Growing Up in Ireland Report Published

From TCD's website - While the macro situation is getting understandable attention at present, Ireland is still a country that spends a lot of money on public services. The task of making sure that our public resources and infrastructures are set up to help this generation of children lead fulfilling lives should get more attention in the policy debate.

Key findings from the report include:

* 86% of nine-month-olds lived in two-parent families with 14% living in lone-parent families.
* Traditional family types are still the norm. Over 70% of the mothers of nine-month-olds were married and a further 15% were cohabiting with a partner.
* 27% of mothers and 24% of fathers were not born in Ireland.
* Nearly one in five mothers (18%) had smoked at some stage during the pregnancy and a similar proportion (20%) had drunk alcohol at some stage. Mothers with the lower levels of education were more likely to smoke, but less likely to drink alcohol, during pregnancy than mothers with the highest education.
* Just over half of all infants (57%) were breastfed at some point, with just over 49% being breastfed on leaving hospital. Irish-born mothers were less likely to have breastfed (48%) than mothers born elsewhere (83%). Rates of breastfeeding also increased in line with better education of the mother.
* One in ten mothers had ‘no intention of ever getting pregnant’ at the time they conceived the Study Infant.
* The vast majority of mothers reported their infant’s health to be good at birth (97%) and at nine months (99%).
* 38% of nine-month-olds were in some form of non-parental childcare. Grandparents were the most frequent provider of childcare (12%), followed by crèche/daycare centres (11%).
* Infants in non-parental childcare spent an average of 25 hours per week in childcare and this cost an average of €5.14 per hour. The most important consideration when choosing childcare was the quality of the care provided. However, a substantial proportion (17%) recorded that their choice had been determined by costs, either completely or to a large degree.
* A total of 57% of mothers of infants are currently working outside the home
* Mothers in higher income groups as well as those with higher education were more likely than others to report that they had missed out on home or family activities because of their work. In contrast mothers from the lowest income group were most likely to record having turned down work activities or opportunities because of their family life

'Education Does Not Begin Or End At The Schoolhouse Door'

A lot of us in education policy get lost within our own locus of control. In my case, it's all about teachers. After all, teacher quality is the strongest school-based indicator impacting student outcomes.

Sounds good, right? Yes, and no.

While it is inevitable that one focuses on what one can control professionally, it is important to have a sense of the bigger picture. That goes for us in education. After all, research has shown that the influence of schools on student outcomes pale in comparison to family and social factors outside of schools' direct control -- especially, but not only, in the early years of childhood. So while it is critical that we concentrate education policy efforts around attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers, we also must attend to a variety of factors outside of schools that impact students' ability to learn and succeed.

This report (Promoting A Comprehensive Approach to Educational Opportunity) from Cross & Joftus, funded by the Mott Foundation, provides an important reality check to our typical tunnel vision. It also provides a series of recommendations to better coordinate a largely fragmented web of federal programs focused on children. It reminds policymakers and high-level government managers -- who have responsibility for interdisciplinary public policies -- that they need to think holistically and work in concert.

There are existing organizations and movements afoot -- Broader, Bolder, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Coordinated School Health Program, the Coalition for Community Schools, National Assembly on School-based Health Care, The Rural School and Community Trust, come to mind -- that take such a broader view of education and what it takes to fuel student success.

Some excerpts from the Cross & Joftus report:

The dominant assumption of American educational policy is that schools, by themselves, can fully overcome the impact of social and economic disadvantage on children’s development into thriving citizens.

The ... No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) ... perpetuated and gave further credence to the assumption that schools could fully mitigate the impact of low socioeconomic status on students’ achievement and that schools were also the chief cause of poor performance.

First, since at least 2000, there has been a broad scientific consensus that “virtually every aspect of early human development, from the brain’s evolving circuitry to the child’s capacity for empathy, is affected by the environments and experiences that are encountered in a cumulative fashion, beginning in the prenatal period and extending throughout the early childhood years.” As James Heckman, a Nobel Prize economist, wrote, “Life cycle skill formation is a dynamic process in which early
inputs strongly affect the productivity of later inputs [especially schools]. Put another way, “education” does not begin or end at the schoolhouse door, and the “education” that children receive before they enter school significantly affects their success after they go through that door.

Second, the evidence does not support the view that the substantial gap closing that had occurred by the mid-1980s was entirely the result of schools, though schools did indeed contribute.

Third, despite the ongoing debate about whether or not schools alone can level the education playing field, the federal government has long been engaged in a schools-plus approach.

Read Deb Viadero's blog post at Inside School Research on the study as well.

Image courtesy of University of Nebraska-Lincoln Extension

Study Demonstrates Link Between Hunger and Children’s Ability to Learn

On this Thanksgiving week, it is appropriate that we acknowledge the large numbers of America’s children who are too hungry to learn as indicated in a new public opinion survey commissioned by Share Our Strength. Teachers – as first responders – witness the toll hunger takes on students in their classrooms every day.

