Finding the Middle, Early

I read an interesting Huffington Post Blog today about the need for early childhood to be a major world-wide focus in order to ensure positive global development in the future.

Find the article here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/todd-grindal/the-next-stage-of-global-_b_3978868.html

The article points out that in the last 20 years, there have been major increases in children attending primary schools across the world. However, there has been less progress with enrolling children in “proven early childhood development programs” worldwide.

The authors then go on to discuss the importance of a strong early childhood to build a foundation for later healthy growth and development, and the links to a successful global workforce and economy. They outline the importance of healthcare, parental support, and basic nutrition as being major factors early in life that can substantially impact later academic, behavioral, and global economic success.

All of this is fairly straightforward to me. It’s the party line I’ve heard (and have generally subscribed to) from day one of my studies in child development.

However, something of this post smacked a little too much of the idea that there is only “one right way” to do something for my taste.

Though I certainly understand the benefits and values of early childhood supports and education, and fully support the need to expand resources for families who are at-risk for highly preventable mental and physical health conditions, the idea that “proven early childhood development programs” are the one, and perhaps only way to go makes me a little leery.

 

Diversity 6 (via stock.xchng)

Especially when we’re taking a world-wide focus on the issue, focusing in on early childhood programs, which in many places are nationally funded and/or monitored, seems a little short-sited. Though I fully understand the importance of evidence-base in developing programs and interventions, I also know that science is one, but not the only, way of knowing something is good for kids.

Don’t get me wrong; it drives me nuts when people assume that they know everything that I know about child development just because they have kids. But it also drives me nuts when scientists claim to know everything about children when they’ve never worked directly with them outside of a laboratory setting one day in their lives.

There are generalizable realities in the human condition, to be sure. And science can help elucidate some of that generalizability.

But it is not, nor should it be, the end all and be all, largely because the field of child development has not studied everything in and across every world culture. There are nuances, differences, and beautiful variations in the way in which humans approach and experience the world around them. Science has a tendency to trounce on that beauty and chalk it up to “variations” or “outliers” that either aren’t important enough to explore, or are just noise in an otherwise coherent data set.  

Breaker (via stock.xchng)

This just in: Science doesn’t know it all.

And that’s okay. Frankly, it’d be a pretty boring world if we did know it all. Plus, all the scientists out there would have to pack their bags and go home if there was nothing else to learn.

My point here is that though science has incredible value and can shed light on some of the most complex things in our world, it is not the only answer.

“Evidence-based” isn’t, and shouldn’t be the only way.

There are a lot of ways to do things right. There are a lot of ways to know the right thing to do. There are a lot of ways to get to the same positive outcome. ‘Because science says so’ is one of many valid reasons to do something.

I’d just hate to think that we’re getting to a place where nations institute a 'one and only right way' to raise children, based solely on what science tells us. That mindset is limiting, and squashes the beautiful variations inherent in the human race.

Now, I don’t mean to be an alarmist. Nor do I mean to suggest that the authors of this article don’t recognize the value in other ways of knowing, or the variation in culture that may be lost in a more one-size-fits-all approach.

But I worry that there are people who may read this article, and who may subscribe fully to the belief that universal, evidence-based early childhood education is the only way to “correctly” raise children. And the more early childhood education gets entangled with state and federal policy and funding, the more this belief will become intractably instilled in our collective psyche.

But instead, let’s call this what it is. Early childhood education programs are a very western idea of child-rearing. And that's okay. But that doesn't make it suitable for the whole world. 

So I fear we are again getting into a situation where the West thinks it knows the “right way” to raise children, to the detriment of other less powerful, but equally vibrant cultures throughout the world that might raise their children differently.  

Children (via stock.xchng)

It’s a hard line to walk because on the one hand, there are certainly universal things that are very detrimental to the successful development of a child. Poor health and nutrition, traumatic experience, lack of family support and connection, mental illness, violence, the list goes on. And there are things that early childhood supports can do to help buffer against those negative early life experiences and enhance the lives of young children. Some of those supports are early interventions and quality early childhood care. Raising global awareness of these things is a laudable goal. 

But on the other hand, where do we stop? Quality is important, to be sure, but if certain cultural beliefs and practices are not in the “evidence-based curriculum” does the funding stop? Where does the western world draw the line on what’s an acceptable way to spend taxpayer dollars? What does it deem as “okay”? What’s defined as “not good enough”? Who decides?

These are the questions I fear we haven’t discussed enough.

And I worry that it will be the loud, powerful voices of western thinking demolishing all others in their path without careful consideration of what might be lost in the process.

