Category Archives: Education

English Language Learning: Best Practices for Children of Immigrant Families

Posted on by

Today the Washington Post highlighted the benefits of bilingualism for children. For parents, it is better to speak to young children in a native tongue than in a recently acquired language. Researchers who spoke at the Education Research Section’s practitioners’ conference, “Enhancing Practice for English Language Learners,” which presented findings from the Future of Children’s Immigrant Children volume, agreed.

As summarized in Melanie Wright’s coverage of the event, in addition to noting that English literacy needs to be taught early and taught well, researchers recommended that schools also show respect for a child’s native language and culture. One way to do this is by supporting the use of the native language at home. McGill University Professor Fred Genesee explained that this is not only important for socio-emotional development, but it is also important for enhancing second language acquisition. In fact, Genesee suggested that English language learners are actually able to learn English more quickly if they are literate in their native tongue. Instead of trying to get parents with limited English skills to speak English at home – which may hurt family communication – he recommended supporting their use of the native language in ways that push their children toward literacy. Multilingualism is a valuable asset that should be preserved and developed.

Second, the timing and quality of English language education was a non-controversial but oft-repeated theme. Princeton Professor Marta Tienda stressed the need for early English mastery in the opening talk, and RAND economist Lynn Karoly described linguistic and socioeconomic disadvantages that immigrant children face when they enter school. Both noted that intervention in the early years is both critical and achievable, as 78 percent of current English language learners are born in the United States. University of Texas Professor Rob Crosnoe stressed that the return on investment of teaching younger children is much higher, as building language skills becomes more difficult and costly with age and is less likely to result in fluency. While the need for quality education seems intuitive, speakers noted that many current approaches to teach English language learners miss the mark by assuming children “soak up language like a sponge.” This, Genesee declared, is a myth.

Third, speakers addressing professional development issues advocated making language learning a school goal rather than the purview of just English language learning teachers. To aid students, schools should integrate language education into their lessons, ensuring that students have the vocabulary and language skills needed for their content areas. Incorporating language themes into other school settings reinforces the lessons from English instruction. A key way to do this, according to Jennifer Himmel from the Center of Applied Linguistics, is to have teachers in “content areas” such as math and science set language goals for their students, something that can benefit the literacy development of native English speakers as well as those learning the language. Along with these recommendations, speakers also suggested ways to offer support and resources to the teaching community that can help them achieve these aims, from professional development to increasing collaboration between teachers and their administrations. Another component of fostering unity in a multilingual setting is reaching out to parents who may not speak English.

Finally, presenters addressed assessment issues. Professor Sandra Barrueco of the Catholic University of America stressed the importance of using multilingual measures that have been properly validated. She identified some frequent errors in the field (such as conducting one’s own translation or selecting other language measures out of convenience, familiarity, or because they appear adequate in English) and explained how these potentially lead to negative consequences, including misdiagnosis, program defunding, or inappropriate policy decisions. She and other speakers also discussed assessment issues in the classroom and broader school contexts.

This outreach event followed the release of the Future of Children’s latest volume, Immigrant Children, and was co-sponsored by the Future of Children and the National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER).

For more information about the conference as well as power point slides and videos, please visit http://www.futureofchildren.org/futureofchildren/events/enhancing-practice-with-e/index.xml.

H.R. Bill to Strengthen Student Achievement Cites Future of Children

Posted on by

House of Representatives’ bill 2637 aims to strengthen student achievement and graduation rates and prepare young people for college, careers, and citizenship through innovative partnerships that meet the comprehensive needs of children and youth.

The bill was introduced by Rep. Judy Chu [D-CA32] (sponsor) and David Loebsack [D-IA2] (co-sponsor) on July 25, 2011, and cites the Future of Children saying “…. (5) An analysis of health problems, maternal child rearing practices, and the impact of such problems and practices on education published by Princeton University and the Brookings Institution estimates that differences in these factors may account for a quarter of the racial gap in school readiness…”

The Future of Children’s Volume on School Readiness: Closing Racial and Ethnic Gaps goes on to highlight the promising strategy of increasing access to high-quality center-based early childhood education programs for poor three- and four-year-olds. Such a step would measurably boost the achievement of black and Hispanic children and narrow the school readiness gap, a priority noted in the bill ((6)1).

What should these programs look like?

High-quality Learning Environment: The education component must be high-quality, with small class sizes, a low teacher-pupil ratio, and teachers with bachelor degrees and training in early childhood education, using a curriculum that is cognitively stimulating. Not all of the child care centers and Head Start programs that now serve low-income children meet these standards.

