the paces of learning how to become a good driver, which usually comes at some detriment to the vehicle even if they don't intentionally drive like idiots.
What REALLY bothers me is not those who were given a car, my own first car was assisted by my family (though maintained/gassed/repaired by myself), but rather those that get continual handouts regardless of their attitude/performance. When your kid totals his car due to driving recklessly, it take a true degree of ignorance to just go out and buy him a shiny new replacement (or even another beater). As mentioned in an earlier post in regards to kids wrecking their toys, maybe it's time to STOP buying them replacement toys. As a lover of gadgets and gizmos myself I don't have a problem getting various items for my boy when I can afford to do so, but that'll come to a screeching halt if he abuses or breaks them (he knows that, and thus far he's been good about taking care of his toys).
Ahhh, and here I was going to comment that perhaps they were part of a budget learning collection, possibly sold near the sections of the supermarket where they have "Dr Skipper" cola and "Spritz Up" (actually the "Dr Skipper" isn't too bad though).
I wonder what a Dr Susus book would look like. It might be a fun exercise to come up with one as a parody, something like these
If you RTFA, there are no "texting devices aimed at children as young as three ". The device aimed at 3 year olds is a toy with spelling games that's designed to look like a Blackberry. My daughter has had toy phones, including toy mobiles, since she was was one (and I'm pretty sure I had a pull-along phone when I was a toddler). Don't really see how this is greatly different from that.
Kids these days are surrounded by technology - my daughter's now 3 and would much rather sit and play on the CBeebies (BBC kids channel) website than watch CBeebies on the TV. If used (and supervised) properly, tech can be great for education as well as being fun.
I don't see any problem w/ kids texting. It seems like a good way to work on their communication skills, and gets them familiar w/ technology. The problem I see w/ the situation is that introducing these devices at a young age is enabling their addiction. To most people I know a cellphone isn't a convenience device it's a necessity. Take it away and they become lost, and unhappy, like flushing a heroin addicts stash. Do we really want a whole generation hooked on cellphones? I'm not against cellphones at all, but I do believe that most people tend to use them obsessively, and would like it if a whole generation didn't end up like their parents.
You got your child cell service early enough, as long as it works from the back of a rusted GMC van driven by a kidnapper.
I gave my daughter a cellphone when she turned 7, and she's been using it quite responsibly since she got it. At 8, I'd say about half the kids in her class have one. It's not used to a whole lot, mostly for short messages ("can I go with X after school"). There's not a huge amount of texting between the kids yet - she mostly texts with her grandma and with a couple of cousins.
Given that everyone else in her family have a cellphone and is texting, it would feel really off to me if she didn't have one.
This lead me to the Peek, which I hadn't looked at in some time. $20 for the device, and then $20/month. I picked one up for my 6 year old. There is a lot not to like, but I'll focus on why I got it:
Why the Peek?
* E-mail/text only (no phone, games, web, etc).
* Fairly durable device, good value.
* No long term contract.
What do I expect my 6yo to do with this?
* Communicate more frequently with those he loves in a non-intrusive way.
* Update his blog. You can argue that one. For my 6yo it has been a great thing.
What do I expect to get out of it?
* Teach responsible use of technology (what you post is sticky).
* Give him a fun opportunity to use his increasing language and reading skills.
* http://www.peekmaps.com/ - just because I've learned to be paranoid.
When the kids can pay for the phone and bills themselves?
********************
I object to Intellect without Discipline.
'when is a child is old enough for their own cell phone'
Apparently, that child was definitely not old enough... ^^
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
My tot is going on two years, and I've decided that as soon as he's old enough to be out alone without adult supervision, I'm more than happy for him to carry a phone.
He mightn't be old enough to use SMS, but I'll make sure he knows how to call me on it, and also make emergency calls.
This isn't about being a control-freak parent, in fact the opposite. This is about giving the young one a degree of freedom to discover the world on his own terms, while keeping a safety net in place in case anything goes wrong.
I'm a father of a two year old. I think my brain experienced some kind of segfault when I read this. What is a two (or even three) year old going to say in a text message?