And that sounds eerily familiar, and feels a little like groundhog day.

What do you think? Are we just repeating history all over again? Or will we find a middle ground, early?

More than ABCs and 123s

So I might be getting a little controversial here.

Okay, maybe a lot controversial.

Hold on to your hats.

I’ve been hearing more and more about things like “kindergarten readiness” and “early childhood education” being taken to a whole new extreme regime of tests, rote memorization, and butt-in-seat learning. And with recent legislation (at least in Minnesota) for a huge increase in early childhood funding, there’s a potential for this type of regime to be taken to an even greater (or rather, worse) extreme.

The stakes are high to prove that early childhood is the silver bullet. Promises have been made about the efficacy of spending money in the early years to increase kindergarten readiness and student achievement across the board.

 

Report (via stock.xchng)

And many of those promises are based on a lot of good, solid research.

But the problem is, how do you prove the money was successfully invested? You need a measure of kindergarten readiness and of success in school to demonstrate that there has been improvement. That the millions of dollars invested in the state’s youngest citizens have provided measurable benefit to young children and to society.

And the measure of success, for decades, has been standardized testing.

Unfortunately, the main measurements of “school readiness” are not based on measuring the ability to learn effectively, but on concepts, like numerical reasoning (knowledge of numbers) and vocabulary (what words you know).

And what do early childhood educators often think when they hear those words?

Reading and math.

It’s no wonder that the focus is on pounding the ABCs and 123s in the early years. These days, if you don’t know the alphabet inside and out before you enter kindergarten you’re somehow a failure and labeled “not ready for school”.

(As an aside, my mom tells me I didn’t know the alphabet when I showed up to kindergarten….and clearly my life has been a total failure since then…)

 

Brian in hand (via stock.xchng)

But the thing that researchers and other early childhood experts will tell you, is that it’s not about ABCs and 123s. Rather, things like self-regulation (the ability to control your own behaviors), executive function (paying attention, planning, memory), and emotional control (the ability to regulate your own emotional ups and downs) are more predictive of later success than measures like IQ (which are largely reliant on vocabulary and numerical reasoning measures) (Alloway & Alloway 2010; McClelland, Acock, & Morrison, 2006). Additionally, working with children in creative ways (e.g. aerobics, yoga, computer games) that work to build these skills has been shown to be more effective than paper and pencil methods of training executive function (Diamond, 2011).

The thing is, those skills of self-regulation and executive function carry you over the long haul. They are the quintessential foundation to learning, building relationships, and success in not just an academic environment, but in every environment. Those skills are the building blocks for a successful life. Not just success in school.

 

Bouncy Castle (via stock.xchng)

So how do we foster those skills in early childhood? Well, frankly, by letting kids be kids. By providing play environments where they can learn about mud and bugs and trees and plants. By letting them dig in the sandbox for buried treasure because they’re pretending to be pirates searching for gold. By giving them an opportunity to negotiate the finer points of playing house with other kids. By providing a safe, secure, environment with the freedom to play, laugh and learn.

Those early years are a time of wonder, and should be filled with opportunities to see, touch, smell, hear and taste the many varied and fascinating things the world has to offer. The memories of swinging on the playground swings feeling the wind whipping past, looking through a kaleidoscope to see the spinning colors and shapes, touching the soft fur of a puppy or the course bark of a tree, tasting cool fresh squeezed lemonade on a hot day. It’s no coincidence those are the memories kids will cherish long after they’ve moved on to school.

Because those are the things that are most important.

The biggest hurdle then, is proving that more time spent exploring and learning about the world actually equals greater success. And this responsibility should not fall on the teachers of our young children. It’s the responsibility of those doing the measuring to be more savvy, more creative, and more innovative in the way that they measure success.

Standardized testing is one piece of the equation to be sure. But it can’t be the only piece, or we’ll fail, again, to prove that any of this funding and increased effort in the early years made the least bit of difference.

I love what Michael Quinn Patton says in reference to the differences between quantitative versus qualitative research – and it fits so well in this context too.

“A questionnaire is like a photograph. A qualitative study is like a documentary film. Both offer images. One, however—the photograph—captures and freezes a moment in time...the other—the film—offers a fluid sense of development, movement, and change.” (Patton, 2002, p. 54).

The photograph of standardized testing captures a day, a moment in time. It doesn’t capture the ringing of a child’s laughter, the joyful exclamation of discovery, the comfortable sigh of peaceful exhaustion.

In short, the photograph is not enough. And I hope we will see that in time.

