Dana E. Friedman, Ed.D., EYI President

As I was scrolling through my online newsletters, one headline screamed out at me and I quickly clicked to read the full story.  What caught my eye was “Government Puts Early Childhood Education First.”  Could it be?  Finally?  But when the article popped up on my screen, I realized I missed the word “Ghana” that preceded it.  Imagine my surprise, and dismay.  In Ghana, the Minister of Education stated that the “government is looking to invest in as a way to deal with the long term effects of its current economic crisis…Early childhood education could lay a stable and solid foundation for the children and the future prosperity of the country.”  Amen.

I couldn’t help but reflect on two missed opportunities to express such a commitment in the United States.  First was President Obama’s State of the Union speech.  With several remarks on education, our leader did not once mention early childhood education.  On the other hand, he also failed to mention his wife’s signature program “Let’s G.O.”  Then, Governor Cuomo delivered his State of the State address which was mostly about education and his new role as the “advocate for students.”  Apparently, this does not include children under five, despite the mountain of research evidence showing that investments in preschool children have everything to do with how those children fare when they become “students.”

There has only been one governor who committed his entire administration and both of his terms to improving early childhood education, and that is Jim Hunt of North Carolina.  He is credited with starting Smart Start, a statewide early childhood initiative, whose success lead to their becoming the national technical assistance center for state system building.  Smart Start built the infrastructure that allows young families to receive support from the minute a child is welcomed into the world.  It also paved the way for early childhood programs to receive the technical assistance and support they need to provide quality services.  In order to receive state support, communities must bring to the table business leaders, school superintendents, mayors, academics, pediatricians, economic developers, and early childhood specialists to create a plan for improving child outcomes.  North Carolina has a 20-year record of “putting early childhood education first” and it was rewarded with one of the federal Early Childhood Challenge Grants.  New York State did not win this grant precisely because it  has not made those investments over time.

I never thought I’d say it, but I wish the U.S. would be more like Ghana…at least in terms of its commitment to early childhood.

Dana E. Friedman, Ed.D., EYI President

In a day of ever growing inequality between the rich and poor, it is a sad commentary to see that humanity continues to reach new levels of disparity that will, most likely, never be reconciled. Consider, for example, that among the many privileges of having lots of money is access to behind-the-scenes buildings of local hospitals where you have a world-class chef, private butler and a marble bath (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/nyregion/chefs-butlers-and-marble-baths-not-your-average-hospital-room.html?pagewanted=all). In addition to medical costs, the price tag for getting well in a suite overlooking the water is $2,400 a night.  Who wouldn’t want to convalesce in opulence?  The point of this is not that the rich are able to acquire these amenities, but that so many others have moment-to-moment struggles, wrenching choices and long waits for just the basics.  The injustice of the widening gap between the haves and have-nots is compounded by the seeming lack of understanding of what others have to do to survive.

I was reminded of the incident years ago when President George H.W. Bush went to a supermarket, apparently for the first time, and was fascinated by the scanners. Given his affluent upbringing, we shouldn’t have been surprised by how sheltered he was from reality.  More telling was that he never realized that people spend their days standing on their feet swiping the scanner and making minimum wage for a living.

What’s missing from these stories as well as from much of the Occupy Wall Street discourse and the oratory of our Presidential candidates (most of whom are millionaires, if not billionaires), is empathy.  Where is the expression of regret that the American dream has become a nightmare for people who have always held a job and paid their bills?  More importantly, what do we do about the children who are growing up in homes with this reality, knowing that working hard and playing by the rules doesn’t always get you what you need, let alone what you want?

Dana E. Friedman, Ed.D., EYI President

There has been a recent barrage of messages about how experiences in the early years shape later life from politicians to pediatricians, economists and columnists.  Last week, Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times talked about the long term impact of poverty in his article entitled, “A Poverty Solution That Starts With a Hug.” He cites the new policy statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics which warns about the lifelong impact of “toxic stress,” which is not only the presence of severe and repeated negative influences, e.g. poverty or abuse, but also the absence of a stable positive relationship with someone.  The report states, “protecting young children from adversity is a promising, science-based strategy to address many of the most contemporary society, including limited educational achievement, diminished economic productivity, criminality, and disparities in health.” Jack Shonkoff, M.D. of Harvard’s Center for the Developing Child is quoted by Kristof to say, “This is the biology of social class disparities. Early experiences are literally built into our bodies.”

