early childhood education

Matthew Lynch published in Parental Involvement

Parental involvement in early childhood learning: A stitch in time saves nine

**The Edvocate is pleased to publish guest posts as way to fuel important conversations surrounding P-20 education in America. The opinions contained within guest posts are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of The Edvocate or Dr. Matthew Lynch.**

By Khaula Mazhar

In today’s increasingly busy world, parents have less and less time to spend with their young children and often miss out on this extremely important time in a child’s life. Children are developing more and more behavioral problems. They are stressed out at ages when they should be enjoying their childhood.

Research has shown the positive effects of engaged parents on a child’s academic success as well as on the emotional and physical well being of a child. It has also shown the advantages of early childhood learning and just how much young children can literally sponge up information and then be ready for even more.

There are vast amounts of reading material on the subject of early learning, hundreds of books by dedicated professionals in childhood education, but I am going to give you the experience of a normal everyday mother. Myself. The reason is when I read those books, it was to improve my skills as a teacher, curiosity and also just because I am a voracious reader. But when I saw another mother, like myself, use those wonderful things she learned on her own child, it was a whole different story. It is something I sincerely wish every mother and father would do with their child. They can if they are provided with the opportunity to learn how to, something governments can do quite cheaply, and it will open the door for enormous pay backs. We must help empower the parents and we must educate the parents first.

When I started as a teacher I was in the school library every free minute I got. They had an incredible resource of good books and I wanted to take advantage of them all. Although I read many, the ones I came to fall in love with were Glen Doman’s.  I renewed “How to Give Your Baby Encyclopedic Knowledge” so many times it needed a new sign out card. Yes way back when those cards were still used. My daughter was four and my son was two. I had never imagined that a two year old could read, let alone recognize countries on a world map. They can. My kids were my test subjects although I didn’t know it at the time. Now that they are teenagers, I see the results.

The techniques are simple, and don’t take a lot of time. Working mothers can do it with a little prioritizing. I managed to do it with my job and two small children, and I was not exactly a skilled multi-tasking professional. It was simply a matter of investing time wisely, and nothing is a bigger investment than our kids.

Glen Doman’s Method involved facts cards. Fact cards can be made for everything from colors, animals, countries and key reading words to dot cards (for numeracy). Those are about the only materials needed, the cards can be obtained cheaply in bulk and pictures of everything can be found in old national geographic magazines. Whatever is to be taught can be done so easily by flashing these fact cards to children as young as eighteen months. Ten cards at a time, two or three times a day. Children think it is a game and are happy to spend time with parents “playing”.  I started out with just colors, keywords and dot cards, but the “game” became a favorite and I soon added historical figures, musical instruments, animals, monuments and countries. My kids could not get enough of it, my two year old son not only knew where China was but he could tell you interesting tidbits about it. You just needed a translator to understand what he was saying.

Once they started to read I had an endless supply of books that we explored together.  Years later their teachers came to me and told me how my kids knew the most interesting facts and added positively to all the class discussions. They were interested and eager learners. I finally convinced the head of the pre-primary section at school to let me go ahead and try it in my pre-nursery class.

It was a great experience. Parents would come to me at home time and tell me excitedly that their kid knew what an isosceles triangle was or had told them all about African elephants. They wanted to know what we were doing in the class. Unfortunately that is where I could have empowered those parents, instead I just told them we were trying something new.  It never occurred to me to suggest that we do a workshop on the technique for parents. I really wish I could go back in time and act more wisely.

Most parents today don’t have the leisure of going through large amounts of reading material to find out all the things they can do to give their child the early advantage. But schools can help by offering free workshops focused on simple techniques that parents could implement at home with their children. If these type of workshops were provided to parents every year they could make an enormous positive change in the futures of so many children. Not just academically but behaviorally as well. Imagine an entire generation of less stressed, positive youth all geared up to run the world in a more constructive manner.