I don't see anything inherently wrong with exposure to technology at a young age. But I think the world (at least among first world countries) is already so saturated with technology that it's hardly necessary to go deliberately pushing it in kid's faces. I'd have to go out of my way to make my son interested in a cell phone. He's far too obsessed with other things, like a stick lying on the ground, or a butterfly flying across his face, or jumping up in down while rotating in a circle until he gets so dizzy he falls over in hysterics.
Compare those experiences with -- what -- sitting in a chair zoning into a tiny little screen? There will be time for that later. Right now, it seems far more important that he learn a few basic facts. Like, I don't know, the basic physical nature of reality. The fundamental rules of social interaction with other children and adults. The way the grass feels on your skin as you roll down a hill.
I don't forbid the child to play with a piece of technology. He just isn't interested in it. Every child is different, but I have to wonder if some parents are deliberately pushing technology on their kids when they'd much rather be doing something else. The world is a big, complex, and rich place. Technology has a way of latching into our minds and compelling us to sit for hours zoning into a screen. I'd rather delay that until later, and does that really make me a bad parent or a Luddite?
Speaking as a 15 year old, here are my thoughts. I am not like most of my peers in regards to texting. Almost everyone I see at school, except about 2 students are blinding themselves with their cell phone back lights and almost spraining their ever so excited thumbs texting non stop throughout the day. Although I do have a texting plan, I do not text all that often. When it's dinner time, it's dinner time. I'm not going to sit there and type "lol, lmbo" between bites. In regards to the different types of texting devices for different age groups, I believe that it's a great idea. For one, I believe that parents should be able to monitor and control their child's usage of the new phone specifically made for elementary school aged children. This allows kids to do what the big kids do, have a little fun, but the parents can control when, where, how, to and from whom the communication via the phone takes place. Plus, as kids want to become more separate from their parents, and want to be with their peers more, the phone allows a sense of relief that the child can contact the parent, or vice versa whenever needed. In response to the LeapFrog "phone" for toddlers: Great idea. People think that the toddler would become addicted to texting and wouldn't have proper communication skills due to high usage of acronyms. Do you really think this would happen? No. The phone would probably just say: "Type C-A-T." and the owner would do that, teaching them not only communication skills, but spelling and grammar skills too. The LeapFrog "phone" isn't going to be a regular communication device, it's going to be a useful communication device. I believe that these new products will be marketed towards the children of younger (~20-30 year old) parents, because their parents are familiar with texting, and know how it works. Older parents would just say "Psh, more texting nonsense!" I urge you, nay sayers of these new devices, to look at the advantages, not just at the disadvantages. If you don't like the product, the solution is simple: Don't buy it. Thanks for reading my opinion.
Now you want to know why the Children of Today are becoming increasingly stupid? handing your child a phone before they can properly speak is totally backward.
All cows eat grass!
>>>If you don't understand the close connection between responsibilities and privileges, you'll have a hard time raising kids.
Our whole society doesn't understand this connection. A person can get their drivers license or drink alcohol at an age mandated by the state where they live. This has nothing at all to do with whether or not they have the emotional maturity to handle the responsibility of either of these activities. Our culture when it stopped having formal rites of passage gave what used to be a village or clan responsibility over to the State. and the State makes blanket rules. So to my way of thinking there are steps along the way such as getting your first cell phone and being able to go out with friends without a parent to supervise onto drinking and getting your drivers license. As a parent it is necessary that my child prove to me along the way that they are ready for each of these steps. and that is shown to me by how they handle the responsibilities that are appropriate to their age. If along the way my son slips backwards to a reduced level of responsibility, the privileges start being pulled back too.
So the question of when do they "Need" a cell phone, My answer would be when they show they are ready for it. This is of course made much harder because for so many of my sons peers there is no relationship between privilege and responsibility. If they want it they get it. All the privileges with none of the responsibility. So my son is asking why he has to pay the price the others don't and I can't really answer that it is because his friends parents are bad parents. But I think they are doing their children a disservice.