Now consider the interview in the business section of the Sunday Times that quotes Bill Kling, founder and former president of American Public Media Group who attributes his inventiveness to the way he was raised. He explains that his parents were wonderful because “they absolutely left me alone” and “allowed me to be creative.” Kling goes on to say, “I think we often undervalue the importance of giving kids that kind of hands-on experience. It may not lead to their deciding what to do with their lives, but it’s surprising what they will absorb – and maybe their lives will turn out differently.”

 We know from research reports and Op-Eds about the long-term benefits of a loving, stimulating early childhood.  More importantly, we know this from countless personal experiences; I mean, who doesn’t blame their parents for SOMETHING they did when they were a kid? Yet, in polling a representative sample of Long Islanders in November 2011, The Early Years Institute learned that messages about the long term impact of quality child care and positive parenting are not as effective as shorter-term gains.  For instance, the public is considerably less likely to believe that investments in early childhood can reduce crime or poverty or increase college success or employment, than they are to buy into the efficacy of early childhood investments to prepare children for school and help them achieve higher test scores. It seems that the public will buy into investments in early childhood to increase high school graduation rates, but not “success in life” – so often used as a tag line by early childhood advocates (“to achieve success in school and life”).  In a recent speech at the Children’s Health Fund’s NYC Child Health Forum in October 2011, Dr. Shonkoff said we have to stop talking about these long-term economic impacts because it’s obviously not working in getting the nation focused on early childhood investments.

At The Early Years Institute, we know we have to make economic arguments to garner support, but it may be wiser to emphasize the cost savings to the education system which has sizeable tax implications rather than the benefits of creating a future workforce. With that shorter-term focus, we may be more effective in integrating early childhood concerns into other regional concerns besides education and taxes, e.g.  economic development, immigration and racism.  An all-out assault on toxic stress – preventing threats and assuring protection –  is our best defense against  inequities that start at Kindergarten.

Dana E. Friedman, Ed.D., EYI President

I had the grand pleasure of presenting to the Pediatric Grand Rounds at Winthrop University Hospital last week in a talk entitled, “The Future of Families on Long Island.”  There were approximately 80 pediatricians in attendance.  EYI board member and Chief of Pediatrics at Winthrop, Warren Rosenfeld, M.D., is continuously exposing hospital-affiliated pediatricians to issues affecting the children and families they serve.  Dr. Rosenfeld even had “The World’s Worst Mom” Lenore Skenazy, speak to the group twice.

In my presentation, I shared the latest data about Long Island becoming an older, more diverse and less equitable community.  While the population of children under 5 years of age on Long Island has declined five percent in the past decade, most high-needs communities have seen a significant increase in the preschool population.  I compared the changes in children’s lives today and with those of yesteryear.  I asked the audience to re-imagine their free-range childhoods.  Was it filled with lots of free play, time outdoors and very little screen time? Many nodded their heads yes.  We then discussed the influence of today’s media on children and how parents are less in control of the messages their children receive because of their sheer number, as well as the privacy of cell phones and the internet use.  In addition, parents often do not model the behaviors they want to see in their children – calm, play and less time using screens. The session ended with a discussion of ways that pediatricians, as the most respected messengers for parents, can “prescribe” playing outdoors and turning off screens in order to help children optimize brain development and develop essential life skills.

After the presentation, I was pleased to see a number of pediatricians waiting to talk. I was hoping to learn about other approaches they had taken to communicate these important messages to the parents they see.  What I realized was that these pediatricians wanted to discuss the issues they were having with their own children – some of whom were preschoolers and some of whom were adults with children of their own.  Interestingly, these pediatricians — who also happen to be parents and grandparents – are struggling with the same issues as the parents of the children they serve.  It would help if parents remembered to ask their pediatricians questions such as, “What would you do if it were your child?”  It would be even more helpful if pediatricians initiated discussions by talking from the perspective of a parent or grandparent.  Even though pediatricians are well-respected, based on the phenomenal popularity of “mommy blogs,” parents are also intent on listening to other parents. Pediatricians offer a double whammy in terms of realistic advice.