There are many other techniques and systems out there besides Glen Doman’s awesome fact cards system. This is just my experience with this. But what I have learned is how much the right thing at the right time can affect a child’s positive attitude towards not just learning but life in general. Engaged parents teaching kids their first lessons is very important to build confidence and a positive attitude in children.
________

Khaula Mazhar, children’s book author, has a ten year teaching experience from Pakistan where she also wrote for Dawn Newspaper. After moving back home to Canada she continues to pursue her writing when she can. She blogs at Blog Her, MuslimMoms.ca and writes articles for Examiner.com.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Parental Involvement, Teachers

Listening, not testing, will improve children’s vocabulary

James Law, Newcastle University

Every few months a story appears about the declining speech and language skills of children arriving in primary school. The epithet “the daily grunt” was invented by one newspaper to capture the lack of communication between parent and child, implying it caused poor communication skills and a lack of “school readiness”.

Now a new report by the UK school regulator Ofsted – its first on the early years – has called for children to start school at two years old, in part to help those from lower-income backgrounds who arrive at primary school with poor reading and speech.

While we may actively teach our children to read, oral language skills (the ability to learn words, form sentences and to communicate abstract ideas) is a defining human characteristic and, of these, it is vocabulary which is the pivotal skill. Children grow up acquiring these skills driven by, in Canadian telly-don Stephen Pinker’s words an “instinct” for language.

Recent evidence from twin studies suggests that language skills become increasingly heritable as the child moves through middle school, stressing the import role that the environment plays in the early years.

Yet there has been an abiding concern that some children are simply not speaking enough to access the national curriculum, the inference being that they are not being talked to enough.
But how would we really know there was a problem?

When vocabulary develops

To start addressing this question we have to look at the whole population rather than focusing on the most extreme cases. Fortunately the UK’s Millennium Cohort Study allows us to do just this. The graph below compares the vocabulary skills of thousands of five year olds, across five different social groups, measured by what is known as the index of multiple deprivation.

The vocabulary of five-year-old children in England. Save the Children

The graph tells us two things. First, vocabulary skills do differ markedly from one social group to another. Children from more disadvantaged groups recognise and name fewer pictures than those from higher groups. Second, and perhaps more importantly, there are lots of children in each group who have difficulties learning vocabulary. Unfortunately, we can’t say whether this pattern has changed over the decades without repeating the same assessment on different cohorts of children across time.

But how important is vocabulary at school entry? Parents often say that if they ask their GP whether they should be worried about how much their child is talking they are told that he or she will “grow out of it”.

In another study we followed 18,000 children born in 1970 until they were in their early thirties. Rather to our surprise we found that children with restricted vocabulary at five years old were more likely to be poor readers as adults, have more mental health problems and have lower employment rates.

This does not mean that everyone who had poor vocabulary aged five had difficulties later on, just that their risk was higher. There were all sorts of variables that contributed to this prediction but social factors were always in the mix. What is more, there is plenty of data to suggest that the difference between children from higher and lower social groups widens over time.

Creating the right environment

It is tempting to jump to conclusions and say poor speech in young children is simply a matter of parents not talking to their children in a way that encourages language. This is the position taken in the often-quoted 1995 book by Hart and Risley in which they studied 42 children. Their solution is essentially paternalistic – intensive daycare from very early on for the most disadvantaged groups.

A more positive approach is to support both children and parents through awareness, careful observation and the fostering of these early language skills – both in terms of expression and comprehension – from birth. This creates the right environment for language learning rather than simply providing instruction.

Sure Start and Children’s Centres in the UK have played a critical role in doing this. And there will be more opportunities for schools as the pupil premium in the UK – extra money schools get for disadvantaged children – starts to be paid in early years settings. It is important that this type of work should begin long before children reach compulsory schooling.

Clearly children who do not communicate well are vulnerable for all sorts of reasons. There are risks associated with relatively weak early oral language skills but children are immensely resilient and there are many things that can be done to promote these early skills.

But we need to be careful that our expectations are not driven by the pressure to formalise the child’s educational experience. We know that early years settings and primary schools are immensely variable as to how well they support communication. The solution is less about structure than following relatively simple guidance and improving the interaction in class.

It is certainly not about doing more testing – something the government is determined to introduce for younger children. If we demand conformity from young children, immaturities can be seen as “problems” – as with behaviour so as with oral language.

Oral language skills are important in their own right but also because they are critical precursors to inclusion in school and elsewhere. We know that children are active learners. This is not just about the instruction they receive but the environment they are in at home and in school. This means encouraging oral language skills in young children is everyone’s job.

