Author Archives: Lauren Moore

The Faces of Immigration

Posted on by

On June 22, 2011, Jose Antonio Vargas wrote in the New York Times about his experience as an undocumented immigrant. Recently, NPR featured a 16 year-old rookie reporter who chronicled her experiences as an American citizen born to undocumented immigrant parents. Both stories put faces on the findings of a recent Future of Children Immigrant Children volume, which show that:

–Immigrant children, particularly those born to undocumented immigrant parents, are less likely to access key services such as early education and health care, than their native born peers.

–Performance of immigrant children in K-12 education varies by generational status and national origin. Immigrant youths, even some from economically disadvantaged families, often outperform their native peers in school. Poor parental education, poor-quality schools, and segregated neighborhoods, however, pose risk factors for immigrant children generally; and

–Barriers to postsecondary education are especially formidable for youth who lack legal status despite having attended U.S. elementary and secondary schools and having qualified for admission to college. Even when undocumented youth do attend college, they face substantial barriers to entering the workforce.

Nearly a quarter of schoolchildren in the United States are immigrants or the children of immigrants. Evidence shows that three policy reforms–increased attendance in quality preschool, improved instruction in English, and increased attendance in postsecondary education–would improve their school achievement, lift their economic well-being as adults, and increase their economic and social contributions to American society.

An Uneducated Underclass? Obama Revives Immigration Reform

Posted on by

On April 20, the Future of Children and Brookings Institution hosted Immigrant Children Falling Behind: Implications and Policy Prescriptions, which highlighted key findings from the Future of Children’s Immigrant Children volume, and engaged leaders from across the political spectrum in a debate about the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act.

The press picked up on one key warning following the event: that the United States will risk creating a new Hispanic underclass unless it improves immigrant children’s access to and quality of education. One in five pupils comes from a Hispanic background, and among children in kindergarten, the figure is one in four.

In December 2010, the DREAM Act, which would provide a pathway to citizenship for some illegal immigrant students, passed in the House but was blocked by the Senate, after which it seemed it would lie dormant for the foreseeable future.

But on Tuesday, April 19th, President Obama met with immigration reform advocates from around the nation to talk about how to revive stalled efforts to fix the country’s broken immigration system, including a pathway to citizenship for immigrant children.

At the Princeton-Brookings event the following day, proponents of the DREAM Act mentioned the economic benefits of giving those students who have proven to be assets to the country the ability to rise and contribute fully to the country’s productivity. Opponents argued that providing a path to citizenship would encourage future migrants to enter the country illegally.

Both agreed that creating better incentives for legal immigration, continuing border enforcement, and providing children who come here illegally, but identify as Americans, a way to become citizens without creating incentives for illegal entry, could benefit the United States. Additionally, all agreed that a well-educated population was critical to the country’s advancement and ability to compete in a global economy.

With so many divisive issues currently facing Congress, could immigration reform resurface as one of the few that has a middle ground?

If this happened in conjunction with continued (and potentially increased) support for education, the threat of a new underclass could be avoided. Not only that, but we might even capitalize on the many talents and abilities that children of immigrant families bring to our country.

To read more about Immigrant Children, read the journal online and view other articles and blogs featuring its findings.

Head Start: To Cut or Not to Cut?

Posted on by

“Cuts to Head Start Show Challenge of Fiscal Restraint,” blasted The New York Times on March 10, 2011. “Head Start was chosen for large cuts in the House spending bill because members of the Appropriations Committee concluded that the program was getting too much money given what they felt was its effectiveness.”

There is some truth in the Appropriations Committee’s conclusion. A 2010 study sponsored by the Department of Health and Human Services confirmed that at the end of the first year of school, children who attended Head Start did no better than similar children who did not attend Head Start.

But there is more to the story than this conclusion alone. As Republicans and Democrats debate cuts to the program, it is critical that the research is understood comprehensively, so that funds can be used to support the most effective practices in early childhood education.

–While the 2010 evaluation analyzed the overall impact of the Head Start program, it also analyzed the program’s impact on seven subgroups, which showed a number of favorable impacts at first grade in the cognitive, social-emotional, and health domains for children most at risk of failing academically and those with limited proficiency in English.