Dana E. Friedman, Ed.D., EYI President

At the heart of a $40 million marketing campaign by Lego is the decision to promote traditional gender stereotypes with new Legos for girls.  These new pastel Legos “allow a budding Kardashian, among other things, to build herself a cafe or a beauty salon,” so claims Peggy Orenstein in the New York Times who highlights a fascinating  dilemma posed by Lego’s strategy for building its market.  It seems that while Lego is making their boxy dolls more curvaceous and pink, another store, Hamsley’s, the F.A.O. Schwarz of London, has moved to a gender neutral environment.  Everything has been painted red and white and the toys are not organized by “Barbies” and “Trucks,” but by “Soft Toys” and “Outdoor Toys.”  So which strategy is best for children? As Orenstein poses, “Should gender be systematically expunged from playthings? Or is Lego merely being realistic, earnestly meeting girls halfway in an attempt to stoke their interest in engineering?”

Lego research, which developmental psychologists would affirm, finds that girls prefer things that are pretty and let them tell stories. They’d rather role play than build. This finding holds up across the life span, cultures and species. Male primates like balls and cars, while girl primates like dolls — and both prefer stuffed animals and books.

However, the brain is still forming during the preschool years and is open to less traditional notions of roles and preferences. As Orenstein claims, “At issue, then, is not nature or nurture but how nurture becomes nature:  the environment in which children play and grow can encourage a range of aptitudes or foreclose them.”  If there is any hope for a more equal division of labor in the home, then boys playing house with dolls would be very instructive. And if men and women are to achieve equality in the workplace, perhaps it’s better if toys de-emphasized gender differences and encouraged collaboration.

Dana E. Friedman, Ed.D., EYI President

Who else to turn to for the last blog of the year but Rudolph the Red-Nosed reindeer? His story provides the perfect allegory for this year in policy.  Stay with me here.

According to Professor George Giuliani, from C.W. Post, by allowing the other reindeer to call Rudolph names, Santa was the real bully. Not only was there a problem tolerating the bad reindeer behavior, but it was only when Rudolph was found to have a special gift that the others accepted him. Only when his gift was used to benefit the other reindeer did they let him “play in any reindeer games.”

As you can imagine, some feel that Professor Giuliani should get a life and recognize it as a cute song developed by Mr. May to lure people into his department stores (Mays) in 1949.  As an advocate for children with special needs, though, Professor Giuliani feels that Rudolph offers us a chance to discuss bullying with children.

There is a long history of political correctness in our choices for children’s literature.  At the top of the list of books that should be banned are those dealing with racism from Huckleberry Finn to Dr. Doolittle to Little Black Sambo.  Some believe Laura Ingalls Wilder’s treatment of American Indians in “Little House on the Prairie” is cause for eliminating the book from the reading list.  Many parents feel that traditional fairy tales, especially the more gruesome of the Grimm stories, like Hansel and Gretl, are no way to put children to bed. The material is too scary and disturbing for young children.

I’d like to think there is something redeeming about this earlier literature. It offers children a glimpse of history and the knowledge that things were different in a different era. But it takes the guidance of adults to point this out.  It’s not okay for people (or reindeer) to call other people names or exclude them from games. So sing your heart out, but you might want to remind your children that one reason Rudolph is so great is because he overcame bullying.

Rudolph’s lesson for policy? New York State should be inspired by Rudolph. We got rejected by the Early Learning Challenge Grant. We shouldn’t ignore the situation and throw out the experience; we have to get stronger and fix what is wrong with our system of supporting children. We can’t afford to ignore history and not learn from our mistakes. There’s hope in the red-nosed ECAC (Early Childhood Advisory Council).

Dana E. Friedman, Ed.D., EYI President

Using early childhood education as a strategy for reducing inequities and improving children’s outcomes has become a global phenomenon. The medical journal, The Lancet, called for a worldwide expansion of child development programs and policies in 2007. Since then, UNICEF reports that more than 40 countries have or are planning to seek government support of early childhood policies. The World Health Organization’s (WHO) Commission on the Social Determinants of Health has made child development a key focus area. In a study of 73 countries published in The Lancet, the WHO concluded “that social and economic policies addressing early childhood can affect whether children develop to their potential or experience a constrained life-course trajectory.” The Lancet also reports that governments are not allocating enough funds to early childhood initiatives. Less than 10 percent of education budgets are devoted to preschool education in most countries.  They concluded that, “The complexity, cost, and need for multisectoral ownership for early child development programs continues to be a constraint and the role of early child development in future global agendas…needs to be strengthened.”

