Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

Importance of Preschool: Childhood experiences differ by socio-economic class

Posted by   + Show Post

This is an excerpt from:

The Early Education Racket

If you are reading this article, your kid probably doesn’t need preschool.

It’s hard to tease out the effects of preschool on a child. Part of the problem is self-selection: Compared with kids who skip preschool, kids who attend usually have more well-to-do, encouraging parents who read and do puzzles with them at home. Children who don’t go to preschool are usually from more disadvantaged families, which means they watch lots of TV and are yelled at more than they are praised, which some researchers believe can stunt cognitive development.

I am not making a Bell Curve argument here; promise. But research suggests that parents who are financially comfortable tend to devote more resources and time to their kids, in part because they can. In work they conducted at the University of Kansas and chronicled in their book Meaningful Differences in the Everyday Experience of Young American Children, Betty Hart and Todd Risley recorded, for two-and-a-half years, a full hour of conversation every day between parents and children from 42 American families of differing social classes. Children with professional parents heard about 30 million words by the time they turned 3, compared with 20 million in working-class families and 10 million in welfare families. In addition, the ratio of parental encouragements to reprimands was about 6-to-1 among professional families, 2-to-1 among the working class and 1-to-2 in welfare homes. These different experiences closely tracked with the children’s later academic and intellectual performance, and other studies have since supported these findings.

But what does all this have to do with preschool? Research suggests that preschool only benefits children from these disadvantaged families (in particular, families that are below the poverty line, whose mothers are uneducated, or who are racial minorities). This could be because preschool acts as a kind of “equalizer,” ensuring that for at least a few hours a day, these kids get the same high-quality interaction with adults as more advantaged children do, which helps to even the developmental playing field.

For instance, in a study published last year, University of Texas psychologist Elliot Tucker-Drob assessed a number of different characteristics in a group of more than 600 pairs of twins. He looked at the scores the children got at age 2 on tests of mental ability; whether or not they went to preschool; how “stimulating” their mothers’ interactions were with them; their socio-economic status and race; and finally, how well they scored on reading and math tests at age 5. Because he was comparing what happened to identical twins, who share all of their genes, and fraternal twins, who on average share half (yet both sets typically grow up together), Tucker-Drob could home in on the effects of environment and genetics on the kids’ outcomes.

A hell of a lot of math later, Tucker-Drob reported that the home environments of children who do not attend preschool have a much larger influence on kindergarten academic ability than do the home environments of preschoolers. In other words, a bad home situation becomes a much smaller problem when your kid goes to preschool; when you have a good home environment, preschool doesn’t really matter. (Granted, children from poor families tend to go to lower quality preschools than wealthy kids do, but for them, a bad preschool is usually better than nothing.)

To read in it's entirety:

READ MORE »

by on Jan. 16, 2013 at 10:09 PM
Replies (21-30):
MrsSamMerlotte
by Bronze Member on Jan. 17, 2013 at 8:17 AM
Bump for later reading
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Clairwil
by Ruby Member on Jan. 17, 2013 at 8:24 AM
1 mom liked this

(source)

The Glenwood State School

A particularly interesting project on early intellectual stimulation involved twenty-five children in an orphanage. These children were seriously environmentally deprived because the orphanage was crowded and understaffed. Thirteen babies with an average age of nineteen months were transferred to the Glenwood State School for retarded adult women and each baby was put in the personal care of a woman. Skeels, who conducted the experiment, deliberately chose the most deficient of the orphans to be placed in the Glenwood School. Their average IQ was 64, while the average IQ of the twelve who stayed behind in the orphanage was 87.

In the Glenwood State School the children were placed in open, active wards with the older and relatively bright women. Their substitute mothers overwhelmed them with love and cuddling. Toys were available, they were taken on outings and they were talked to a lot. The women were taught how to stimulate the babies intellectually and how to elicit language from them.