Hunger in America’s Classrooms: Share Our Strength’s Teacher Report shares teachers’ firsthand accounts of hunger as well as a formal national survey of teachers. Share Our Strength commissioned Lake Research Partners to poll 747 elementary and middle school teachers from urban, suburban and rural communities across America, for the study, funded by C&S Wholesale Grocers. The most recent figures released by the USDA paint a dramatic picture of hunger in America: nearly 17 million U.S. children – nearly one in four kids – face hunger today.

In a webinar, experts on childhood hunger and health(Billy Shore, founder and executive director, Share Our Strength; Maria S. Gomez, FN, MPH, president & CEO, Mary’s Center for Maternal & Child Care; Celinda Lake, president, Lake Research Partners; and Christine Gottshall, elementary school teacher, West Roxbury, Boston, MA) will share key findings from the study and address this often invisible American crisis.

WHEN: Monday, November 23, 2009 at 11:00 AM ET

WHERE: Operated Assisted Conference Line 888-278-8465

Webinar Login Web site: http://soundpatheview.com

Webinar Login Participant code: 2025722864

***To access the Webinar you must run the Systems Check link located on the top left hand side of the Web site.

***Please RSVP to Sarah Sandsted at ssandsted@strength.org

A Little Obama Effect

This is awkward. My 2 1/2 year old son is paying attention to politics and presidents, and as his parents we couldn't be more proud. Except for one problem. He's begun to call every non-white male he sees, "Obama!" As in (pointing) "Look Mama, there's Obama!"

Awkward. Sometimes the man is African-American, or in some cases Indian, or even Latino. In not a single instance has he actually been Barack Obama. (Yes, Obama comes to Madison tomorrow-- but Conor will be on his way to Washington so the two will miss each other.) But that doesn't stop Conor from being ever-so-proud to identify his neighbor, fellow airplane passenger, or even my co-worker as our current president.

Now what? (Seriously, now what?)

There's been plenty of talk about a positive "Obama effect" on America's children, the effect of a highly accomplished role model from a non-majority group. The President himself aspired to this when he decided to run for the country's highest office, telling his advisory team that this is what distinguished him from other candidates:

"When I take that oath of office, there will be kids all over this country who don't really think that all paths are open to them, who will believe they can be anything they want to be...and I think the world will look at America a little differently."

Well, as a white child of privilege (including two parents with graduate degrees and full employment) I have no doubt my son would've come up believing he could be or do anything-- regardless of who was president. But, living where we do-- in near lily-white Stoughton, Wisconsin-- I do worry about his lack of non-white role models. Sure, he'll be indoctrinated as a card-carrying liberal (after all my husband's a former executive director of Vermont's Democratic Party), but so what? Even the most hopeful and tolerant adults tend to have stereotypes formed by an absence of figures, as well as the presence of others.

Raised on the East Coast in a community full of Vietnamese and Latino families, it's often occured to me that my decision to work in Madison and live in Stoughton affects the quality of our life. In so many ways, it's completely a joy-- this place is affordable, quiet, and pretty. But when Conor shouts "Obama" I have to wonder...now what?

Damned If We Do, Damned If We Don't

Cross-posted from Brainstorm

I began the article with a nice, warm feeling--a sweet story of how Barack and Michelle Obama are trying to keep connected and close with their children is a lovely thing to find on the front page of the Sunday New York Times. It's hard to imagine what it must be like to parent in the White House. Sure, you have plenty of help-- no trouble handling all those bags and kids when you're trying to get out the door, or worrying that you don't have a sitter when you need to stay out late. But I think all parents suffer from a feeling of being too visible, especially when confronted with tantrums or difficult decisions, and these two are right out in front of everyone.

So I both empathize with-- and envy-- the First Parents. Their summer trips with the girls sound idyllic; making gelato in Rome, visiting the Eiffel Tower, Ghana, etc.... While the article focused on those outings as educational opportunities, what they are most clearly is time spent with mom and dad. A very, very busy mom and dad, who've made it a priority to combine work trips with famiy time.

Of course, the article had to take a nasty turn-- revealing that some critics are after Obama for what they see as extravagence. The "nerve" to enjoy one's children while juggling a heavy work schedule, when other Americans can't afford a vacation. This is just so sad. It reaffirms just how workaholic and disfunctional this nation is. We make it hard in so many ways for children to be active parts of our lives, especially if we are working parents. It's hard to fit into the schedule, it's expensive to afford-- and we get judged for it.

I have a friend who often does what feels nearly impossible to me; bringing his kids along when attending conferences (especially those in exotic places). I'd love to do this more, if only. If only it didn't cost so much (the tickets for my son and my husband), require me to make guilt-filled choices between time in a meeting and time at an outing, and most of all, if it didn't seem to diminish me in the eyes of some colleagues. Push a stroller around an academic meeting for an afternoon, and watch as your status facilitates between scholar and Mama...it's no fun. Make it even more fun, and take a break to nurse on a bench-- just as one of your grad students walks by...

I've heard rumors that some funding agencies get the struggle that parenting academics and researchers feel, and allow for grant resources to be used to bring kids along, or finance childcare to make attendance possible. If it's true, that's fabulous and a practice that should be brought to scale. But in the meantime, let's start on the non-monetary side of things by simply casting a friendlier eye on all working parents who embrace children as part of their work and non-work lives. Barack and Michelle are simply showing us how it's done.