 Some of the more promising practices were examined such as parenting programs. The range of initiatives focused on increasing attachment, parent-child interactions, reading, play, and positive discipline. They found the most effective programs had a well-developed parenting curriculum and adequate training of workers as well as a balance of health, nutrition and early childhood components with both community and government support.

Like the Perry Preschool Project and other longitudinal studies, the WHO found that high-risk children who attended preschools benefited more from the program than children who are less disadvantaged. The Lancet article concludes that merely increasing preschool enrollment can have significant effects. Research in several countries found that preschool attendance was associated with improved school performance through third grade. “Achieving enrollment rates of 25 percent per country in one year would result in a benefit of $6 – 10 billion U.S dollars and achieving 50 percent preschool enrollment could lead to $33 million of benefits.” While preschool attendance had a positive effect on learning, the improvement of program quality yielded more consistent positive outcomes for children.  They also concluded that incorporating nutrition and parenting programs would result in an even larger gain.

What’s fascinating is the United States in not alone in its inability to create systemic changes needed to generate and sustain positive child outcomes for our most vulnerable populations. More amazingly, the countries that The Lancet studied are largely developing countries like Bangladesh, Vanuatu, Guyana, Burundi, Ghana, Malawi and Togo. These countries have something to teach us about creating a comprehensive system that supports young children and their families in high needs communities.

Dana E. Friedman, Ed.D., EYI President

There are many reasons to think that the United States has lost its way. Leading the list is the fact that the unhealthiest food in the world is served in U.S. schools. How has it happened that institutions designed to serve children are making them sicker?

We have once again put corporate profits ahead of what is good for people.  Consider that 32 million children eat lunch at schools participating in the National School Lunch Program and 21 million of them receive their meals free or at a reduced price – a number that has increased dramatically during this recession. The government pays $13.3 billion for school meals each year, and about a quarter of these funds have been privatized.  What happens is that the U.S. Department of Agriculture pays about $1 billion a year for commodities such as apples, potatoes, chickens and turkeys. Schools get the food free, and some cook it on site, but $445 million of these commodities are being sent by the schools to processors such as Sodexo and Aramark that turn the healthy raw food into chicken nuggets and french fries. This practice has increased by 50 percent since 2006. 

Robert Wood Johnson foundation reported in a 2008 study that by the time these processed commodities reach students, “they have about the same nutritional value as junk foods.” Researchers at the University of Michigan found that privatizing led to more expenditures on fees and supplies than food and labor.  Food processors typically hire unskilled kitchen help while schools tend to employ higher-salaried, skilled cooks. They also suggested that lower test scores may be attributed to the high fat and sugar content of the foods served to children.

How is this possible?  Deception is part of the problem. School food management companies provide 14 percent rebates to food processors for getting them contracts. In 2010, then attorney general Andrew Cuomo won a $20 million settlement from Sodexho for accepting these rebates. The food companies have continued the practice by renaming the “rebate” as a “prompt payment discount” and preventing the schools from receiving the rebates, as required by law.

The government could play a stronger role. The Department of Education proposed new rules that would require more fruits, vegetables and whole grains, but the food processing companies are lobbying against the rules claiming that children may not want to eat healthier foods. Food companies were effective in getting Congress to allow the tomato sauce on pizza to count as a vegetable. President Reagan once tried to get ketchup to be considered a vegetable. He was lampooned in the press for this. I guess we’ve lost our sense of humor since the pizza-as-vegetable ploy has not gotten the same press.

A recent New York Times article by Lucy Komisar suggests that parents are the solution.  She posits that in order for health, and not profit to become a priority of food companies, parents should demand reform of school lunches. That is only part of the solution. We should also take stock of our values and make sure that policy reflects them.

