AAAAugh! You had a narrow escape. The arrogance of educators talking about "the right way" to teach a child, when theories as to what this is seem to change every three years, is amazing. I recall in 1975 (I think - I was only about 8 at the time) we knew a retired teacher who sometimes did supply work for a local school. She was given a remedial class to look after, and started teaching them by traditional methods. Result, in a few weeks they were ahead of the main class. Our retired friend quite reasonably asked why the school couldn't adopt such methods as a matter of course, and apparently they were "not allowed to". She could get away with it since she was retired and not a permanent employee, or something. I heard a story similar to yours from a friend (Tony - did you ever meet ACAW1?) at university (last heard of doing a PhD in the history of German). He told me that it is a commonly held belief in Germany that there is no point in teaching a child to read until it is 6 years old - the age of starting school in Germany - since children younger than that lack the necessary development (unspecified). Apparently his German friends were always amazed to discover that his parents, wanting him out of mischief at age {nearly 4}, and unable to get him a school place until {nearly 5}, taught him to read. Any comments from our Geman readers? How prevalent is this myth? Two shorter comments to finish. I too have heard that playing music to very small children (age <2) helps them develop intelligence. The music has to be of the sort that takes some thought to listen to, of course. Mozart, Beethoven etc. are good choices, as are some of the better-thought-out pop styles, but minimal music or thud-thud-thud pop music are probably not. (Sorry, as a mainly classical listener, I don't know the correct terms for the pop music styles) And finally a saying attributed to the Jesuit order: Give us a child till he's 6 years old and we have him for life. Philip.