Early childhood education urged in La.

A Tulane University professor and an LSU professor tag teamed Wednesday to make the case for expanding early childhood education and assistance in Louisiana.

They discussed a 2012 report, “Early Childhood Risk and Reach in Louisiana,” that they completed together. It looks at contributors to early childhood success, how many children are suffering economic, health, and education risks in the state’s 64 parishes, and analyzes existing programs to address problems.

Geoff Nagle an associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral health at Tulane’s School of Medicine, summarized the extensive research on the importance of the first years of life, the challenges too many children face and the benefits to society of improving lives.

At one point Nagle displayed on an overhead screen one number, 1,826, and asked what it meant.

“That’s the number of days til l the fifth birthday,” he said. “That’s our time to build the fundamentals, the strong base that children need.”

The second speaker, Kirby Goidel, is a professor of political science and mass communication at LSU and the director of the university’s Public Policy Research Lab.

Goidel laid out a series of public opinion polls showing wide public support in Louisiana for expanding early childhood programs, even if it meant budget cuts elsewhere or tax increases. He showed that the support is strong across the political spectrum.

“Why doesn’t overwhelming public support for early childhood translate into public policy?” Goidel asked.

Nagle said that over the past few years, spending on children in Louisiana has actually decreased and the portion devoted to early childhood education has decreased at even faster rate.

Nagle also is director of Tulane’s Institute of Infant and Early Childhood Mental Health, and the state director of BrightStart, Louisiana’s Early Childhood Advisory Council.

Goidel and Nagle spoke at Boudreaux’s as part of the Academic Distinction Fund’s Distinguished Speaker Series, which is focused heavily on early childhood education. ExxonMobil is the lead sponsor of the speaker series.

Nagle talked about a variety of reasons the early years of life are so important.

“Things that happen to you early in life really get under your skin, and they are going to have a big biological impact on the rest of your life,” he said.

Childhood is a confusing time as it as, Nagle said, likening a child to the work of an air-traffic controller.

“There’s so much going on out there. You think you know the rules of the game, but it’s constantly changing,” he said.

When children suffer stress, due to “poverty, violence in the home, mental health, substance abuse, all of the above,” their bodies undergo increases in the hormone cortisol, Nagle said. Cortisol suppresses the immune system, reduces cell connections, prompts anxious behavior and impairs memory, selective attention and thinking, he said.

Damage to children’s attentiveness — which Nagle called “executive function and self-regulation” — is a huge contributor to future problems, he said. He cited a study suggesting damage to children’s attentiveness has a bigger correlation to problems in adulthood than aggressive behavior, socioeconomic status, race and ethnicity, or gender.

Nagle said the case is so strong that the burden of proof should not be on supporters of expanding early childhood but on those who would spend public dollars for other purposes. He noted that in 2010, Louisiana paid out $170 million more that it took in to provide tax credits for the movie industry.

“What could that do if that $170 million was invested in early education? A heck of a lot,” Nagle said.

Looking at public opinion polls, Goidel said the downturn in the economy has raised it and jobs as the top issues for Louisianians, but concerns about education are growing. He said supporters of expanding early childhood support need to get more organized and to connect it to the economy and other concerns.

Nagle said that supporters need to take a broad view of early childhood, including things like parental education and medical assistance. He said more issues exist than just prekindergarten and Louisiana’s LA 4 program for four year olds and too many politicians forget that.

Comments

1) Comment by bourbon-soda - 22/02/2013

As this discussion seems to circle the drain, the content of the committee-written book _From Neurons to Neighborhoods_ seems to be available at http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php? isbn=0309069882 or just search "from neurons to neighborhoods" and choose the corresponding hit. There is a table of contents to the right of that site. The book includes discussion of nature-nurture and of the difficulties in establishing causality. None of this deters the professors from advocating this intervention.

2) Comment by bourbon-soda - 22/02/2013

Penultimate comment should read "exhortation to action" rather than "exhortation to".

3) Comment by bourbon-soda - 22/02/2013

As usual, the earlier link does not work. Just to try to ensure that everyone is talking about the same thing, I found the pdf of "Early Chlidhood Risk and Reach in Lousiana at the previously cited http://www.lsutuearlychildhood.org/EarlyChildhoodRiskLA_Fall2 012.pdf but alternative pathways are through http://www.lsutuearlychildhood.org/ or by searching the terms "early childhood risk reach louisiana pdf" using Yahoo's search engine. The Powerpoint image in the photo with the article displays the name of a prejudicially (IMO) named (IMO) book, _From Neurons to Neighborhoods_, reviews of which are available through a similar search.

