“I can’t read.” Imagine the dropped jaws and stunned silence around the office conference table if a co-worker made that admission. Yet no one would blanch if that same co-worker announced, “I can’t do long division.”

While literacy is considered a requisite in most workplaces, basic math skills and science knowledge are considered a specialty, vital to the folks in IT and accounting but not for the rest of the staff. That kind of attitude — found in classrooms, lunchrooms and living rooms across the country — threatens to cripple the United States in global competition.

“There are consequences to a weakening of American independence and leadership in mathematics, the natural sciences and engineering,” warns a recent report to President Bush from the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. “We risk our ability to adapt to change. We risk technological surprise to our economic viability and to the foundations of our country’s security. … Sound education in mathematics across the population is a national interest.”

In the 2007 results on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, a standardized test given in schools across the country, 30 percent of U.S. eighth-graders scored below the basic level in math. The failure rate was higher in Georgia, where 36 percent scored below basic.

“Whether filling white-collar or blue-collar positions, employers today want workers with pocket-protector skills — creative problem solvers with strong math and science backgrounds,” says U.S. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings.

At a meeting earlier this month of the Georgia Partnership for Excellence in Education, a researcher explained to school leaders from around the state that the problem wasn’t that the U.S. was losing ground in its math achievement. The rest of the world was simply improving faster.

“Other countries are zipping past us,” said Daria Hall, a policy analyst at the Education Trust.

National standards for science and math education are part of the answer. Surely the principles of algebra remain the same whether taught in Boston or Ball Ground, and the chemical properties of water don’t vary across state lines. National standards — backed by testing — would also make it quite clear which states and school districts were failing their students.

But a strong national curriculum would be only half the battle; the other challenge is creating a teaching force capable of teaching to those higher standards. Like many other states, Georgia suffers from a serious shortage of teachers qualified as math and science instructors.

Only 8 percent of students in Georgia public colleges are majoring in engineering, technology or the natural sciences. Within the teaching profession, the numbers are even more stark. A new report by the Governor’s Office of Student Achievement notes that Georgia public colleges produced 3,822 new teachers in 2007. Of that number, only 3.4 percent were trained in math and 2.5 percent were trained in science.

That helps explain why the state graduated only three new high school physics teachers in 2006, up from one in 2005. And that lack of qualified teachers — not just in Georgia, but around the country — in turn helps to explain why only about 15 percent of American high school students earn math or science credit in rigorous Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate programs.

That represents a lot of missed opportunity in a country that adds 100,000 new computer-related jobs a year. As Bill Gates pointed out in his March testimony before the House Committee on Science and Technology, “Only 15,000 students earned bachelor’s degrees in computer science and engineering in 2006, and that number continues to drop.”

As Gates knows better than anyone, the jobs are waiting. It’s up to the education system to make sure the students are ready. And to get more teachers into the classroom qualified to teach those students, Georgia and other states ought to use every tool at their disposal — including scholarships, college loan forgiveness and higher pay for math and science teachers — to persuade more bright students

Source: Atlanta Journal Constitution, USA
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/stories/2008/05/16/mathed_0518.html

Young children whose parents read aloud to them have better language and literacy skills when they go to school, according to a review published online ahead of print in the Archives of Disease in Childhood.

Children who have been read aloud to are also more likely to develop a love of reading, which can be even more important than the head start in language and literacy. And the advantages they gain persist, with children who start out as poor readers in their first year of school likely to remain so.

The authors explain that the style of reading has more impact on children’s early language and literacy development than the frequency of reading aloud. Middle class parents tend to use a more interactive style, making connections to the child’s own experience or real world, explaining new words and the motivations of the characters, while working class parents tend to focus more on labelling and describing pictures. These differences in reading styles can impact on children’s development of language and literacy-related skills.

The Reach Out and Read programme in Boston has improved the language skills of children in low income families by increasing the proportion of parents reading to their children.

The programme provides books and advice to the parents about the importance of reading aloud. Parents who have been given books were four times more likely to say they had looked at books with their children or that looking at books was one of their child’s favourite activities, and twice as likely to read aloud to their children at least three times a week.

Source: Science Daily
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080512191126.htm

Recently a friend dropped off an Education Commentary from the Times Union newspaper that presented some relevant data on schools. The author wrote: “the qualities of the families from which children come to school matter much more than money as predictors of schools’ effectiveness.”

The research tells us that there are two prime factors in a child’s education: the teacher and the parents. Individually each has an impact on student success in school. The possibilities when a child has both - probably much greater.

So what’s a parent to do? Glad you asked.

Learning begins at a young age. Simply by reading to your child at a young age begins to help students learn about language and communication. Children mimic parents and will “read” the pages to them.

Get them to school. I suspect there are only a few who are self-motivated or disciplined. Successful students have parents who make sure they get out of bed each morning and get them to school on time. Successful students have parents who understand that getting up for school is not always fun but their parents push them anyway.