The Conversation

James Law, Professor of Speech & Language Sciences, Newcastle University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Diversity, Equity

Keeping Our Eyes on Both Birds in Early Childhood Education

**The Edvocate is pleased to publish guest posts as way to fuel important conversations surrounding P-20 education in America. The opinions contained within guest posts are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of The Edvocate or Dr. Matthew Lynch.**

A guest post by Jack McCarthy

There is a growing consensus in the United States that early childhood education is important. The newest Education Commission of the States report highlighted that “total state funding for preschool programs increased by $767 million in the 2014-15 fiscal year to a total of nearly $7 billion.”

It’s the rare issue in U.S. politics with bipartisan support– 22 states with Republican governors and 10 states with Democratic governors (plus the District of Columbia) increasing funding for pre-k programs in 2015-16.

And it’s not hard to figure out why. When you listen to early childhood advocates, it sounds like investing in early childhood education is like investing in a super policy. It can close the achievement gap by getting all students on the same level from the start. It can close the gender pay gap by allowing mothers of all races and classes to continue working after having kids.

If we just invest in early childhood, then we can quickly, simply and easily, kill two birds with one stone.

Turns out, like everything else, it’s not quite that simple.

Early childhood education does have the potential to do two things at once. But only if we keep in mind that our policy has two goals.

First, there is the achievement gap. The first five years that you are alive are the most influential of your life. These are the years where your building blocks are set up, the years your brain’s architecture is shaped. In the first five years, your experiences have a direct impact on how well you develop learning skills as well as social and emotional abilities.

The achievement gap is largely a result of just how different experiences are for low-income students in the first five years.

Tracking families from every socio-economic group, research has shown that children born into low-income families heard, by age three, roughly 30 million fewer words than those from more affluent backgrounds. Stanford University analysis found an intellectual processing gap that appears as early as 18 months as a consequence.

Underserved students also begin school with much less well-developed background knowledge, numeracy, comprehension and behavioral skills than those acquired by classmates with parents of greater means. Because disadvantaged students arrive at kindergarten millions of words behind their peers and lack early learning skills, they perform much less well at school. Those negative effects last a lifetime.

The achievement gap is the result of socioeconomic circumstances setting students’ building blocks up very differently.

Debates about early childhood education often concentrate on the best way to increase access, which is important. But the conversation needs to distinguish between effective early learning and childcare. Effective early learning drives school readiness by developing cognitive and social-emotional skills.

Parents need a safe, affordable place for their children while they work. Society needs many of these children to be more prepared to succeed in school, careers and life.

Effective early learning should be defined in terms of important measurable outcomes that lead to success in school.  Programs need to constantly focus on assessing children’s cognitive and social-emotional skills and adjusting classroom interventions to address any shortcomings.

People in New Jersey saw the effect of focusing on quality first hand. In 1999-2000 the state began implementing NJ Supreme Court mandated high-quality preschool education in 31 of the highest poverty districts in the state. At the time, less than 15% of pre-K classrooms had a “good” or “excellent” quality rating. Nearly 25% had a “poor” rating.

The state focused on improving that quality through high standards, professional development, and a continuous improvement system. By 2007-08, the vast majority of classrooms had a “good” or “excellent” rating and very few had a “poor” quality rating.

A longitudinal study concluded that high-quality pre-K in New Jersey helped to close the achievement gap by about half over the next few years, with the gap closing more and more each year. In addition, the high-quality pre-K is estimated to have reduced grade repetition from 19% to 12% and special education from 17% to 12% through the fifth grade.

There’s a reason it’s referred to as effective early learning. And effective early learning is found all over the country—schools that focus on high standards, professional development, and continuous improvement systems are pretty apt at achieving high quality. It’s just that when people demand early childhood education, they tend not to demand those key aspects along with it.

But here is where the second goal comes in—closing the gender pay gap. According to the National Women’s Law Center, on average, childcare costs more than rent. As a result, women, especially women making the minimum wage, tend to drop out of the workforce when they have children. And, after caring for those children for years, it’s that much harder to move back into the workforce at the same rate of pay as when you left.

We need to remember that while there is a difference between school that is focused on learning and school that is a place for children to go, there is a paramount need for a place for children to go in this country.

If we ignore quality in favor of access, we risk early childhood education being unable to close the achievement gap. If we ignore access in favor of quality, we risk early childhood education being unable to close the gender pay gap.