Teacher Training: Teachers should be trained to identify children with moderate to severe behavioral problems and to work with these children to improve their emotional and social skills. Although such training is now being provided by some Head Start and some preschool programs, it is not available in most child care programs.

Parent Training: Parent training reinforces what teachers are doing in school to enhance children’s development. Examples include encouraging parents to read to children on a daily basis and teaching parents how to deal with behavior problems.

Home Visits: Staff should be available to identify health problems in children and to help parents get ongoing health care for their children. Including optional home visits would allow staff to further screen for serious mental health problems among parents or other behaviors that are not conducive to good child development. Although some Head Start programs and child care centers in low-income communities do link parents with health care services for their children, these programs do not include a home visit.

Integration: Finally, the new programs should be well aligned with the kindergarten programs that children will eventually attend so that the transition from preschool to kindergarten is successful for children, parents, and teachers.

High-quality early childhood programs such as these exist. The challenge for policymakers and practitioners is to extend the reach of these programs and make them available to low-income children, during a time of budget restraint and entitlement cuts. The return on public investment in high quality childhood education is substantial, and that should be considered when discussing the costs and benefits of budgetary changes.

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.

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.

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.

NYT Article about Extended Transition to Adulthood Misses Critical Issues about Disadvantaged Young People

Posted on by

A recent New York Times Magazine article about today’s 20-something’s has gone viral, with countless electronically connected young people circulating the story about how their cohort is changing all the rules when it comes to transitioning to adulthood. They are in a sort of limbo, "forestalling the beginning of adult life," as they extend their schooling, jump between career paths, and delay marriage and childbearing. This article notes some of the cultural forces feeding this trend: a sluggish job market and the increasing need for post-secondary education in today’s workforce are two major reasons for the shift. But the article misses a critical part of the story: how have these changes affected low-income, disadvantaged young adults?

In fact, this elongated transition worsens already existing disparities between disadvantaged youth and their more educated, higher income counterparts.

Covered in detail in the latest volume of The Future of Children, the shift from childhood to full adulthood places great strain on both young people and their families. Although governmental programs provide some support for disadvantaged children, the burden falls primarily on private institutions or interpersonal networks for those 18 and older. Across the income spectrum, parents are spending about ten percent of their income to support young adult children, but ten percent of a lower or middle class income provides fewer opportunities than a comparable portion of an upper-middle or upper class family salary. Moreover, for a family already struggling financially, providing for an adult child can be very stressful.

More affluent parents may help children by offering them rent-free housing, monetary support, or a potential safety net while the children experiment with low-paying jobs or unpaid internships. In addition, they can help emerging adults establish themselves by providing loans or assistance towards buying a car or house. Such assets help young adults build up capital and transition more smoothly into stable careers and family life. Less wealthy parents may not be able to provide their children with the same advantages without incurring major costs. Their resources are more limited and available money may be less reliable from year-to-year. As a result, these more disadvantaged children may fall even further behind their peers.

In addition, parents assist their children by connecting them to other networks of support, including people who may help them advance their careers and institutions that facilitate transitions. One such institution is college. Private colleges, more heavily populated by more affluent youth, tend to offer extensive support to help students develop at least partial autonomy, such as on-campus housing, extensive activities and entertainment, adult and peer support, health care, and counseling or other resources to guide students into jobs and post-college life. Community colleges, which are more in reach for many lower-income families, offer their students far less support and far fewer opportunities, thus deepening disadvantages.

Another trend widening the gap between young people is the timing of having children. While young people spanning the socioeconomic range are marrying later, less affluent young people are forming families while still in their late teens and early twenties, often outside of marriage. The responsibilities that accompany parenthood – from medical needs to childcare – pose additional challenges to completing an education and maintaining a steady job. To make matters worse, many young, unmarried parents break up shortly after their child is born, and young mothers often turn to their own mothers for help. Middle and upper class youth that wait until married with a stable career to have children are much better equipped to handle these additional costs and demands without relying on overburdened families. Without parents or public programs that can assist them, more disadvantaged youth continue to struggle with the assumption of adult roles.

As this widely-experienced yet new phase of maturation becomes more studied and understood, effort needs to be made to make sure that those emerging adults who are already disadvantaged – from impoverished families, with weak family ties, exiting foster care, requiring special education, or leaving the juvenile justice system – do not fall further behind. Whether by expanding social services beyond age eighteen or increasing the counseling and lifestyle support aspects of community college, society must help provide 20-somethings the assistance they need to transition into healthy, productive adult lives.

