Few Youths to be Deported in New Policy

Posted on by

The Obama administration announced Thursday that it will suspend deportation proceedings against many illegal immigrants who pose no threat to national security or public safety, said the New York Times.

Senator Richard Durbin, the chief proponent of the DREAM Act (the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act) in the Senate, believes that the new policy will stop the deportation of most illegal immigrants who came to the United States as young children, graduated from high school, and want to go to college or join the armed forces – those who would qualify for relief under the DREAM Act.

As explained in the Future of Children’s Immigrant Children volume and policy brief, the DREAM Act, first introduced in Congress in 2001, would give certain undocumented students the opportunity both to attend college and to become cit­izens by following a two-step process. The first step gives undocumented youth a conditional legal status that allows them to work or attend school without fear of deportation. To qualify, youth must be enrolled in a two-year or four-year college or in trade school, have a high school diploma or General Educational Development credential, have been in the United States continuously for at least five years, have good moral character, and meet a few other requirements. Then, in the second step, youth would have up to six years to apply to upgrade their status to legal per­manent resident (LPR), which in turn would allow them to apply for citizenship. To upgrade their status to LPR and eventually citizenship, immigrant youth would be required, among other things, to maintain good moral character and complete at least two years of college, trade school, or military service. During the second step, the youth would be eligible for fed­eral student loans and some other benefits, but not Pell grants (the major source of federal grant funds for low-income college students) or welfare benefits.

In 2010, the DREAM Act’s most recent congressio­nal run, it passed the House but was defeated in the Senate, when supporters could not muster the sixty votes needed to end a filibuster. The major argu­ments against the act are that it would reward illegal behavior (unauthorized entry to the United States) by granting what opponents call “amnesty,” allow “crimi­nal aliens” to become citizens, cost taxpayers money by allowing some federal and state funds to be spent on undocumented immigrants and thereby deprive some citizens of educational benefits, and allow aliens granted LPR status the right to bring their relatives to the United States. Opponents also argue that by rewarding unauthorized entry, the act would encour­age future illegal entry to the United States.

Perhaps the two strongest arguments in favor of the DREAM Act are that giving people a chance based on academic achievement and good behavior is the American way and that the act will help immigrant youth by boosting their education and will help the nation by allowing it to recoup the investments it has made in their K-12 education.

Under the new initiative outlined in the Times, the secretary of homeland security, Janet Napolitano, can provide relief, on a case-by-case basis, to young people who are in the country illegally but pose no threat to national security or to the public safety. Although not nearly as comprehensive as the DREAM Act or other legislative immigration reform, this policy could ease fears for undocumented immigrant youth who are pursuing productive education and employment, and contributing positively to the country’s wellbeing, while also strengthening the country’s focus on those illegal immigrants who pose real security threats.

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.

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.