The solution is to use the bipartisan support and the money states are investing in pursuit of both access and quality. To provide childcare while not ignoring any and all opportunities for effective early learning within it. Doing so can maximize the return on our investment and solve both problems at once.

The first five years are the most critical of a child’s life. And, the first five years are critical for their mother’s lives as well. Let’s keep both people in mind when investing in early childhood and we’ll all benefit from the result.

 

Click here to read all our posts concerning the Achievement Gap.

____

Jack McCarthy is President and CEO of AppleTree Institute for Education Innovation and AppleTree Early Learning Public Charter School. Jack advocates passionately to influence early education policy and practice to help close the achievement gap before kindergarten.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in EdTech & Innovation

How teachers can use edtech to boost engagement

The kids showing up to Kindergarten classes are much more tech-savvy than their predecessors five years ago. These digital natives are only a little older than the iPhone and they are used to a world where they are surrounded by technology, and where technology has evolved as they’ve grown.

Northwestern University reports that among children 8 years of age and younger, 21 percent use smartphones regularly for activities that range from texting to using educational apps. Common Sense Media found that 72 percent of children age 8 and younger have used a media device for watching a show, playing a game or engaging with educational apps, and that 38 percent of children under 2 have used a mobile device for media.

Children are no longer satisfied with seeing their favorite characters on a TV screen; they want to interact through mobile applications, YouTube videos and more. It presents new challenges for the early teachers these kids encounter who must find ways to keep students’ attention while focusing on the important early lessons of their academic careers.

It seems that technology companies caught on early that there was a demand from parents for high-quality educational apps and other tech offerings that targeted young children, but the road to creating that content for classroom settings has been slower. That’s starting to change though, much to the benefit of teachers.

In fact, some big names in education technology are seeing the value in sharing their platforms with teachers, in addition to parents. StoryBots, originally envisioned as an early childhood education resource for parents, has just launched its Classroom platform. It takes the best of what StoryBots has always offered — learning videos, interactive reading, activity sheets, and more — and ramps it up to work for classroom settings.

Founded in 2012, StoryBots focuses its educational resources for kids between ages 3 and 8 with personalized content, including Starring You® learning experiences that utilize a child’s photo for customization (uploaded by a parent). The mobile apps have been downloaded 3.4 million times, videos viewed 300 million times and books viewed 8 million times. Already 10,000 teachers across the country are in the StoryBots Educator Network which gives free access to the resources.

StoryBots Classroom, which launched earlier this week, offers an expanded library of resources—all free to educators—to help engage students while teaching them foundational skills at the same time. By getting students excited to learn, the platform helps ease the transition from pre-K to elementary. Some of the specific Classroom offerings include::

  • Math skills guidance, including standards-aligned math games
  • Teacher planning tools – including class roster, lesson planner, group builder, and other tools that help educators manage their classroom and create custom plans to best suit their students’ unique needs
  • Learning videos, with a library of 110+ animated musical videos that explore a wide range of topics, from shapes to healthy eating to outer space information.
  • Learning video eBooks that help kids practice reading
  • Activity sheets that include 20 printable books and 350+ sheets for teachers to use in their classrooms

Teachers are able to invite parents to be part of the process so that there is a connection between what is happening in class and what is happening at home.

In an early education landscape that has becoming increasingly about high stakes, and less about the fun that should accompany learning, it’s nice to see educational resources like StoryBots for teachers. Kids are comfortable when they have access to technology and the teachers who use tools that incorporate that comfort level with required learning will see positive outcomes.

Visit the StoryBots site to learn more about its Classroom platform.

Read all of our posts about EdTech and Innovation by clicking here. 

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Equity, Higher Education, Parental Involvement

Is early childhood education the key to more American Indians going to college?

The Ké’ Early Childhood Initiative convenes today in Albuquerque and will bring together 45 representatives from four American Indian tribal colleges who will discuss strategies for better early childhood education and family involvement in the community.

The meeting is sponsored by the American Indian College Fund’s Early Childhood Education program which attempts to “strengthen the role of Native families in early learning opportunities, building culturally-responsive programming with families and tribal partners.” Specifically, the representatives will look at ways the American Indian community can better prepare children for long-term academic success, targeting learning opportunities from birth to 8 years of age.

