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

I write this blog on the morning of the school district budget votes. It is likely to be a sad day for young children.  Many children will lose band, art and clubs. The poorest of children will lose social services and help learning English.  The after-school and summer programs that so much research says is critical for helping children sustain gains made over the school year will also be cut.  While only 60 of the 118 elementary school districts on Long Island have pre-K, several could be cut entirely and of the seven districts that offer full-day pre-K, most will be cut to half-day.  Kindergarten is the newest item on the potential chopping block.  Surprising to many, Kindergarten is not a mandated service.  Aside from the concerns I have about what children would otherwise be doing if not in Kindergarten all day, what on earth are working parents supposed to do at 11:30 when it’s time to pick up the child?  Kindergarten is a form of child care for working parents and it hasn’t been cut in so long because it is preposterous to continue our agrarian system of education, developed so children could be home by 3 PM to toil the fields, into the 21^st century.

Parents across Long Island have been turning out in high numbers at school board meetings to have their say.  However, even if pre-K or K is to be slashed, it is unlikely that parents will vote down the budget.  The contingency budgets they would be forced to live under are even more devastating.

Remember that these school budget cuts are on top of severe social service cuts.  In Suffolk, eligibility for child care subsidies has been cut to 125% of poverty – which is $35,000 for a family of four.  If you make $36,000 in Suffolk, your family cannot get assistance paying for child care, which limits your ability to continue earning.  With the loss of subsidies for child care and free options in pre-K, as well as child care center closings due to parents being unable to afford care, we are forcing parents to make choices they would rather not for their children—and that we would rather not for the future of our society.

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

Nearly 400 families signed-up last week to take the Screen-Free Week pledge to reduce the amount of entertainment-based screen-time they used.  I’ve heard several stories about how hard it was – at first.  But after rediscovering the joys of spending time together actually talking to one another, the absence of screens went unnoticed.

Our vigilance in keeping entertainment to a minimum is more important in light of new game technology that says it can make you smarter.  It is called “rapid cognitive enhancement,” which is essentially brain-training that can enhance memory, attention and other mental processes.  A brain-training game offered by Lumosity claims to have 20 million users.  Schools in the U.S. and Sweden are using Cogmed’s Working Memory Training to train students’ brains.  According to the New York Times, Forbes magazine said cognitive enhancement will become the next “trillion-dollar industry.”

This new development is based on research debunking a long-held belief that intelligence is fixed.  The author, David Hambrick, an associate professor of psychology at Michigan State University questions the kinds of tasks used to enhance intelligence that are now part of popular games.  He also questions their claims that they can increase I.Q. by 6 points in 6 hours of training.  Amazingly, what he cites as a more reliable investment for increasing intelligence is early childhood education.  Findings from the Abecedarian study showed a 6-point increase in I.Q. for children who had a few years of early childhood programming, home visiting and parent education, compared to a control group.  Professor Hambrick reminds us that though we may have new games that may help improve brain function, the tools with the greatest likelihood of success require investment in early childhood education that is costly.  So, to the point, there is no way to easily game the brain.

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

Parents will determine the success of Screen-Free Week.  They are the ones who must champion the cause for their families (and their schools if they want). Not only should they assess the use of media and establish some guidelines, they must also find alternatives to screens. Children should be involved in all of these deliberations, but parents will likely drive it.  It is critical to understand how parents will be part of the solution; it is equally important to understand how they are part of the problem.

I recently attended the biannual meeting of a group of business leaders I convened in 1983 that are among  the most progressive corporations in the nation in terms of providing work-life supports to their employees.  These visionary leaders have been in the forefront of efforts to change the culture of workplaces to offer more flexibility and better management of work and family responsibilities.