— There is great variance among the Head Start programs – some are much more successful than others. We know from evaluations of other interventions such as the High-Scope Perry Preschool Program and the Child-Parent Centers program that preschool education can make long-term improvements in individuals’ life courses. High quality Head Start programs should be distinguished from lower performing programs.

–In the absence of permanent test score gains, Head Start has been shown to have lasting positive effects on children in other areas such as future college attendance and fewer criminal offenses in young adulthood, among others. It is important to remember that Head Start provides a critical entry point for services other than education including health care, oral health services, parenting skills, and behavior modification.

Research shows that early education is vital to children’s long term success, particularly for those who are the most vulnerable. If Head Start programs disappear or services are substantially reduced without corollary program development, it is unclear whether children would attend other preschools or programs, and if so, what the quality of those services would be.

As the government considers its next steps regarding Head Start, let’s reorient the tone of the conversation to one that focuses on improving early childhood education for American children. Instead of thinking only about cuts, let’s also think about the ways we can redirect funding to support effective early childhood education in the United States.

Federal Budget 2012: What’s Most Important?

Posted on by

On February 14, 2011, President Obama released the 2012 federal budget, and a flood of media responses followed. For a moment, it appeared that children might fare well in the proposed budget: domestic discretionary spending remained level, and the proposed budget asked for $77.4 billion in education funding as well as continued and increased funding for early education, teacher support, and community initiatives, among others.

Then the House of Representatives responded, proposing a $61 billion reduction, including cuts to the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant, the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program, Head Start, Community Health Centers, and Title I (K-12 education for low-income students), among others. President Obama threatened to veto these cuts, which could potentially result in a government shutdown. The House responded by suggesting a temporary spending bill, which would institute House-passed cuts on a pro-rated basis.

Even if these cuts pass, they are relatively minimal when compared to the impact that potential state budget cuts could have on children’s futures. State and local revenues fund the bulk of social programs for youth, most notably in education and health care. And while the federal government can operate without a balanced budget, states cannot. Cuts will be made, and public debate will rage, as it has in Wisconsin.

Part of the conflict over budget cuts arises from the reality that, while the majority of Americans support the idea of spending cuts in order to reduce government deficits, they are deeply divided when it comes to the areas in which these cuts will be made.

How can governments decide which funding is the most valuable and which can be eliminated? What can the public do to help inform these decisions?

One suggestion, already embraced by the Obama administration, is to look to evidence-based programming. While no social science research is perfect, quality evaluations can provide the government with an idea of what strategies work best and thus have a better chance of producing the greatest marginal return for every dollar spent.

For example, in an upcoming Future of Children policy brief (check back in March for our latest volume), Ron Haskins and Marta Tienda note that although a high-quality national evaluation shows that the federal Head Start program is not adequately preparing preschoolers for the public schools, many evaluations show that state pre-K programs promote school readiness for four-year olds more effectively than Head Start. States, then, might be able to produce greater benefits for poor children than does the current Head Start program. Giving the Department of Health and Human Services the authority to experiment by allowing a few states to control Head Start funding and then rigorously evaluating the success of the programs could help the government reapportion funding so that it is more effective.

This is just one example of how research-based strategies can inform policy. Obviously, such decisions cannot fully account for the realities that will emerge from decreased funding to programs more generally. Such strategies could, however, help the country continue to improve programs’ efficacy and shift the country’s focus to a more positive perspective during a time of challenging economic realities.

As the federal and hopefully state governments begin embracing a culture that supports evidence-based practice, it is important that the public advocates for a culture of research that:

-Gives programs the freedom to show both what is working and what is not working, in order to make incremental improvements to programs. It is tempting for programs to want to show success and for politicians to want to quickly dismiss what does not work. It is better to create an environment that supports accurate research and allows for program growth over time.

-Advocates for an unbiased presentation of research. It is easy to use research to support any political agenda, and it is important that the public holds politicians accountable for presenting the full range of findings.