In education circles, we talk a lot about the way black and Latino students struggle in K-12 classrooms through a combination of cultural circumstances and inequality. The reality is that American Indian K-12 students are the most at-risk of any minority group for either dropping out of high school or never making it to college. The American Indian Fund reports that American Indians who earn a bachelor’s degree represent less than 1 percent of all of these degree earners. It is not shocking then to realize that 28 percent of American Indians lived in poverty compared to 15 percent of the general population, according to 2010 U.S. Census figures. A college education opens doors for a higher quality of life.

The path to college starts long before the application process, of course.

Early childhood education has such an enormous impact on how students fare throughout their school careers. It’s the reason why President Obama has called on more states to implement universal preschool programs and has ushered more funding to Head Start and other early childhood education initiatives. There is a reason why an organization with “college” in the title is going back to early childhood to strengthen the potential of future students in the American Indian community. Better quality early childhood education, and families that are on board with supporting kids through the K-12 process, will lead to an uptick of interest in college degrees and a higher percentage of college graduates too.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Parental Involvement, Teachers

Why stories matter for children’s learning

Peggy Albers, Georgia State University

Ever wondered why boys and girls choose particular toys, particular colors and particular stories? Why is it that girls want to dress in pink and to be princesses, or boys want to be Darth Vader, warriors and space adventurers?

Stories told to children can make a difference.

Scholars have found that stories have a strong influence on children’s understanding of cultural and gender roles. Stories do not just develop children’s literacy; they convey values, beliefs, attitudes and social norms which, in turn, shape children’s perceptions of reality.

I found through my research that children learn how to behave, think, and act through the characters that they meet through stories.

So, how do stories shape children’s perspectives?

Why stories matter

Stories – whether told through picture books, dance, images, math equations, songs or oral retellings – are one of the most fundamental ways in which we communicate.

Nearly 80 years ago, Louise Rosenblatt, a widely known scholar of literature, articulated that we understand ourselves through the lives of characters in stories. She argued that stories help readers understand how authors and their characters think and why they act in the way they do.

Similarly, research conducted by Kathy Short, a scholar of children’s literature, also shows that children learn to develop through stories a critical perspective about how to engage in social action.

Stories help children develop empathy and cultivate imaginative and divergent thinking – that is, thinking that generates a range of possible ideas and/or solutions around story events, rather than looking for single or literal responses.

Impact of stories

So, when and where do children develop perspectives about their world, and how do stories shape that?

Studies have shown that children develop their perspectives on aspects of identity such as gender and race before the age of five.

A key work by novelist John Berger suggests that very young children begin to recognize patterns and visually read their worlds before they learn to speak, write or read printed language. The stories that they read or see can have a strong influence on how they think and behave.

For example, research conducted by scholar Vivian Vasquez shows that young children play out or draw narratives in which they become part of the story. In her research, Vasquez describes how four-year-old Hannah mixes reality with fiction in her drawings of Rudolph the reindeer. Hannah adds a person in the middle with a red X above him, alongside the reindeer.

Children can mix reality and fiction in their interpretation of stories.
Margaret Almon, CC BY-NC-ND

Vasquez explains that Hannah had experienced bullying by the boys in the class and did not like seeing that Rudolph was called names and bullied by other reindeer when she read Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer. Vasquez suggests that Hannah’s picture conveyed her desire not to have the boys tease Rudolph, and more importantly, her.

My own research has yielded similar insights. I have found that children internalize the cultural and gender roles of characters in the stories.

In one such study that I conducted over a six-week period, third grade children read and discussed the role of male and female characters through a number of different stories.

Children then reenacted gender roles (eg, girls as passive; evil stepsisters). Later, children rewrote these stories as “fractured fairy tales.” That is, children rewrote characters and their roles into those that mirrored present-day roles that men and women take on. The roles for girls, for example, were rewritten to show they worked and played outside the home.

Subsequently, we asked the girls to draw what they thought boys were interested in and boys to draw what they thought girls were interested in.

We were surprised that nearly all children drew symbols, stories and settings that represented traditional perceptions of gendered roles. That is, boys drew girls as princesses in castles with a male about to save them from dragons. These images were adorned with rainbows, flowers and hearts. Girls drew boys in outdoor spaces, and as adventurers and athletes.

Drawing by an eight-year-old boy.
Author provided

For example, look at the image here, drawn by an eight-year-old boy. It depicts two things: First, the boy recreates a traditional storyline from his reading of fairy tales (princess needs saving by a prince). Second, he “remixes” his reading of fairy tales with his own real interest in space travel.

