Politically, Head Start is a winning issue. Last year, New
York’s new mayor ran on a platform of taxing the rich to provide better
pre-kindergarten programs for the city’s poorer children.
The government has long since established that Head Start
does next-to-nothing for children in the long run. It doesn’t matter. Which
politician wants to be attacked for being insensitive to early childhood
education?
Now, the Economist explains what really helps a child’s
mental development. The answer: more conversation with his or her parents. One should add, with caregivers, too.
The Economist reports:
THE
more parents talk to their children, the faster those children’s vocabularies
grow and the better their intelligence develops. That might seem blindingly
obvious, but it took until 1995 for science to show just how early in life the
difference begins to matter. In that year Betty Hart and Todd Risley of the
University of Kansas published the results of a decade-long study in which they
had looked at how, and how much, 42 families in Kansas City conversed at home.
Dr Hart and Dr Risley found a close correlation between the number of words a
child’s parents had spoken to him by the time he was three and his academic
success at the age of nine. At three, children born into professional families
had heard 30m more words than those from a poorer background.
The difference between professional families and poorer
families can be quantified: 30,000,000 more words by the time a child is three.
People who note that women tend to talk more than men might now understand female garrulousness as a maternal instinct.
What does this tell us about pre-school programs?
This
observation … suggests that sending children to “pre-school” (nurseries or
kindergartens) at the age of four—a favoured step among policymakers—comes too
late to compensate for educational shortcomings at home.
Keep it in mind when someone tries to sell you on the
remedial powers of Head Start.
Of course, pre-school programs do have a value:
Pre-school
programmes are known to develop children’s numeracy, social skills and (as the
term “pre-school” suggests) readiness for school. But they do not deal with the
gap in much earlier development that Dr Fernald, Dr Noble, Dr Suskind and
others have identified. And it is this gap, more than a year’s pre-schooling at
the age of four, which seems to determine a child’s chances for the rest of his
life.
The difference between the groups is evident before a child
is two years old:
The
problem seems to be cumulative. By the time children are two, there is a
six-month disparity in the language-processing skills and vocabulary of the two
groups. It is easy to see how this might happen. Toddlers learn new words from
their context, so the faster a child understands the words he already knows,
the easier it is for him to attend to those he does not.
But, the formula only works when parents or caregiver speak
directly to a child:
It is
also now clear from Dr Fernald’s work that words spoken directly to a child,
rather than those simply heard in the home, are what builds vocabulary.
Plonking children in front of the television does not have the same effect.
Neither does letting them sit at the feet of academic parents while the
grown-ups converse about Plato.
But, you might ask yourself, what happens when a baby’s
parents do not have the time to sit around and chat with him? What happens when
they place him in a day care facility where he will have far less conversation
than he would in a one-on-one interaction with a parent? What happens when they
hire a nanny who comes from a poorer segment of the population and who tends to
speak far fewer words less often than would the child’s professional parents?
No comments:
Post a Comment