Financial Aid and Counseling Increase Community College Completion

Posted on by

In a recent New York Times article, experts conclude that an academic post-secondary experience may not be for everyone and that for some youth, vocational training might be a better fit. While access to and preparation for college remain important goals for many youth, Bob Lerman suggests that more emphasis should be put on high school, post-secondary, and apprenticeship programs to give some options to youth who do not pursue college but still must be prepared to enter the workforce. Community colleges are one place that offers vocational training programs.
While enrollment in such programs has gone up in recent years, however, an article in The Future of Children’s issue on Transition to Adulthood points out that many students struggle to stay in school and attain degrees and certificates. Students often face competing pressures on their time, such as work and family obligations, and these institutions often lack adequate resources to support such students.
More research needs to be done on how to best assist students, but a couple areas that seem promising are better, more personal counseling and more effective provision of financial aid. Early results from a randomized control trial of struggling students at a community college in California showed that a mandatory program on skills such as time management and note-taking coupled with counseling and tutoring requirements boosted academic performance and course credits earned. Some less rigorous evaluations also suggest that individualized programs helping students adjust to the demands of community college increased their success.
Financial aid studies have looked at both sources providing money upon enrollment and those offering stipends as rewards for achievement once in school. Recent legislation has increased the maximum size of Pell grants, federal payments toward education based on family need. However, application for these grants and other student aid requires the FAFSA, a complicated financial form. . A recent study offered randomly selected families help completing the form, and students in these families were more likely to enroll in college and received larger financial aid packages. This suggests that simplification of, and assistance with this process could benefit families for whom finances are a major obstacle for secondary education.
Other programs have looked into how to keep students in school and improve their performance while there. Scientifically rigorous trials at a community college in Louisiana and a four-year public university in Canada showed significant improvements in grades and persistence when students were offered financial benefits conditional on maintaining reasonably high grades. These suggest a reward system could keep students on the path toward certificate or diploma completion.

Many more students are enrolling in higher education programs, particular community colleges, than have in the past. The skills taught and certificates and degrees obtained can increase their earnings and employability, particularly if they stay in school longer. New evaluations continue to provide insight into how to further these goals, but we can start by offering more support services and simplifying the financial aid process.

Accountability from Teachers Union Can Spark Reform

Posted on by

A recent Op-Ed in the New York Times and a Boston news radio program covered Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), and her proposal for how the union can evaluate teachers more thoroughly. She addressed topics sensitive among many teachers – the use of student performance as a factor in evaluations and the procedures to remove teachers who are ineffective or guilty of misconduct. Breaking with precedent, Weingarten favors using student test scores to assess teachers and agrees that steps to remove ineffective teachers should be eased.

The AFT’s support for these reforms is a positive step in a complicated process. An article in The Future of Children volume Excellence in the Classroom focuses on the role of teachers, and it argues that unions, school administrators, and policymakers should work together to reform school systems. “Reform bargaining” has gained traction in recent years, with the support of both AFT and another major union, the National Education Association (NEA).

“Reform bargaining” was illustrated by the Toledo, Ohio, school district in the early 1980s, when the union and policy makers designed a program to improve teachers’ effectiveness. Under that plan, the first year of teaching was treated as a “trial year.” More experienced but ineffective teachers were required to enter an intervention program, after which even tenured faculty members were let go if they did not show sufficient improvement. The union evaluated the teachers, investing itself fully in the program and helping it succeed. The national ventures promoted by AFT president Weingarten closely reflect this initiative.

Although holding teachers more accountable is a good start, policies linking teachers to student performance must be carefully constructed. Schools may have vastly different student populations, resources, and administrative situations, all of which can create barriers to student achievement, so teacher performance must be viewed in context. Second, educators are concerned that faculty will teach to standardized tests, narrowing content covered in class and giving more superficial treatment to topics, resulting in students being less able to apply and connect material more broadly. These factors make it important to use caution in rating teachers by student achievement, including making it only one component of a broader evaluation.

Research from the FOC volume supports the type of reform recently embraced by AFT, but these measures are only the start of true education reform. Policy makers must work with teachers to clearly articulate goals for teacher quality and to devote resources toward achieving them. Flexibility, peer review, and attention to student needs are key components in this process. The AFT’s movement toward greater accountability must now be met with further commitments by both teachers’ unions and administrators.