Even though he engaged in discussions on how gender should not determine particular roles in society (eg, women as caregivers; men as breadwinners), his image suggests that reading traditional stories, such as fairy tales, contributes to his understanding of gender roles.

Our findings are further corroborated by the work of scholar Karen Wohlwend, who found a strong influence of Disney stories on young children. In her research, she found that very young girls, influenced by the stories, are more likely to become “damsels in distress” during play.

However, it is not only the written word that has such influence on children. Before they begin to read written words, young children depend on pictures to read and understand stories. Another scholar, Hilary Janks, has shown that children interpret and internalize perspectives through images – which is another type of storytelling.

Stories for change

Scholars have also shown how stories can be used to change children’s perspectives about their views on people in different parts of the world. And not just that; stories can also influence how children choose to act in the world.

For example, Hilary Janks works with children and teachers on how images in stories on refugees influence how refugees are perceived.

Kathy Short studied children’s engagement with literature around human rights. In their work in a diverse K-5 school with 200 children, they found stories moved even such such young children to consider how they could bring change in their own local community and school.

These children were influenced by stories of child activists such as Iqbal, a real-life story of Iqbal Masih, a child activist who campaigned for laws against child labor. (He was murdered at age 12 for his activism.) Children read these stories along with learning about human rights violations and lack of food for many around the world. In this school, children were motivated to create a community garden to support a local food bank.

Building intercultural perspectives

Today’s classrooms represent a vast diversity. In Atlanta, where I teach and live, in one school cluster alone, children represent over 65 countries and speak over 75 languages.

Indeed, the diversity of the world is woven into our everyday lives through various forms of media.

When children read stories about other children from around the world, such as “Iqbal,” they learn new perspectives that both extend beyond beyond and also connect with their local contexts.

At a time when children are being exposed to negative narratives about an entire religious group from US presidential candidates and others, the need for children to read, see, and hear global stories that counter and challenge such narratives is, I would argue, even greater.

The Conversation

Peggy Albers, Professor of language and literacy education, Georgia State University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Parental Involvement, Policy & Reform, Teachers

Hard Evidence: at what age are children ready for school?

David Whitebread, University of Cambridge

When are children “ready” for school? There is much debate about when the transition between play-based pre-school and the start of “formal” schooling should begin. The trend in the UK primary school curriculum over recent decades has been towards an earlier start to formal instruction, and an erosion of learning through play.

But the evidence from international comparisons and psychological research of young children’s development all points to the advantages of a later start to formal instruction, particularly in relation to literacy.

Among the earliest in Europe

Children in England are admitted into reception classes in primary schools at age four; in many cases, if their birthdays are in the summer months, when they have only just turned four. This is in stark contrast to the vast majority of other European countries, many of which currently enjoy higher levels of educational achievement. In Europe, the most common school starting age is six, and even seven in some cases such as Finland.

European Commission. EURYDICE and EUROSTAT 2013. * Although education is not compulsory until six in Ireland, approx. 40% of four-year-olds and almost all five-year-olds are in publicly-funded primary schools.

From the moment children in England enter the reception class, the pressure is on for them to learn to read, write and do formal written maths. In many schools, children are identified as “behind” with reading before they would even have started school in many other countries. Now the government is introducing tests for four-year-olds soon after starting school.

There is no research evidence to support claims from government that “earlier is better”. By contrast, a considerable body of evidence clearly indicates the crucial importance of play in young children’s development, the value of an extended period of playful learning before the start of formal schooling, and the damaging consequences of starting the formal learning of literacy and numeracy too young.

Importance of play

A range of anthropological studies of children’s play in hunter-gatherer societies and other evolutionary psychology studies of play in the young of mammals have identified play as an adaptation which evolved in early human social groups, enabling humans to become powerful learners and problem-solvers.

Some neuroscientists’ research has supported this view of play as a central mechanism in learning. One book by Sergio and Vivien Pellis reviewed many other studies to show that playful activity leads to synaptic growth, particularly in the frontal cortex – the part of the brain responsible for all the uniquely human, higher mental functions.

A range of experimental psychology studies, including my own work, have consistently demonstrated the superior learning and motivation arising from playful as opposed to instructional approaches to learning in children.