The nice thing about these expectations is they do not cost anything. They do require some persistence and patience. For some parents the challenge is more difficult. And yet, if you want your child to succeed in school you are the partner in learning that your child needs.

Parents: I know you care that your child succeeds in school. Too often I do not get to talk to parents until the child is in trouble. Yet, when I do, I hear the same message: parents care about their children; they want them to succeed; they know that education is important. To those of you struggling, hang in there and do not give up.

Our goal is for every child to graduate. Working without the help of parents we will not reach that goal. With parent help we will all succeed!

Source: Marion Star, OH
http://tinyurl.com/54g3pj

Children whose fathers are depressed have smaller vocabularies than those who do not, a US study suggests.

But the Eastern Virginia Medical School study of 5,000 families found language development in children whose mothers had similar symptoms seemed unaffected.

Researchers said by the age of two, children with depressed fathers used 1.5 fewer words than the average of 29.

This could be because depressed fathers spent less time reading to their children, they wrote in New Scientist.

The researchers, led by paediatric psychologist James Paulson, surveyed about 5,000 families.

When the children were nine months old, 14% of the mothers and 10% of the fathers were clinically depressed.

The researchers assessed the impact on language development by measuring what proportion of 50 common words the children were using at two years of age.

On average the children in the study were using 29 of the 50 words by the time they reached two.

‘Significant difference’

However, those children whose fathers were depressed when they were nine months old used an average of 1.5 fewer words than those whose fathers were fine.

Dr Paulson said the difference might seem small, but when scaled up across a child’s complete vocabulary it might make a significant difference.

In contrast, there was no difference in the size of the vocabulary of children whose mothers were depressed, and of those whose mothers were not.

The researchers found that depressed mothers did not reduce the amount of time they spent reading to their nine-month-old baby, but depressed fathers read on average 9% less than those who had no problem.

Dr Paulson, who presented the findings to a meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, said he hoped the study would encourage depressed fathers to seek help.

He said: “Men may not be likely to seek help for themselves but when other people who depend on them become affected, that may change the landscape.”

Ruth Coppard, a psychologist with an interest in child development, said depressed people tended to withdraw and go quiet, but that women often had no choice, but to continue with child care duties regardless.

BBC News, UK
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7388367.stm

Schools are responding positively to the recommended phonics method of teaching reading, suggests a snapshot survey by inspectors.

Ofsted inspectors say there is a “virtuous circle” of improved reading skills and higher expectations.

The report from inspectors also concluded that children were enjoying phonics lessons.

This survey tested the progress of the Rose Review of reading, which called for a more systematic use of phonics.

‘Raised expectations’

Ofsted inspectors found schools using the recommended phonics method had “raised their expectations of how quickly and well children could learn to read and write”.

“Teachers have been ’surprised by the joy’ shown by children as they master phonic skills,” says the report.

The principle behind phonics is that children learn the sounds of letters and of combinations of letters and use them to decode words.

The report, based on visits to 20 schools and responses from a further 43, found that teachers were putting into practice the recommendations for improving the teaching of reading.

In 2005, the government-commissioned review of reading by Sir Jim Rose called for “relatively short, discrete sessions, designed to progress from simple elements to the more complex aspects of phonic knowledge”.

Phonics had already been taught in many primary schools, but the Rose Review emphasised the need for a rigorous and systematic use of from the earliest years.

And this snapshot survey shows that in 16 of the 20 schools visited such sessions of teaching phonics were taking place every day.

It also found that 19 of these schools had adopted a systematic approach to phonics teaching.

However, it also found that this was not an easy subject to explain to parents.

Meetings for parents about phonics were poorly attended and teachers said there were difficulties in “conveying the subtleties of the programme”.

Source: BBC News, UK
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7391948.stm

Over the last decade or so there has been mounting concern about the effect of television and videos on young children.

A huge increase in television programmes now available which are particularly aimed at young infants has occurred, despite warnings from experts that children younger than 2 years should not watch any television at all.

Along with the plethora of such programmes has come more and more evidence of the potential adverse effects of television exposure on young children.

Researchers in the U.S. are now saying because infants in low-income families are watching television or videos, with a supposedly ‘educational’ basis, their mothers rarely speak to them.

Lead author Dr. Alan L. Mendelsohn says many of the programmes marketed as educational have limited data to support such claims and these claims were even less so if no co-viewing with a parent took place.

Dr. Mendelsohn and his colleagues set out to measure the verbal interaction between mother and infants associated with media exposure and maternal co-viewing; to do so they carried out an analysis of 154 low socio-economic status mothers-infant pairs who were taking part in a long-term study on early child development.

It was revealed that over one 24-hour period, 149 of 154 mothers reported that their 6-month-old infants had a total of 426 exposures to television or videos.