__________________________

References:

Alloway, T.P. & Alloway, R. G. (2010). Inves­ti­gat­ing the pre­dic­tive roles of work­ing mem­ory and IQ in aca­d­e­mic attain­ment. Jour­nal of Exper­i­men­tal Child Psy­chol­ogy, 106(1), 21-29.DOI: http://10.1016/j.jecp.2009.11.003

Diamond, A. & Lee, K. (2011). Interventions shown to aid executive function development in children 4 to 12 years old. Science, 333, 959-964.

McClelland, M. M., Acock, A. C. & Morrison, F. J. (2006). The impact of kindergarten learning-related skills on academic trajectories at the end of elementary school. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21(4), 471-490. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2006.09.003.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods 3rd edition. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks: CA.

Why I love this video so much

Alright, truth time. I adore Jack Shonkoff.

For those of you who aren’t familiar, Dr. Jack Shonkoff is a professor at Harvard University and the Director of the Harvard Center for the Developing Child. He’s one of the leaders in the field of translating child development research for public audiences, and co-author of the well known book: From Neurons to Neighborhoods, among his many other accomplishments.

In short, he’s fantastic, as is the Harvard Center for the Developing Child. Seriously, check out all of their great and very useful materials here: http://developingchild.harvard.edu/

This video, Building Adult Capabilities to Improve Child Outcomes, is, I think, one of most creative ways of communicating a message about early childhood to public audiences that I’ve seen in a while. I’ve already watched about 10 times, and every time I get to the end and think “Yes! THIS!” Check it out:

The above video is property of the Harvard University Center for the Developing Child. I do not own, nor did I contribute to this video. I've just embedded it here to avoid you having to click a pesky link and open yet another youtube window. 

I think it’s so fantastic for a number of reasons:

1. Design: The cartoon sketches are easy for audiences to engage with, and following the evolution of them is such a great analogy for the evolution of our scientific knowledge. The message, like our scientific knowledge, is revealed little by little, sketch by sketch.
2. Not your typical talking head: Instead of being the typical talking head video where it is easy to quickly lose interest, especially when there is too much complex jargon, the language is clear, concise, and compelling.
3. Content: It turns the often belabored conversation of early childhood on it’s ear. It refocuses the effort not just on ‘improving the lives of children’ but also improving the lives of the adults AROUND children. Anyone who’s ever worked with kids and families can tell you how crucial it is to have parents and caregivers on board. This video is a great explanation of WHY that’s so critical. Through focusing not just on kids and their caregivers, but also on the systems and structures AROUND those families, it takes the pressure and blame off of parents shoulders and redistributes it across the shoulders of all members of society.

Though you could (and people certainly do) argue about things like degree of societal responsibility, the methods for supporting kids and families, and of course the financial implications of this process, the basic argument is compelling. Healthier kids and families means a healthier society.

Bam. Done.

If only it were that easy.

Luckily, there are already a variety of compelling perspectives on how to tackle these problems at multiple levels. There are answers to the “what can we do?” question. For example, there are parenting classes that help prepare new dads and moms for the responsibilities of parenting. There are employment centers that work to help train parents in job skills so they can find jobs and support their families. There are policymakers who push for better, more coordinated systems across local, state, and federal levels to ensure the best and most cost-effective supports for children and families. The list goes on.

The point here is, that though the somewhat idyllic society that this video advocates for may seem distant and unattainable, there’s a lot happening now that is beneficial and worthwhile for children and families. Yes, it’s not perfect. Yes, there are gaps. But let’s focus, for just a second, on all the things we are doing RIGHT, instead of all the things we’re doing WRONG.

Think about it.

No, really. Think about 3 things from your own place in the world that improve the lives of the people around you. Because even if those people you’re thinking about aren’t children or parents, they do have families, and they were all children once.

So what three things did you come up with? (Please share in the comments down below!)

I bet, once you focused your mind to the task, you came up with those three examples more quickly than you thought you would because we all have the ability to recognize beauty, grace, and goodness in the world around us. Sometimes it just requires stopping the Negative Thought Train from leaving the station.

Or maybe that’s just the idealist in me talking.

Regardless, what do we live for, if it’s not to make life better and more bearable if not exclusively for others, at least for ourselves?

And to quote Dr. Shonkoff: “It’s all about being able to plan for the future, to have a future. That’s why this is so important.”

Indeed.

For more really great information and resources, you can follow Harvard Center for the Developing Child on Twitter: @HarvardCenter or find more great videos on their YouTube channel: http://www.youtube.com/HarvardCenter