The focus of this meeting was on overwork.  According to the Families and Work Institute, 35 percent of professionals work 50 hours a week or more.  Among lower-wage employees, cutbacks on hours due to the economy have forced more people to work multiple jobs, increasing the total number of hours worked to those of professionals.  The group heard from Leslie Perlow, a professor at Harvard Business School and author of the forthcoming book, Sleeping with Your Smartphone: How to Break the 24/7 Habit and Change the Way You Work and discussed the impact of technology on employees at work and at home.  First, the group discussed what is good about technology.  They listed such things as flexibility, e.g. they could go to a child’s doctor’s appointment and still be reached if needed; the ability to be very responsive; the increased access to information; more power, from the ability to get answers quickly; more fun; more connections with people you otherwise would never have; and stronger connections to children and family members.

The group then generated a list of what is bad about technology, which in many ways, is the flip  of many items on the good side.  Technology is: 24/7; a time killer and a waste of time; a way to connect with people you don’t want to be in touch with; an intrusion of privacy; and a diversion from family. 

What was most important about this discussion was the acknowledgement  that work demands and the expectations of employers have a great deal to do with how tethered parents are to their screens.  One obvious reason that children are so attached to so many portals is because the behavior is modeled by their parents.  Much of the time, parents are connecting with work, answering emails from workaholic bosses, servicing demanding clients and being a responsible team member.  Some companies have established values around “being mindful of family responsibilities” as Johnson & Johnson’s credo states.  Others have created team protocols that consider work processes and how they can be improved to increase productivity and work-life balance.

As we celebrate Screen-Free Week (April 30 – May 6) and advocate for parents to help reduce the amount of screen time that their families spend on entertainment, we must also advocate for workplace policies that allow parents to reduce their screens for work.   Join us for the 2nd Annual Screen-Free Week campaign by signing-up to take the pledge at www.eyi.org/screenfree.

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

    As we approach Screen-Free Week (April 30 – May 6), it is helpful to remember our goal is for  families to unplug and enjoy activities that do not involve screens because children today are spending more time with technology than ever before.  Given the amount of time that many children spend in early childhood programs, it would also seem wise to consider how child care programs make use of technology in their classrooms for children ages 6 weeks to 5 years.

It turns out that the amount of screen time for some children may increase if they are in a child care program.  A 2009 study published in Pediatrics, “Preschool-Aged Children’s Television,” looked at television use in 168 child care programs in four states.  The researchers found that among preschool-aged children, those in home-based care watched TV for 2.4 hours on an average day, compared to 0.4 hours in center-based settings.[1] Based on national guidelines, the home-based programs far exceed the limits recommended. Also, this study did not include computer time.

It makes sense then that the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) would weigh-in on appropriate practice.  NAEYC has released a new Position Statement on Technology and Young Children.  The Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood has put pressure on NAEYC to create such a statement by organizing a letter signed by 70 child development experts and pediatricians, as well as hundreds of their members who work with young children and families (including The Early Years Institute).

NAEYC partnered with the Fred Rogers Center for Early Learning and Children’s Media to create the Policy Statement.  As a legacy to Fred Rogers, the document seeks to assure that media is used appropriately with children.  Citing extensive research on the impact of technology on children, the report concludes that when used properly and sparingly by trained adults so as not to “replace activities such as creative play, real-life exploration, physical activity, outdoor experiences, conversation, and social interactions,” technology can enhance learning and development. The statement also claims that we should not only be looking at how much media children consume, but rather “how children spend time with technology…when determining what is effective and appropriate.”

Among the recommendations from NAEYC and the Fred Rogers Center to early childhood educators are the following:

• Use media in developmentally appropriate ways and consider the quality of the content, the child’s experience, and the opportunities for co-engagement.
• Provide a balance of activities and recognize that media can be valuable when used intentionally with children to extend and support active, hands-on, creative, and authentic engagement with those around them and with their world.
• Prohibit the passive use of television, videos, DVDs, and other non-interactive technologies and media in early childhood programs for children younger than 2, and discourage passive and non-interactive uses with children ages 2 through 5.

The Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood believes that NAEYC did not go far enough in terms of recommending specific time limits on screen time in child care.  The document states, “Carefully consider the screen time recommendations from public health organizations for children from birth through age 5 when determining appropriate limits on technology and media use in early childhood settings.”  The general consensus among the American Academy of Pediatrics, the White House Task Force on Childhood Obesity, The Early Childhood Obesity Prevention Policies issued by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies of Science, and Let’s Move!  is to discourage any amount or type of screen media for children under 2 years of age and no more than 30 minutes for children ages 2-5 in early childhood programs.  They also agree that telling parents to try and limit screen time to no more than one to two hours per day for children older than 2 is helpful.  Several states specify screen time limits in their quality rating and improvement systems. In New York, QualitystarsNY addresses screen time by giving points to programs that have policies including the time limits on screen time for children outlined by the national groups.  NAEYC could have done the same.

What is important here is that NAEYC and the Fred Rogers Center have provided us with a framework and a roadmap for developing a responsible approach to technology use in early childhood programs for the digital age.  Please review the document and let NAEYC and the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood know how it can be improved.

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

 A recent report from the U.S. Census Bureau indicates that fathers are counted on for more ongoing child care than in years past.  Based on 2010 data, 32 percent of fathers with a wife in the workforce were a regular source of care for their children under age 15, up from 26 percent in 2002. Among fathers with preschool-age children, one in five fathers were the primary caregiver – meaning their children spent more time with them than anyone else.

The increase is due to a confluence of several factors:  There are more mothers in the workforce and fathers have to be more involved.  Also, fathers may be more available because of job layoffs or a change in work hours.  This helps reduce the high cost of child care outside the home.

In the series of tables published by the U.S. Census, entitled, Who’s Minding the Kids? Child Care Arrangements: Spring 2010, other trends should be noted:

• Family members are the primary source of child care:  30 percent of preschoolers were cared for by their grandparents on a regular basis and 20 percent were cared for by their fathers.  Another 12 percent were cared for by a sibling or other relative.
• Of the 21 million mothers who were employed in the spring of 2010, one-third reported they paid for child care for at least one of their children.
• Families in poverty who paid for care in 2010 spent a greater proportion of their monthly income on child care than did families at or above the poverty line (40 percent compared with 7 percent).
• Ten percent of children ages 5 to 11 and 30 percent of children ages 12-14 regularly care for themselves.

These data remind us to include fathers in our discussion of parents. Grandparents need support also, of a slightly different nature.  Also, our efforts to help children be ready for success in school and life must include outreach to families. There are so many children at home whose caregivers can use more support and ideas for what to do with children and where to take them in their community to help them grow and thrive.

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

Overall, the survey results showed a third of parents felt very prepared for parenthood, a third felt somewhat prepared and the other third felt very unprepared for parenthood.  Interestingly, non-parents think that most parents today are not at all prepared for having children.  Parents are most likely to turn to each other or their mothers for help with child rearing, followed by pediatricians.  Consistently, levels of knowledge regarding child development vary by education level (parents with high school education or less lack critical information); income (household incomes above the median know more about child development); and gender (dads generally know less than moms about child development).

Adults in the study understand the following about child development:

• Children’s capabilities are not predetermined at birth.
• Brain development can be impacted very early (71%) and 76% of adults realize that experience in the first years of life can impact abilities that appear much later in life.
• There is a relationship between emotional closeness and a child’s intellectual development (96%).
• Constant change of caregivers has a negative impact on children (75%).
• Active fathers can have a powerful impact on their children (75%).

Listed below are the “information gaps” identified in the survey on the part of parents of young children and other adults:

• Do not understand when children begin to react to the world.  Research shows that babies start “taking in” the world in the first few days of life, while 62% of parents do not believe this occurs until the child is at least two months old.
• Babies can be affected by the moods of others.  Over 60% of adults and 55% of parents do not know that when they are anxious or depressed, it can have a detrimental effect on the baby’s development.
• Do not know that babies as young as four months can experience depression.  Most parents think that depression can’t occur in children until they are three years or older.
• Think that to improve intellectual development, parents should use flashcards (65%), educational TV (64%) and allow solitary play on the computer (45%).  [Over 90% knew that talking and reading with a child is critical in promoting intellectual development.]
• Expect toddlers to share before they are able to do so.  More than half of adults believe that 15-month olds should share toys, while research says that is unrealistic.  A quarter of parents expect a three-year old to sit quietly for an hour, when research shows they are not developmentally ready to do so.
• Working parents cannot develop a bond with their children as strong as that of stay-at-home parents (61%).

