New world for babies

Press, Volume CXII, Issue 32804, 3 January 1972, Page 5

New world for babies

(By

PATRICIA LEWIS)

How big should a baby’s world be? Should it be as large as its mother cares to make it —in the pram to the shops or the park, or out in the car to see friends and relations?

Or should a child spend the bulk of his first 12 months in a lOft-square multi-level cot surrounded by tapecorders, sound-activated mobiles, and enough electronic gadgetry to fill a spacecapsule? This is the basis of a fierce argument now shaking the usually placid world of child management. Should a baby develop amid a family environment, or should he set out on a lone adventure, finding things out for himself—and growing clever and selfsufficient in the process? “SPLIT-LEVEL COT” Babies whose parents subscribe to the second theory could well find themselves in what is called a “total responsive environment.” This can actually take several forms, but the latest is a £5OO “split-level” cot and play area designed to accommodate a baby for most of his day. Here, he undergoes “programmed enrichment,” which is said to speed up the learning processes and turn the child into a brighter, betterbalanced human being. A typical “environmental crib,” now being offered to American parents, is about 10ft square and moulded out of plastic or polystyrene into two or three levels, connected by gentle slopes. A smooth

outward-sloping wall of transparent plastic surrounds the whole area, allowing the child to look out, but not climb out. Inside this “workshop of discovery,” as it has been termed, a child can eat, sleep, and play with virtually no adult interference. The sleeping section—the lowest of the levels—is a “nest” of soft, easily cleaned fabric, heated from below. Warm, purified air wafts from side-ducts to keep the child cosy as he sleeps. He needs no conventional bedclothes—and he can sleep and wake when he wishes regardless of conventional bedtime.

Another level of the cot is the “working area,” equipped with toys to grasp and pull, wheels to spin, sand-timers to watch and operate, and a tape recorder which supplies tunes or speech according to the pressure on a large wall-button. The “leisure section” contains voice-activated mobiles, a selection of orthodox toys, and perhaps a wall tank of fish.

“EDUCATIONAL INTEREST” To those experts who as- ; sert that such treatment of a child is inhuman and liable to cause all maner of emotional upsets, supporters of the “total responsive environment” reply that, of the sev- , eral hundred children who have lived in the gadgetladen cots, the great majority are well-balanced and happy. They also have a higherthan average 1.Q., they go on, and a highly developed "educational interest.” Dr Jean Partlett, a children’s psychiatrist and an enthusiastic believer in “environment cots,” argues that there is nothing inhuman about the system. “Don’t get the impression,” she says, “that the child is left there totally unsupervised for days at a time. “The technique depends on the child. Some children can be left happily for several hours; others need to be removed after perhaps a 30minute period. “What the equipment es-t sentially provides is mental! stimulus for the child with-! out interference from parents. “The child would get the same sort of enjoyment from I dismantling an electric plug.! (except in that case it would (kill him. In the cot, he gets! the stimulus and can come to no harm.” The opponents of “total re- ■ sponsive environment” argue (that all the elaborate equipment is no better for playing : with than ordinary pots and pans, and could endanger normal intellectual and emo- ! tional development. “NO SUBSTITUTE” Recently, a Harvard paediatrician, Dr Richard Feinbloom, went so far as to ; urge the American Academy of Paediatrics to outlaw the : gadgets. They were no substitute, he said, for “warm parent-child give and take.” [ Other specialists believe I that, even if the infant does acquire skills exceptionally early through being put into : an environmental crib, he , will not benefit much in the! [‘long run. ■! They argue that the basic! knowledge imparted by all the*

electronic gear does not need to be taught to a tiny child: jhe will pick it up surprisingly (quickly just by being alive, i Supporters of the new theory, however, say that this is not so. They maintain that certain mental skills, which last a lifetime, can only be icquired by “imprinting” — a special form of rapid learning which occurs at certain periods when the child is young. Only the intensive I learning provided by the electronic cot can pump in the amount of knowledge required. What it all means, says the pro-crib experts, is that parents who prefer the traditional “containment crib” — the simple cot found in almost every nursery—may end up with a child who is not as bright as he could be. At £5OO a time, most parents will have to take that risk. But surely to the average mother, the alternative — to take her baby in her arms and share his delight of learning and seeing new things — is utterly beyond price. Features International.