Dana E. Friedman, Ed.D., EYI President

There is no question that I would vote for Thomas Friedman (no relation) for President.  As a New York Times columnist and author, he has diagnosed our global situation with precision, predicted one future or another depending on which path our collective humanity and intellect take us, and ultimately recommended – and oft times, demanded – a particular course of action. In his November 20, 2011 article in the New York Times, Friedman posits a better future for our children if we had better parents. He’s made a powerful argument, but underestimates just how hard that is to accomplish.

Friedman admits that teachers make a big difference in student achievement, but parents also play a critical role in their child’s education. He cites well-publicized data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), which shows that students in Asia and Scandinavia outperformed U.S. students in reading and math on the international PISA exam. Additional research showed what factors affect student scores by looking outside the classroom and into child rearing. The most important finding was that parents who read to their children often during the first year of elementary school had children with higher PISA exam scores.  Even when controlling family income, children whose parents often read to them did markedly better on the PISA exam at age 15 than those whose parents read to them infrequently or not at all.  Other factors found to affect higher test scores were parents telling stories and talking to their children about the day’s activities.   

These findings were confirmed in a U.S. study by the National School Boards Association Center for Public Education  This research examined a range of parent involvement strategies and identified only a few that relate to higher student performance.  “The study found that getting parents involved with their children’s learning at home (e.g. monitoring homework, making sure children get to school, rewarding their efforts and talking about going to college ) is a more powerful driver of achievement than parents attending PTA and school board meetings, volunteering in classrooms, participating in fundraising and showing up at back-to-school nights.”

While I commend Friedman on illuminating this balanced approach to education reform, he neglects to mention that the task of “making better parents” is as gargantuan as making the world flat.  Heather Weiss of the Harvard Family Research Project pointed out in her NYT Letter to the Editor in response to Friedman’s article that we need a huge investment in family support in order to promote parent involvement, help parents employ the most efficacious forms of involvement and align educational strategies between home and school.  Friedman has expressed what Bill Cosby was criticized for 25 years ago – parents are a critical factor in school achievement. However, they need support to do it well and in partnership with teachers and schools.

Dana E. Friedman, Ed.D., EYI President

At this time of year, it is comforting to count our blessings and thank those who support increased investments in early childhood education.  Here are quotes from some of those who have surprised us by using their clout to make a difference in the lives of children:

“Research increasingly has shown the benefits of early childhood education and efforts to promote the lifelong acquisition of skills for both individuals and the economy as a whole. The payoffs of early childhood programs can be especially high. For instance, preschool programs for disadvantaged children have been shown to increase high school graduation rates. Because high school graduates have higher earnings, pay more taxes, and are less likely to use public health programs, investing in such programs can pay off even from the narrow perspective of state budgets; of course, the returns to the overall economy and to the individuals themselves are much greater.”

Ben Bernacke, Chairman, Federal Reserve Board

 “Some kids come to kindergarten reading fluently, while others don’t know the front of the book from the back of the book. If we could level the playing field…we could really start talking about every child going on to college.”

Arne Duncan, U.S. Secretary of Education

 “If high-quality early childhood education were a stock or commodity, investors would be racing to invest in these program that routinely yield a high rate of return…It helps close the school-readiness gap and social-skills gap and providing a powerful vehicle to help break the cycle of poverty.”

Randi Weingarten, President, American Federation of Teachers

 “President Obama often talked in his campaign about early childhood education, and he probably agrees with everything I’ve said. But the issue has slipped away and off the agenda.

That’s sad because the question isn’t whether we can afford early childhood education, but whether we can afford not to provide it. We can pay for prisons or we can pay, less, for early childhood education to help build a fairer and more equitable nation.”

Nicholas Kristof, New York Times Columnist

 “One of the great pieces of unfinished business is high-quality child care; I wonder why we just can’t do that.  Child care is the”missing link” to boost the economy by “unleashing women.”

Nancy Pelosi, House Minority Leader, U.S. House of Representatives

 “We…need to consider early childhood education as an economic imperative, giving children a better chance to succeed in school and their parents the ability to work more hours and with fewer concerns.

 Long Island Regional Economic Development Council  (in forthcoming  report, Long Island’s Future Economy: A New Beginning for Nassau and Suffolk Counties)

 We give thanks to these leaders for using their power to draw attention to the issues of early childhood. So, here’s the thanks. Now, where is the giving?