Using and funding (a topic for another blog) social science research to inform policy decision making is a complex process and will certainly take time to perfect – well beyond this budget cycle. However, it is important to begin embracing this perspective now, so that our country continues to make better use of its limited funds. More money, after all, does not always mean better results.

The Future of Children compiles the best research to date on social issues in order to help policy makers, practitioners, and civilians make informed decisions. Our most recent volumes on Fragile Families, Transitions to Adulthood, Preventing Child Maltreatment, and America’s High Schools, and the associated executive summaries and policy briefs, provide clear recommendations that can be helpful when considering the impact of budget cuts on the future of children.

College Isn’t the Only Answer. Now What?

Posted on by

On Wednesday, February 2, The Graduate School of Education at Harvard University’s Pathways to Prosperity Project published a report, which recommends that the United States broaden its approach to higher education.

Four-year college is not the only means by which to achieve success in adulthood, the report says. “While the United States is expected to create 47 million jobs in the 10-year period ending in 2018, only a third of these jobs will require a bachelor’s or higher degree. Almost as many jobs – some 30 percent – will only require an associate’s degree or a post-secondary occupational credential.” The study recommends identifying career fields of interest early on, and then creating pathways by which students can learn the skills they need to succeed in those occupations, some of which involve a bachelor’s degree and some of which do not.

So what does it mean, now, to put “higher education within the reach of every American,” as Obama mentioned in his State of the Union address?

It means that we must simultaneously focus on preparing students for four-year colleges, while also providing more opportunities for vocational training and access to community colleges. It means that we must provide a quality of education and a level of information about post-secondary opportunities that gives all students the knowledge and support they need to discern the career path that is best for them.

Fortunately, we have some research on what works. Future of Children volumes on Transition to Adulthood and America’s High Schools discuss in greater detail a range of programs from work training to high school college preparatory programs that have already shown evidence-based success.

There are no simple solutions, but it is helpful to have information on what we believe is effective. The Future of Children provides research and analysis on the most important issues facing children, from poverty to electronic media, to childhood obesity, and of course, to education.

Winning the Future for Children

Posted on by

President Obama’s State of the Union address focused on our country’s future. Despite our challenges, our country must come together to “out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build the rest of the world.”

The President rightly acknowledged that this will take excellence in the classroom. We need to begin education earlier, advance education in math and science, reward and retain high performing teachers, prepare students for education beyond high school, and make post-secondary education affordable and meaningful to students, so that they are primed for jobs in a technologically driven global economy.

Obama then went on to emphasize the importance of parents, in addition to teachers and schools, in a child’s education. The education of a child begins “not in our classrooms, but in our homes and communities.” The President asked “whether all of us – as citizens, and as parents – are willing to do what’s necessary to give every child a chance to succeed.”

The question is a hard one that involves not only making changes to our education system, but also buttressing families, particularly fragile families, so that they can provide the support necessary for their children’s success.

As the President mentioned, “it’s family first that instills the love of learning in a child.” Our country must look to comprehensive policy approaches that not only promote and improve education, but also encompass a wide range of initiatives from job creation to health care, to support American families.

And the government cannot and should not do it alone. Our individual knowledge and advocacy around these issues is critical to building communities that can work in tandem with policy changes to support children’s development.

As the President begins suggesting policy plans to implement his vision, investigate some of our relevant volumes, which will hopefully help you clarify your thoughts and advocacy efforts related to improving child wellbeing: Fragile Families, Transition to Adulthood, Preventing Child Maltreatment, America’s High Schools, and Excellence in the Classroom, among others. <http://www.futureofchildren.org/futureofchildren/publications/journals/>;

Our upcoming volume on Immigrant Children (March 2011) will provide additional clarity regarding both legal and illegal immigrant children and their futures in the United States.

Creating a Better World

Posted on by

What does it take to create a better future for our children?

With the passing of Sargent Shriver yesterday, January 18th, we remember a leader with an inspiring vision for a better world, who strove to create opportunities where they did not exist.