There are two crucial processes which underpin this relationship. First, playful activity has been shown to support children’s early development of representational skills, which is fundamental to language use. One 2006 study by US academics James Christie and Kathleen Roskos, reviewed evidence that a playful approach to language learning offers the most powerful support for the early development of phonological and literacy skills.

Second, through all kinds of physical, social and constructional play, such as building with blocks or making models with household junk, children develop their skills of intellectual and emotional “self-regulation”. This helps them develop awareness of their own mental processes – skills that have been clearly demonstrated to be the key predictors of educational achievement and a range of other positive life outcomes.

Longer-term impacts

Within educational research, a number of longitudinal studies have provided evidence of long-term outcomes of play-based learning. A 2002 US study by Rebecca Marcon, for example, demonstrated that by the end of their sixth year in school, children whose pre-school model had been academically-directed achieved significantly lower marks in comparison to children who had attended child-initiated, play-based pre-school programmes.

A number of other studies have specifically addressed the issue of the length of pre-school play-based experience and the age at which children begin to be formally taught the skills of literacy and numeracy. In a 2004 longitudinal study of 3,000 children funded by the department of education itself, Oxford’s Kathy Sylva and colleagues showed that an extended period of high-quality, play-based pre-school education made a significant difference to academic learning and well-being through the primary school years. They found a particular advantage for children from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Studies in New Zealand comparing children who began formal literacy instruction at age five or age seven have shown that by the age of 11 there was no difference in reading ability level between the two groups. But the children who started at five developed less positive attitudes to reading, and showed poorer text comprehension than those children who had started later.

This evidence, directly addressing the consequences of the introduction of early formal schooling, combined with the evidence on the positive impact of extended playful experiences, raises important questions about the current direction of travel of early childhood education policy in England.

There is an equally substantial body of evidence concerning the worrying increase in stress and mental health problems among children in England and other countries where early childhood education is being increasingly formalised. It suggests there are strong links between these problems and a loss of playful experiences and increased achievement pressures. In the interests of children’s educational achievements and their emotional well-being, the UK government should take this evidence seriously.

Hard Evidence is a series of articles in which academics use research evidence to tackle the trickiest questions.

The Conversation

David Whitebread, Senior Lecturer in Psychology & Education, University of Cambridge

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Ask An Expert, Matthew Lynch, Teachers

Here Are 4 of My Thoughts on Whether Universal Pre-K is Necessary

In his State of the Union address, President Obama brought up the topic of universal Pre-Kindergarten learning and praised the programs already in place in states like Florida, South Carolina and New Jersey. He connected Pre-K initiatives to his Race to the Top program that has the lofty goal of making the U.S. the worldwide leader in college attendees and graduates.

His administration claims that the academic skill sets needed to reach that goal must have their foundation before Kindergarten and that the responsibility for that lies in public funding.

But is this true? Here are my thoughts from an educator’s view.

1. First, it’s no secret that the U.S. lags behind other developed nations, especially when it comes to science and math. To compete as a nation on a global scale, this generation of K-12 (or P-12) students simply need to know more than their parents did as children. This fact has led to some passionate discourse both for and against more stringent academic standards that start in early childhood and extend into the college years.

2. Universal Pre-K programs tend to benefit disadvantaged and at-risk students the most. Children from middle-to-high class socioeconomic backgrounds do not feel the positive effects of preschool as strongly as their low-income and minority peers. In families where at least one parent can be home with children in the early years, and able to do basic learning activities with them, the impact of Pre-K programs are virtually non-existent by the time the child is in mid-elementary school. Children that participate in play-oriented preschool programs but have attentive parents that expose them to minimal learning fare just as well, or better than, peers who attend regimented Pre-K programs.

3. Socialization and preparation are two other reasons for pre-Kindergarteners to attend school. Of course, academics are not the only benefit to Pre-K programs. Socialization and an idea of what to expect when the school years come along are also an integral part of the Pre-K process. Kindergarten used to be an adjustment year for children, but now kids who arrive in these classrooms are expected to know much more.