A Crushing View of Reality

I've been spending a lot of time thinking about what money can buy -- $3,500 more specifically. In our project testing the effects of need-based financial aid on college students, that's how much the students attending 4-year colleges are being randomly assigned to receive. So I often ponder whether that amount is meaningful, in what ways, and why more might be needed.

This afternoon I was dealt a harsh dose of reality, bringing me down from "college-going land" to the real world. No sooner had my two-year old gone down for his nap and I'd picked up the New York Times to enjoy over a lovely and very necessary cappuccino, did my eyes fall on this front page story: "Chinese Hunger for Sons Fuel Boys' Abductions".

Know what $3,500 can buy in China? A five-year-old boy. That's right.

In a story full of weeping parents who've lost their kids--those who've had babies stolen from them, and those who unknowingly adopted stolen children--reality hits hard. It's not often that the Education Optimists write about anything outside the U.S. (and admittedly, shame on us for that). Thanks to this story, my mind is far, far from higher education on this very gray afternoon.

The Electric Company

Alexander Russo reports that the power is back on, so to speak. PBS is bringing "The Electric Company" back to television in January. Of course, The Education Optimists passed along this news back in May ['A Live Wire: The Electric Company Returns'].

I can't wait to be able to show my two-year-old.

They Can't See the Page: More Basic Reasons Poor Kids Struggle to Learn

One in twenty students has trouble focusing well enough to read without trouble. How are kids supposed to learn if they can't see the page?

This isn't new information. We've known about the "vision problem" for years.

In fact, not surprisingly, for poor children this problem, is much worse.

Research indicates that:

50% of low-income kids have untreated vision problems

In some underserved areas, the number of children who fall through the cracks is staggering. Optometrists volunteering through the Lions Club found that 47 percent of children had vision problems in schools in West Los Angeles.

And you can't catch these problems with the cursory exams usually done in schools:

Many lay people confuse a vision screening with a vision exam, although the former is but a procedure that's supposed to identify those children who may need further examination. However, the screenings many schools administer even fall short of that. Vision screenings that test only acuity detect 30 percent of children who would fail a professional exam

In fact, cursory exams may actually exacerbate the problem, indicating that a child can see fine and reducing the chance that she will get a comprehensive exam. In other words, poor exams may actually ensure that the problem is never corrected.

How much of the challenge that poor kids face in learning results from incredibly basic causes that have nothing to do with pedaogy (or even with more subtle issues like cultural mismatch, etc.).

How about the relationship between vision and "delinquent" kids?

A key finding was that almost all of the 132 delinquents in the study had learning related vision problems, but only a few had nearsightedness, farsightedness or astigmatism. Common in teens, these refractive problems are a sign that the person has made adaptations to deal with the stress of close work in the classroom. . . .

The lack of such problems in these delinquents indicates that, at any early age, they chose not to deal with close work, Dr. Harris said. Other study findings show the reason why. They simply lacked the vision skills to do close work.

How much of the achievement gap could be eliminated with comprehensive health care, breakfast, and nutrition?

What an incredible tragedy. Even on these most basic levels we find it impossible to support these children.

They Can't See the Page: More Basic Reasons Poor Kids Struggle to Learn

One in twenty students has trouble focusing well enough to read without trouble. How are kids supposed to learn if they can't see the page?

This isn't new information. We've known about the "vision problem" for years.

In fact, not surprisingly, for poor children this problem, is much worse.

Research indicates that:

50% of low-income kids have untreated vision problems

In some underserved areas, the number of children who fall through the cracks is staggering. Optometrists volunteering through the Lions Club found that 47 percent of children had vision problems in schools in West Los Angeles.

And you can't catch these problems with the cursory exams usually done in schools:

Many lay people confuse a vision screening with a vision exam, although the former is but a procedure that's supposed to identify those children who may need further examination. However, the screenings many schools administer even fall short of that. Vision screenings that test only acuity detect 30 percent of children who would fail a professional exam

In fact, cursory exams may actually exacerbate the problem, indicating that a child can see fine and reducing the chance that she will get a comprehensive exam. In other words, poor exams may actually ensure that the problem is never corrected.

How much of the challenge that poor kids face in learning results from incredibly basic causes that have nothing to do with pedaogy (or even with more subtle issues like cultural mismatch, etc.).

How about the relationship between vision and "delinquent" kids?

A key finding was that almost all of the 132 delinquents in the study had learning related vision problems, but only a few had nearsightedness, farsightedness or astigmatism. Common in teens, these refractive problems are a sign that the person has made adaptations to deal with the stress of close work in the classroom. . . .

The lack of such problems in these delinquents indicates that, at any early age, they chose not to deal with close work, Dr. Harris said. Other study findings show the reason why. They simply lacked the vision skills to do close work.

How much of the achievement gap could be eliminated with comprehensive health care, breakfast, and nutrition?

What an incredible tragedy. Even on these most basic levels we find it impossible to support these children.