A man who “came to embody the idea of public service,” as President Obama described him, Shriver was the first director of the Peace Corps during President Kennedy’s administration, turning the modest project into a respectable powerhouse of international volunteerism. Under President Johnson’s administration, Shriver created the Office of Economic Opportunity and is known as the ‘architect’ of the Johnson administration’s War on Poverty. He founded, among others, Head Start, VISTA, the Job Corps, Community Action, Upward Bound, Foster Grandparents, the Special Olympics, Legal Services, the National Clearinghouse for Legal Services (now the Shriver Center), Indian and Migrant Opportunities, and Neighborhood Health Services.

In thinking about the topics that The Future of Children seeks to address, it is difficult to imagine one that Sargent Shriver did not touch. Our volumes on The Next Generation of Antipoverty Policies and Opportunity in America, in particular, build on Sargent’s work.

His family remembers him as “a man of giant love, energy, enthusiasm, and commitment. He lived to make the world a more joyful, faithful, and compassionate place.”

Sargent Shriver’s values and life’s work provide an example for other visionaries who strive to create a more humane world for our children.

As Woodrow Wilson said, “you are here to enable the world to live more amply, with greater vision, and with a finer spirit of hope and achievement. You are here to enrich the world.” Clearly, Sargent Shriver did.

King’s Dream Deferred for Children of Unmarried Parents

Posted on by

Last week, news at Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School mentioned work by researchers at Princeton and Columbia Universities, which suggests that Martin Luther King’s dream is deferred for millions of children. The reason? A significant increase over the past 40 years in the percentage of children born into fragile families, defined as couples who are unmarried when their children are born. Almost three-fourths of African American children and just over half of Hispanic children are born to unmarried parents, and whites are quickly catching up — so much so that the proportion of white children born to unmarried parents today (29%) is actually higher than it was for blacks in the mid-1960’s when Daniel Moynihan released his report on the black family that voiced concern about this issue.

Research shows that children growing up in fragile families face greater risks to their well-being and future opportunities than children growing up in more traditional families. Simply put, family formation and the associated resources or lack thereof, are creating a new divide among children.

“The evidence suggests that parents’ marital status at the time of their child’s birth is a good predictor of longer-term family stability and complexity, both of which influence children’s wellbeing,” said Sara McLanahan, one of the most authoritative voices on this subject and one of the principal investigators of a seminal study focused on these families. “But as the number of children born to unmarried parents has increased, so has their exposure to poverty and family instability.”

According to the groundbreaking Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study:

  • Unmarried parents are much more disadvantaged than married parents. Unmarried parents are more likely to have started parenting in their teens; are more likely to be poor; are more likely to suffer from depression; and are disproportionately African American or Hispanic. One particular finding is especially jarring – nearly 40% of fathers who have children outside of marriage have been incarcerated at some point in their lifetime, and this number is likely an undercount.
  • A large proportion of unmarried parents are in “marriage-like” relationships at the time of their child’s birth. One-half of unmarried parents are living together at the time of their child’s birth, and another 32% are in ‘visiting unions,’ defined as romantically involved but living apart. This is contrary to the image we have of the “single mother,” giving birth outside of marriage alone with no father by her side.
  • Relationships are unstable. Despite their clearly stated high hopes that they will marry eventually, most unmarried parents do not stay together. The result is that many children experience high levels of instability and complexity. Only 35% of unmarried couples are still living together five years after the birth of their child; given the young age of these parents, those who do not stay together go on to re-partner, exposing their children to increasing numbers of short-term parent figures and half-siblings.
  • Children are doing poorly. Children born to unmarried parents do not fare as well as children born to married parents; single mothers and mothers in unstable partnerships engage in harsher parenting practices and fewer literacy activities with their children than stably married mothers.

“What this suggests,” says McLanahan, “is that we must start to think very seriously about policy reforms that will reverse this trend. If these cohabiting couples were long-term, stable relationships as they are in Scandinavian countries, for example, we would not be concerned. But in the United States they are fragile, and children are suffering as a consequence.”

As Dr. King said, “When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned.” While the country has made critical gains in this area, it is incumbent upon us to ensure that these gains are not lost on our children.