With increasing efforts to offer family support, parent education and family literacy, it is critical that we understand what parents know and what they may have misinterpreted.  It is understandable that confusion reigns with input not only from your mother and mother-in-law, but also hundreds of blogs and marketers hawking advice.  Like children, we need to talk, and then listen – to make sure parents understand AND can use the information properly. 

As The Early Years Institute works with parents in a number of community settings, we are continually surprised about what they seem to understand about young children’s capabilities and what they are not quite grasping.  I recently stumbled upon a national survey that offers a fascinating view of what adults (and parents) know about child development and how that affects the lives of children.  This survey of 3,000 Americans (including 1,066 parents of children from 0-6 years) was conducted by Zero to Three, Civitas and Brio (a toy company) in 2000.  Although a decade old, I don’t think the needle has shifted that much on these issues, because I am still hearing about them in the community and reading about them in blogs, tweets, magazines and newspapers.

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

Great things can happen for children when they spend time in high quality early learning environments.  That is why we desperately need QualitystarsNY—to insure that early childhood programs in all venues of care provide the quality needed to help children succeed.   However, we must also keep in mind that, the very basic issues of health and safety are not guaranteed to children who are in the care of 1.3 million child care providers every week in the U.S.

The Government Accounting Office (GAO) released a study last summer showing that neither federal nor state laws prevent sex offenders from working in child care facilities.  Criminals gained access to programs as maintenance workers, spouses or friends of providers, a cafeteria worker or a cook. According to a report issued in response from the National Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies (NACCRRA), “In at least 24 cases, individuals with prior convictions of serious sexual offenses were employed at child care facilities.  Seven of those cases involved offenders who were previously found guilty of targeting children and in three of the cases, individuals used their access to children in child care to offend again.”

To prevent violent criminals from having access to child care programs, it is clear that the government must at least require comprehensive background checks.  This would include a fingerprint check against federal and state criminal records, a check of the child abuse registry, and a check of the sex offender registry.  Currently, the federal Child Care and Development Block Grant, which provides child care funds to states, does not require a background check for child care providers and only 17 states require a fingerprint check against the sex offender registry.  There are several bills before Congress to offer this protection, and there have been for years.

As NACCRRA concludes in their report, “Parents expect their children to be safe in child care. Children should be safe in child care.”

.

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

This is a critical week in New York State.  Key decisions about the budget are being made and every worthy cause is making their case.  So many agencies are weary after years of no increases and efforts to prevent cuts.   Thankfully, there are some signs that children might find relief if advocates raise their voices.

There appears to be some interest in expanding pre-K, increasing child care subsidies and possibly investing a little in QualitystarsNY.  WinningBeginningNY recommends that:

• $53 million of proposed competitive grants to school districts be applied to pre-K, as proposed by the NYS Board of Regents. It is hoped these funds will allow more districts to offer pre-K and for those who serve all eligible children, allocate funds  to serve more children or expand to a full-day program.  $93 million in child care subsidies be made as an advance on the FY2013-14 funds, as was proposed in the Executive Budget.  This would help bring us close to prior funding levels.
   
• $20 million should be invested in QUALITYstarsNY to improve early learning opportunities in all settings. There is some speculation that $5 million is what several legislators might consider. Discussions with legislators indicate we need to do a much better job communicating what QualitystarsNY is, beyond a “rating system.”

 You can call your Senator or Assemblyman.  You can call Speaker Silver’s office at 518-455-3791 and let him know how you feel about more funding for early childhood.  You can write to WinningBeginningNY and sign on to a letter.  You can write a letter to the newspaper.  You can go on the bus trip to Albany on March 21^st to meet with legislators and share your views.  (Call the Child Care Council of Nassau:  516-358-9250 ext. 35 or the Child Care Council of Suffolk:  631-462-0303 ext. 102.)  Or you can just tell everyone you know that New York State can and should do better by its children.  Whatever you do, please raise your voice.