After eighteen months, the dramatic findings were that the children who had been placed with substitute mothers, and had therefore received additional stimulation, on average showed an increase of 29 IQ points! A follow-up study was conducted two and a half years later. Eleven of the thirteen children originally transferred to the Glenwood home had been adopted and their average IQ was now 101. The two children who had not been adopted were reinstitutionalized and lost their initial gain. The control group, the twelve children who had not been transferred to Glenwood, had remained in institution wards and now had an average IQ of 66 (an average decrease of 21 points). Although the value of IQ tests is grossly exaggerated today, this astounding difference between these two groups is hard to ignore.

More telling than the increase or decrease in IQ, however, is the difference in the quality of life these two groups enjoyed. When these children reached young adulthood, another follow-up study brought the following to light: “The experimental group had become productive, functioning adults, while the control group, for the most part, had been institutionalized as mentally retarded.”


The Milwaukee Project

In the late 1960s, under the supervision of Rick Heber of the University of Wisconsin, a project was begun to study the effects of intellectual stimulation on children from deprived environments. In order to find a “deprived environment” from which to draw appropriate subjects for the study, Heber and his colleagues examined the statistics of different districts within the city of Milwaukee. One district in particular stood out. The residents of this district had the lowest median income and lowest level of education to be found in the city. This district also had the highest population density and rate of unemployment of any area of Milwaukee. There was one more statistic that really attracted Heber’s attention: Although this district contained only 3 percent of the city’s population, it accounted for 33 percent of the children in Milwaukee who had been labeled “mentally retarded”!

At the beginning of the project, Heber selected forty newborns from the depressed area of Milwaukee he had chosen. The mothers of the infants selected all had IQ’s below 80. As it turned out, all of the children in the study were black, and in many cases the fathers were absent. The forty newborns were randomly assigned, 20 to an experimental group and 20 to a control group.

Both the experimental group and the control group were tested an equal number of times throughout the project. An independent testing service was used in order to eliminate possible biases on the part of the project members. In terms of physical or medical variables, there were no observable differences between the two groups.

The experimental group entered a special program. Mothers of the experimental group children received education, vocational rehabilitation, and training in homemaking and child care. The children themselves received personalized enrichment in their home environments for the first three months of their lives, and then their training continued at a special center, five days a week, seven hours a day, until they were ready to begin first grade. The program at the center focused upon developing the language and cognitive skills of the experimental group children. The control group did not receive special education or home-based intervention and enrichment.

By the age of six all the children in the experimental group were dramatically superior to the children in the control group. This was true on all test measures, especially those dealing with language skills or problem solving. The experimental group had an IQ average of 120.7 as compared with the control group’s 87.2!

At the age of six the children left the center to attend the local school. By the time both groups were ten years old and in fifth grade, the IQ scores of the children in the experimental group had decreased to an average of 105 while the control group’s average score held steady at about 85. One possible reason for the decline is that schooling was geared for the slower students. The brighter children were not given materials suitable for their abilities and they began to fall back. Also, while the experimental children were in the special project center for the first six years they ate well, receiving three hot, balanced meals a day. Once they left the center and began to attend the local school, many reported going to classes hungry, without breakfast or a hot lunch.


Other Examples of IQ Increase

Other examples of IQ increase through early enrichment projects can be found in Israel, where children with a European Jewish heritage have an average IQ of 105 while those with a Middle Eastern Jewish heritage have an average IQ of only 85. Yet when raised on a kibbutz, children from both groups have an average IQ of 115.

In another home-based early enrichment program, conducted in Nassua County, New York, an instructor made only two half-hour visits a week for only seven months over a period of two years. He spent time showing parents participating in the program how best to teach their children at home. The children in the program had initial IQ’s in the low 90s, but by the time they went to school they averaged IQ’s of 107 or 108. In addition, they have consistently demonstrated superior ability on school achievement tests.