These included 139 exposures to educational programs for young children; 46 to non-educational programs for young children; 205 to programs for school-aged children, teenagers or adults; and 36 to unknown programs.

The researchers found that of those 426 television and video exposures, mothers talked to their infants during only 101 of them.

They say their findings support their hypothesis that interactions were most commonly reported in association with educational content, especially programs that had been co-viewed; however half of the exposures consisted of programs not intended for young children.

Even when they were intended for young children they did not involve frequent interactions when they were co-viewed.

The researchers say the findings are important, because parent-infant interactions are associated with long-term developmental-behavioural outcomes and they say verbal exchanges happen more often with reading and playing with toys.

The researchers say given the large amount of media exposure and low verbal interaction, more research is called for to determine whether such media exposure is of benefit to young children.

They say programs with educational content were no more likely to be co-viewed than were other programs and the research does not support the development of infant-directed educational programmes on the basis that they increase co-viewing and interaction.

The study is published in the current issue of the Archives of Pediatrics & Internal Medicine.

Source: News-Medical.net, Australia
http://www.news-medical.net/?id=38136

Prolonged, exclusive breastfeeding appears to give children a cognitive advantage over formula-fed kids, increasing IQ by three to four points on average and boosting later academic performance, a Canadian study suggests.

The research by McGill University is not the first to link the method of infant feeding to brain development, but the size and the design of the study lends weight to the idea that breastfeeding actually causes an increase in intelligence.

“Our study provides the strongest evidence to date that prolonged and exclusive breastfeeding makes kids smarter,” said lead investigator Dr. Michael Kramer, a professor of pediatrics and epidemiology at McGill.

Kramer and his team evaluated about 14,000 children in 31 hospitals and clinics in Belarus starting in 1996, following their progress until they were 6 1/2 years old. Half the mothers were exposed to an intervention that encouraged prolonged and exclusive breastfeeding (experimental group), while the other half continued usual maternity hospital and out-patient pediatric care (control group).

Mothers who visited a facility promoting breastfeeding in the former Soviet country were more likely to feed their infants only breast milk at age three months (43.3 per cent versus 6.4 per cent in the control group) and at all ages through 12 months.

By the time children reached an average age of 6 1/2, those in the breastfeeding group scored higher on tests measuring verbal intelligence, non-verbal intelligence and overall intelligence. Breastfed children also performed significantly higher academically than formula-fed children, found the study, published in the May issue of Archives of General Psychiatry.

The children’s cognitive ability was assessed by IQ tests administered by their pediatricians and by their teachers’ ratings of their performance in reading, writing, mathematics and other subjects.

“I think that what this says is your average mother in a developed country like Canada who succeeds in breastfeeding for the duration and the degree of exclusivity achieved by the women in our experimental group … can expect her child to be a few points higher in IQ.”

The average jump in IQ is not so crucial when it comes to the individual child, Kramer said. “But if you consider for the whole population shifting the mean (IQ score) up three or four points, that means fewer difficulties for kids at the lower end and more Einsteins and Mozarts at the high end.”

Still, Kramer stressed that women who are unable to breastfeed or choose not to for a variety of reasons should not feel guilty or worry their child will be less intelligent as a result of being formula-fed.

“I think this (prolonged, exclusive breastfeeding) is a goal that’s achievable by the vast majority of mothers,” he said. “Those who cannot - and there are some who cannot - and there are some who could but don’t want to, have other ways of stimulating their children and improving their IQ, like reading and playing with their children.”

“And it might even be that the effect that we’re seeing is not something in the (breast) milk but has something to do with the nature of the contact, the physical contact or with what transpires between the mother and the baby verbally or emotionally at the time of the feeding, and that maybe is transposable to other feeding modes.”

Putting the study’s findings into context for parents, Kramer said “the difference of three or four IQ points is not going to make a difference between a child finishing school or being a success or a failure.”

“This is not the difference between mental retardation and a genius.”

Commenting on the study,Dr. Jack Newman said that while the research does not prove without a doubt that breastfeeding raises intelligence levels in children, there are sound reasons for believing it could.

For one, breast milk contains naturally occurring omega 3 and 6 fatty acids and a compound known as insulin-like growth factor I, all of which have been linked to increased cognitive ability.

“It may be the breast milk itself, although it could be all the things that are associated with it,” he said, referring to the physical and emotional contact inherent in breastfeeding.

The co-founder of the Newman Breastfeeding Clinic and Institute in Toronto also said many women who are unable to breastfeed feel terrible guilt, but he believes too often they have been failed by the medical system.

“Whether every mother can successfully breastfeed is an issue, but in fact most of the mothers who have difficulty with breastfeeding shouldn’t have problems with breastfeeding,” he said. “Most mothers produce plenty of milk and if they got the help and the advice that they should be getting they would not ‘fail.”‘

The Canadian Paediatric Society recommends exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months, although a mother can continue to breastfeed along with giving solid foods until the child is two years or more.