4. Be aware of how preschool can affect these same children when they reach kindergarten and beyond. As I have said before, being prepared for the next school year is also an important part of the Pre-K process. Kindergarten used to be an adjustment year for children, but now kids who arrive in these classrooms are expected to know much more. Common Core standards exist at the Kindergarten level, with the expectation that these students will know how to read simple sentences competently, do basic addition and subtraction problems and understand basic time concepts. States that already have tax-funded Pre-K programs test Kindergartners and report back to the preschool provider the results. In some cases, future funding rests on whether or not the Pre-K program adequately prepared enough students for the academic rigors of Kindergarten.

So then the question becomes one of impact. Will universal learning at a younger age make a big enough difference long-term to justify the added cost and resources? How much time do children really need to learn what they will need to know to compete globally?

Parents seem to be split on the issue, with one side affirming the need for stronger academic standards and the other side bemoaning the difficulty of material their young children bring home from school. Districts throughout the country have listened to parents’ complaints when it comes to implementation of all-day Kindergarten (versus the traditional half-days) and some parents have even decided to homeschool their children because they so strongly disagree with the academic rigor. Given this cultural climate, I wonder what is to be expected when more states roll out

Pre-K programs? Right now it is voluntary for families – but will that always be the case?

Is universal Pre-K a necessity – and if so, are American educators, parents and young students really ready for it?

Leave a comment—I’m looking forward to hearing your thoughts.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Ask An Expert, Matthew Lynch, Teachers

Here Are 4 of My Thoughts on Whether Universal Pre-K is Necessary

In his State of the Union address, President Obama brought up the topic of universal Pre-Kindergarten learning and praised the programs already in place in states like Florida, South Carolina and New Jersey. He connected Pre-K initiatives to his Race to the Top program that has the lofty goal of making the U.S. the worldwide leader in college attendees and graduates.

His administration claims that the academic skill sets needed to reach that goal must have their foundation before Kindergarten and that the responsibility for that lies in public funding.

But is this true? Here are my thoughts from an educator’s view.

1. First, it’s no secret that the U.S. lags behind other developed nations, especially when it comes to science and math. To compete as a nation on a global scale, this generation of K-12 (or P-12) students simply need to know more than their parents did as children. This fact has led to some passionate discourse both for and against more stringent academic standards that start in early childhood and extend into the college years.

2. Universal Pre-K programs tend to benefit disadvantaged and at-risk students the most. Children from middle-to-high class socioeconomic backgrounds do not feel the positive effects of preschool as strongly as their low-income and minority peers. In families where at least one parent can be home with children in the early years, and able to do basic learning activities with them, the impact of Pre-K programs are virtually non-existent by the time the child is in mid-elementary school. Children that participate in play-oriented preschool programs but have attentive parents that expose them to minimal learning fare just as well, or better than, peers who attend regimented Pre-K programs.

3. Socialization and preparation are two other reasons for pre-Kindergarteners to attend school. Of course, academics are not the only benefit to Pre-K programs. Socialization and an idea of what to expect when the school years come along are also an integral part of the Pre-K process. Kindergarten used to be an adjustment year for children, but now kids who arrive in these classrooms are expected to know much more.

4. Be aware of how preschool can affect these same children when they reach kindergarten and beyond. As I have said before, being prepared for the next school year is also an important part of the Pre-K process. Kindergarten used to be an adjustment year for children, but now kids who arrive in these classrooms are expected to know much more. Common Core standards exist at the Kindergarten level, with the expectation that these students will know how to read simple sentences competently, do basic addition and subtraction problems and understand basic time concepts. States that already have tax-funded Pre-K programs test Kindergartners and report back to the preschool provider the results. In some cases, future funding rests on whether or not the Pre-K program adequately prepared enough students for the academic rigors of Kindergarten.

So then the question becomes one of impact. Will universal learning at a younger age make a big enough difference long-term to justify the added cost and resources? How much time do children really need to learn what they will need to know to compete globally?

Parents seem to be split on the issue, with one side affirming the need for stronger academic standards and the other side bemoaning the difficulty of material their young children bring home from school. Districts throughout the country have listened to parents’ complaints when it comes to implementation of all-day Kindergarten (versus the traditional half-days) and some parents have even decided to homeschool their children because they so strongly disagree with the academic rigor. Given this cultural climate, I wonder what is to be expected when more states roll out

Pre-K programs? Right now it is voluntary for families – but will that always be the case?

Is universal Pre-K a necessity – and if so, are American educators, parents and young students really ready for it?

Leave a comment—I’m looking forward to hearing your thoughts.

  • no reactions
0
Share