Conclusion

From the examples above, and similar cases in the literature, we contend that, a human being is not merely a slave to his genes. Human life can be compared to a game of cards. At birth, every person is dealt a hand of cards — his genetic make-up. Some receive a good hand, others a less good one. Success in any game, however, is almost always a matter of erudition. It is undeniably so that there are often certain innate qualities that will give one person an advantage over another in a specific game. However, without having learned the game and without regular and rigorous practice, nobody will ever become a champion at any game. In the same way the outcome of the game of life is not solely determined by the quality of a person's initial hand of cards, but also by the way in which he takes part in the game of life. His ability to take part in the game of life satisfactorily, perhaps even successfully, will be determined to a very large extent by the quality and quantity of education that he has enjoyed.

References:

  • Clark, B., Growing Up Gifted (3rd ed.), (Columbus: Merrill, 1988).

  • Dworetzky, J. P., Introduction to Child Development (St. Paul: West Publishing Company, 1981).

  • Skeels, H. M., et al., “A study of environmental stimulation: An orphanage preschool project,” University of Iowa Studies in Child Welfare, 1938, vol. 15(4).

NNB
by on Jan. 17, 2013 at 8:41 AM
1 mom liked this

I hate the idea of pre-school. in my oppinion it forces kids into a social surrounding where they are fighting for their place in the pack and it can create self esteem issues, especially if they are bullied from a young age. They are put in a situation they can not walk away from. Sure, this happens at school, but they are older ad better equipped to deal with it.

kaylasmom22
by Bronze Member on Jan. 17, 2013 at 8:50 AM
I loved dd's preschool she was very shy and preschool helped her atlot,not to mention she learned so much. She is 5 in kinder and reads well above her grade level. I think people forget school is the second place kids get an education. It all starts at home and if you don't help your child with school work, don't blame the teachers for it.
Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
Cafe Steph
by Head Admin on Jan. 17, 2013 at 8:52 AM

My kids didn't go to preschool, ended up being ahead of their peers and tested gifted; however, we're not uneducated or uninvolved with them and I think that's what makes the most difference.

romalove
by Roma on Jan. 17, 2013 at 9:00 AM


Quoting NNB:

I hate the idea of pre-school. in my oppinion it forces kids into a social surrounding where they are fighting for their place in the pack and it can create self esteem issues, especially if they are bullied from a young age. They are put in a situation they can not walk away from. Sure, this happens at school, but they are older ad better equipped to deal with it.

I've never seen a preschool like that.

rfurlongg
by on Jan. 17, 2013 at 9:03 AM
Neither have I.

Quoting romalove:


Quoting NNB:

I hate the idea of pre-school. in my oppinion it forces kids into a social surrounding where they are fighting for their place in the pack and it can create self esteem issues, especially if they are bullied from a young age. They are put in a situation they can not walk away from. Sure, this happens at school, but they are older ad better equipped to deal with it.

I've never seen a preschool like that.

Posted on CafeMom Mobile
SuDoNim
by Member on Jan. 17, 2013 at 9:14 AM

I agree. My daughter was in a private preschool last year, but this year we have her in public pre-k. The difference is quite apparent, both socially and academically, and I can see why those who can afford to do so choose private preschool over public. 

Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

 I really think it depends on the quality of the preschool.  Many of them in my area are glorified daycare. 


RunningMommaof2
by Member on Jan. 17, 2013 at 9:17 AM
I think every child will benefit from preschool. However, "disadvantaged" kids benefit more than others. Dd1 goes to preschool. She already had an advanced vocabulary and such, but she gets the social interaction that I just couldn't provide for her at home. Plus, I'm 100% positive that kindergarten will be an easy transition. It's great to see her have so many friends an be excited to go to school. She attends a school readiness program at the elementary school that Is modeled after head
start though. Some programs are better than others.
Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
RunningMommaof2
by Member on Jan. 17, 2013 at 9:19 AM
Me either. In fact, quite the opposite.


Quoting rfurlongg:

Neither have I.



Quoting romalove:


Quoting NNB:

I hate the idea of pre-school. in my oppinion it forces kids into a social surrounding where they are fighting for their place in the pack and it can create self esteem issues, especially if they are bullied from a young age. They are put in a situation they can not walk away from. Sure, this happens at school, but they are older ad better equipped to deal with it.

I've never seen a preschool like that.


Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)