The Myth of the First Three Years: A New Understanding of Early Brain Development and Lifelong Learning

by John T. Bruer

Most parents today have accepted the message that the first three years of a baby's life determine whether or not the child will grow into a successful, thinking person. But is this powerful warning true? Do all the doors shut if baby's brain doesn't get just the right amount of stimulation during the first three years of life? Have discoveries from the new brain science really proved that parents are wholly responsible for their child's intellectual successes and failures alike? Are parents losing the "brain wars"? No, argues national expert John Bruer. In The Myth of the First Three Years he offers parents new hope by debunking our most popular beliefs about the all-or-nothing effects of early experience on a child's brain and development.

Challenging the prevailing myth -- heralded by the national media, Head Start, and the White House -- that the most crucial brain development occurs between birth and age three, Bruer explains why relying on the zero to three standard threatens a child's mental and emotional well-being far more than missing a few sessions of toddler gymnastics. Too many parents, educators, and government funding agencies, he says, see these years as our main opportunity to shape a child's future. Bruer agrees that valid scientific studies do support the existence of critical periods in brain development, but he painstakingly shows that these same brain studies prove that learning and cognitive development occur throughout childhood and, indeed, one's entire life. Making hard science comprehensible for all readers, Bruer marshals the neurological and psychological evidence to show that children and adults have been hardwired for lifelong learning. Parents have been sold a bill of goods that is highly destructive because it overemphasizes infant and toddler nurturing to the detriment of long-term parental and educational responsibilities.

The Myth of the First Three Years is a bold and controversial book because it urges parents and decision-makers alike to consider and debate for themselves the evidence for lifelong learning opportunities. But more than anything, this book spreads a message of while there are no quick fixes, conscientious parents and committed educators can make a difference in every child's life, from infancy through childhood, and beyond.

Genres: Parenting, Education, Nonfiction, Psychology, Reference

256 pages, Paperback

First published September 9, 1999

Reviews

[Andy · Rating 3 out of 5]

Recently (late 2013) several books have come out debunking the exaggerated misinterpretations of "brain science." This book was way ahead of its time in 1999. The author does what science writers should do, going back to the original research papers to see what the evidence shows. Unfortunately, the writing style is not great, with tons of repetition, etc. This is a shame because overall, he makes a convincing case that zero-3 pronouncements and policies are not based on much.

Of course, the bigger issue is that the "brain science" doesn't really matter for policy. What matters is what actually works. We need to look at evidence from studies of interventions and their outcomes, regardless of the theories behind them.

Here the picture is murkier, with things like the Abecedarian program showing some impact but not enough to impress the author: the thing is a few IQ points isn't much at an individual level but shifting the average IQ for a population by a few points does make a big deal. The test of his general hypothesis would have been to show that good programs that start after age 3 (at school age, for example) can erase differences between rich and poor kids as well as or better than 0-3 programs, but he doesn't really get into that.

[Sheri · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was academic, yet highly readable. It reviewed various recent neuroscientific studies and how their findings have been misinterpreted to place a disproportionate emphasis on brain development in the first three years of life, disregarding what happens later. While the first three years are important and there are so-called critical periods for certain species-wide skills such as seeing and speaking, development continues until adolescence, and even adults can learn new skills.

[BA · Rating 2 out of 5]

Painfully repetitive.

[Dario Sarik · Rating 5 out of 5]

When reading the book before the final Chapter I did not see the point of being overly repetitive and thought to leave it a 3/5.

However the Final Chapter importantly summarizes in the repetitive highlights how wrong the interpretation of “scientific evidence” is used in every days publications, political discussions and policy making. So by this closing the book gets a 5/5.



As a parent looking for some actionable neuroscientific advice the book can be summarized into “you should talk, sing and read to your baby”, “psychologically well adjusted mothers are [more important than] the day care facility” and “we know from these experiments, that deprivation [of input] is bad. We do not know from these experiments that more or earlier stimulation is good”.

Or even shorter -> As long as you don’t abnormally deprive your child of the input you think would be good for it, everything would be fine.



As someone who looks for the truth of what actually is known and what has the same level as believing into buried onions at full moon, the book provides a great breakdown on attachment theory or the neurological importance and irrelevance for additional action of synaptic formation and axion guidance (except for keeping the sensors of the child intact). It shows for with very specific experience expectant learning process which stimuli are beneficial and gives particularly good advice and information for multilingual environment. It also takes of pressure to the parents that think that extraordinary enriched environments help with experience based learning in the critical periods.

But most importantly it points out that one should stay very critical about how (wrongfully) studies are interpreted and on which bases some (bad) advice and theories are actually coming from. In the chapter about the critical periods it shows twice how important disease and illnesses are for our understanding of the healthy by analysis of strabismus and ear infections. I felt very much reminded by the importance of e.g. patient HM for our understanding of memory formation and leaves the reader optimistic for live long learning.



Its narration makes it easy to read and most likely a good source for an audio book that one could listen to along.

[N.J. Danatangelo · Rating 4 out of 5]

We need more books like this. While I'd rate it as a 3-star book, it earns an extra star for challenging conventional dogma and weak science. Writing and defending such a book couldn't have been easy, especially since it targets a well-intentioned but misguided cause: investing money in early childhood development. I believe more parents would benefit from reading this and taking a more relaxed approach.

[Alicia Fox · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book was (I think) the first popular publication to explain brain science in "I don't think it means what you think it means" terms. The myth is that the first three years are crucial due to synapses forming, and that learning lost during these years can never be regained. The reality is that it's the pruning of synapses that matters, and the window for learning does not in any way close when a child turns three. The myth popularized silliness like Baby Mozart CDs, and convinced a generation of parents to spend tens of thousands on day care programs. Since people still waste a fortune on these things, clearly, the myth hasn't been debunked in the popular imagination.

The neuroscience bits in this book are largely beyond me. What I find most interesting is how these myths impact government policy. That is, millions pumped into early childhood education means millions withdrawn from remedial education for older kids (because the myth says that the brain closes at three, so older kids can't learn). Early childhood education is really about making certain that low-income kids are exposed to middle-class tastes and socialized to function within a school/work environment.

[Melanie · Rating 1 out of 5]

The question is not how neuroscience connects the early brain of a child to learning....the question is, can you not fall into a coma while reading this book. I couldn't even choke this one down. It reads like a poor instruction manual. The only thing I learned is that it is not critical to jam information down our children's throats. The brain continues to learn at the same pace all through childhood, even adulthood. So the first three years aren't as important as we all thought. So in that aspect, it was worth a skim through.

[Nan · Rating 1 out of 5]

interesting, but the author loves to emphasize that it's a myth so much that it just feds you up. no new information for parents or psychologists. think before you read it

[Melissa · Rating 2 out of 5]

So dry...began each chapter and just could not get into it at all.