4) Comment by bourbon-soda - 22/02/2013

I assume you mean what is my explanation of all the correlations in the paper referred to in the Advocate article. Most of them are of the nature vs nurture variety, and irrelevant. The only relevant correlation, or lack thereof, is between public early childhood education and outcome. The article is an exhortation to, based, IMO, on an implicit assertion that devotion of resources to early childhood education will have a beneficial effect, meaning here that it will have lasting educational and behavioral benefits. It is difficult to reach that conclusion from the aggregate of extant studies on early childhood education. Social and behavioral science is largely grounded in, and their claim to the status of science based on, the statistical concept that to support an assertion, one has to reject the null hypothesis (that early childhood education does not work) at at acceptable level of probability. The burden is not to demonstrate that it does not work (null hypothesis) but that it does work (reject null hypothesis). I don't think this has been done, so there is no rationale to expand expenditure of resources in this way. I don't think big pharma should be able to market a drug based on this level of probability, for example. Two additional problems besides correlation, are scalability (will something that might work on a small "hothouse" scale still work on an expanded level - adverse drug effects often turn up after they are marketed on the basis of convincing statistics) and whether a method that has not been demonstrated to work, will have adverse consequences.

5) Comment by SuzanneMS - 21/02/2013

So what's your explanation, then? Are all of these different studies that show this strong and consistent correlation simply coincidence?

6) Comment by bourbon-soda - 21/02/2013

Some correlations are the result of causation; others, not. To extrapolate from one to the other, is a fallacy.

7) Comment by Iamhopeful2 - 21/02/2013

bourbon-soda - Correlational data show that if one doesn't eat, he will starve to death. Correlational (Russian study in orphanage) data show that if a baby does not have the benefit of sufficient human touch it will eventually die. Inconclusive but correlational data show that intelligence does not always indicate common sense. Common sense tells those of us who have it that early childhood education (experiential, associative, stimulation) are contributing factors to learning.

8) Comment by tradewinns - 21/02/2013

where are the parent's and their responsibilities in this effort? PARENTS ARE THE FIRST AND SUREST CONTRIBUTOR TOWARD A CHILD'S EDUCATION! in today's no my fault or you do it for me society, we have replaced parents in the poor communities with goavernment programs, which do not have a winning record. so what are we going to do? the same thing again and again only this time bigger and more expensive? return the child to the parent and hold them responsibile for their kids actions.

9) Comment by bourbon-soda - 21/02/2013

The beat goes on: "All of these factors contribute, to a greater or lesser degree" - an assertion of causation from correlation. "The data on Head Start is inconclusive and it's all correlational as well..." - no reason to reject the null hypothesis (that it doesn't work). "One interpretation of the data" is one interpretation of the data. "it all depends on the teachers..." - highly dubious assertion; already stipulated that "all these factors contribute." "Most parents who can afford it send their children to private pre-K -- are they just wasting their money?" Could be; no reason to think otherwise.

10) Comment by SuzanneMS - 21/02/2013

This is not a report on an empirical experiment. It is a report that is looking at the prevalence of known risk factors, determined from previous studies, in Louisiana. This is not breaking new ground. It's taking what is known and looking at the picture in Louisiana, and the picture is bleak. They are not looking for a single cause; there is no single cause. All of these factors contribute, to a greater or lesser degree. The data on Head Start is inconclusive and it's all correlational as well, so I'm surprised you're even referring to it. One interpretation of the data is that other pre-K programs have become more available and more effective than they were when Head Start begin in the 1970s. And, of course, some Head Start centers are more effective than others; it all depends on the teachers. Certainly most parents who can afford it send their children to private pre-K -- are they just wasting their money?

11) Comment by bourbon-soda - 21/02/2013

The actual report seems to be at << http://www.lsutuearlychildhood.org/EarlyChildhoodRiskLA_Fall201 0.pdf >> It is heavy on correlation but causation is not established. Two of the correlations, single parenthood strongly associated with illegitimacy and teenage pregnancy, are plausible causes. While the science is said to to be "undeniable," no mention is made regarding reports of ineffectiveness of Head Start and the more intrusive North Carolina Abedecarian Project. If the above link goes not work, a Yahoo search for "early childood risk and reach in louisiana nagel goidel" produces numerous hits, including the above pdf file.

12) Comment by lovemykids - 21/02/2013

Phil, where are you? Go ahead and talk about free babysitting.

13) Comment by jwarren - 21/02/2013

Curious that this appears the very same day education superintendent white proposes a universal pre-school plan for the state. So the obvious question: who pays for this?

14) Comment by Scrooge - 20/02/2013

Yep! everyone should be born wealthy then early childhood education won't be necessary because the parents will be able to stay home with their kids and teach them the ropes they learned at ivy league schools. Anyone who refuses to raise their kids in high socioeconomic circumstances must be neutered. Why would anyone refuse to live in wealth? The neuroscientific evidence is overwhelming as stated in the article that the early childhood years are crucial for developing productive adults. Generational change is not quite like ordering a burger at McDonalds or pardon me, takeout from Jubans.

15) Comment by Notauser - 20/02/2013

Yep! Taking kids away from their parents as soon as possible and giving them to the government is a clear necessity (despite the decidedly mixed results of Head Start in the numerous studies done on its effects – for every study showing a small positive effect there are a couple showing no lasting effect). A perfect use of tax dollars. I assume these guys will help design the programs for a small fee?