A fact sheet of the findings can be found at:

http:/www.fragilefamilies.princeton.edu/documents/FragileFamiliesandChildWellbeingStudyFactSheet.pdf

Additional findings are highlighted in The Future of Childen’s volume on Fragile Families.

The Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study has been following approximately 5,000 children born in large U.S. cities between 1998 and 2000, including a large oversample of children born to unmarried parents. The Study is a joint effort on Princeton University’s Center for Research on Child Wellbeing and Center for Health and Wellbeing and Columbia University’s Columbia Population Research Center and The National Center for Children and Families. The Study is funded through grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development (NICHD), and a consortium of private foundations and other government agencies.

Students Know: Quality Teachers Make a Difference

Posted on by

Last week the papers were filled with news about America’s plummeting education system. Shanghai took top PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) awards in math, science, and reading. The United States came in 31st in math, 23rd in science, and 17th in reading.

While the PISA tests raised alarms, the revelation that America’s schools are failing many of our students is no surprise.

In 2007, The Future of Children’s Excellence in the Classroom issue evaluated K-12 education in the United States and recommended policies for reform. Research on teacher quality showed not only that students who have good teachers learn more, but that their learning is cumulative if they have good teachers for several consecutive years. A child in poverty who has a good teacher for five years in a row could have learning gains large enough, on average, to completely close the achievement gap with higher income students.

According to a December 10, 2010 New York Times article, What Works in the Classroom? Ask the Students, students themselves identified which teachers were most effective. Based on preliminary research from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, researchers found that there was substantial agreement between students’ ratings of teachers and teachers’ value-added scores.

Students know quality teaching when they experience it.

As No Child Left Behind comes up for re-authorization in 2011, it is critical that we advocate and engage students, as well as teachers, policy makers, and community members, in conversations and initiatives that will improve education in the United States.

For more information on the Future of Children’s recommendations for education policy, go to our volumes on America’s High Schools and Excellence in the Classroom.

The Gates Foundation provided support for the Future of Children’s journal on Fragile Families, and will provide funding for our upcoming journals on Immigrant Children, Work and Family, and Post Secondary Education in the United States, all of which devote significant attention to education policy and practice.

Who Needs Marriage? Children Do

Posted on by

As reported in Time Magazine’s November 18th cover story, according to a new Pew Research Center nationwide survey, a growing number of Americans believe that “marriage, whatever its social, spiritual, or symbolic appeal, is in purely practical terms just not as necessary as it used to be.”

The claim raises the question, “not necessary for whom?”

The Future of Children‘s Fragile Families study, referenced in Time’s feature, Who Needs Marriage?, suggests that for some, and particularly for children, marriage is more necessary than ever.

And despite the more general findings that Americans believe that marriage is unnecessary for a host of issues, when it comes to raising kids, more than three-quarters say it’s best done married.

As The Future of Children: Fragile Families journal explains, fragile families – defined as couples who are unmarried when their children are born – face greater risks than more traditional families, which can have negative consequences on child wellbeing. Simply put, stable, two parent homes have greater monetary and emotional resources to support their children’s development. And in the United States, marriage has the greatest chance of achieving relationship stability which leads to stability for children.

So where do we go from here?

The Future of Children Fragile Families journal shows that, contrary to popular belief, most unwed parents have close and loving relationships at the time of their child’s birth. However, at five years after birth only 35 percent of unwed parents are still together. These first moments in a child’s life present a unique opportunity to work with couples to strengthen unwed parents’ relationship and parenting skills.

At the Brookings Institution Fragile Families launch on October 27, 2010, a young man summarized the impact of such program participation on his views about children and marriage.

“When we went to this class, and I listened to the statistics about the married couples and the unmarried couples and how much it would benefit my child for us to be married, I took advantage of that. I want my child to be raised to be a man, and I love my girlfriend. It was a no-brainer, but it really took learning about my child’s future to help me put it together.”

While a growing number of Americans may view marriage as a dying institution, its benefits for children are clear. As our nation’s poverty rate continues to climb, preventing and strengthening fragile families will become increasingly important.

For more information on fragile families and our policy recommendations to support them, please go to The Future of Children’s full volume on Fragile Families.