Source: The Canadian Press, TORONTO
http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5gmevM3DMQG78F-YAQcLYU4FdwOrg

A tide of recent research on early childhood development is inspiring prominent scientists and politicians to argue for an unprecedented investment in schooling that begins virtually at birth.

But as decades of academic studies on brain development start to land in the real world, experts are divided on whether to focus new funding on infants and toddlers, or conventional preschool. Many now think some policies popular with politicians and the public, such as universal prekindergarten, may fail to reach at-risk kids at a young enough age.

The scientific controversy also is spilling into the presidential contest, where the Democratic candidates have taken divergent positions on universal preschool and other early childhood issues.

Studies have suggested that intervening before children start preschool improves academic outcomes for low-income kids and may reduce the risk that they will end up in prison. Such interventions stem from the theory that experiences in the first five years of life set a lifelong course for brain development.

Chicago has become a national proving ground for schooling during the first three years and is home to prominent advocates such as Nobel Prize-winning economist James Heckman of the University of Chicago, who said reaching kids before preschool could offer the best long-term economic return.

“Even at age 4 or 5, you may be starting too late,” Heckman said. “I wouldn’t say it’s hopeless to help kids after those early years, but it’s extremely expensive.”

Backers of universal preschool say the evidence for even earlier intervention is not yet solid and offering conventional prekindergarten to everyone would help build popular support for early education.

In theory, starting to intervene soon after birth should help kids more because that’s when experience starts to shape their brains, many experts said.

Children’s brains change more between conception and kindergarten than at any other time. University of Chicago neuroscientist Peter Huttenlocher showed in studies over the last 30 years that connections between cells in most brain areas peak by age 3, then decline gradually as experiences mold the brain’s circuitry.

The zero-to-3 period is not necessarily a magical and irreplaceable window for teaching children. But studies show that babies raised in poverty get fewer of the early experiences that spur vocabulary growth and good social judgment, making it harder for them to catch up later.

For example, toddlers whose parents speak more words to them develop bigger vocabularies than children who hear less speech, studies have found. One University of Kansas study concluded that kids from upper-income backgrounds hear 30 million more words by age 3 than those from poor families.

Early intervention with enrichment programs can narrow that gap, researchers and advocates say.

“The basic science of brain development says you need to start as early as possible for kids in the greatest danger to get the best outcomes,” said Jack Shonkoff, director of the Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University.

Bruce Fuller, a professor of education and public policy at the University of California-Berkeley, said he feared focusing on universal prekindergarten — making preschool a middle-class entitlement — could divert help from low-income families that need it most.

“Why would we use scarce public dollars to subsidize all families if we know the biggest impact is with poor kids?” he said.

Source: Detroit Free Press, United States
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080502/NEWS07/805020328

Parents have some homework to do, according to new findings presented at the Pediatric American Society meeting in Honolulu, Hawaii, this weekend.

The research shows that 31% of U.S. parents know very little about the pace of a typical infant’s development, whether it’s when a child should start talking or begin potty training. The data is based on an analysis of the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study’s Birth Cohort, a nationally representative sample of more than 10,000 9-month-old babies and their primary caregivers. Parents were asked to answer 11 questions, where those who got four or fewer correct were considered to have low-level knowledge.

While it may not sound like a big deal, experts say that this lack of knowledge can negatively affect parents’ interactions with their babies.

We asked study author Dr. Heather Paradis, a fellow in pediatrics at the University of Rochester Medical Center, why so many parents don’t know what to expect after expecting and what they need to know about their babies’ development.

Why do so many parents lack knowledge about infant development?

I think that parents get parenting information from a variety of sources, from reading magazines and books … most importantly, parents look for information from their child’s doctors.

There’s a lot of information that’s out there about what to expect when people are pregnant, but I don’t know that there is quite as much information on what to expect about how your child grows and develops in the first years of life, and there’s a tremendous amount of change. This study was surprising in just how many parents don’t have knowledge of normal infant development.

Do you have a sense as to whether this is a new trend?

I think that a lot of emphasis in the past has been placed maybe on what we would call “high-risk” parents–those with a lower education, lower socioeconomic status. But one of the surprising things that this study showed is that it’s not only those parents we should be targeting, but it’s something we should expand to the general population of parents. Everyone could benefit.

What was one of the most surprising things the study revealed in terms of parents’ confusion?

The most surprising thing to me was not necessarily what knowledge they did or didn’t have, but how that knowledge translated into actual behavior, or observed interaction with the child. That connection is something lacking in previous studies. This study showed that parents who have higher knowledge of normal infant development were shown to have higher (quality) observed interactions with their children.

The other thing is that we looked at not only parent/child interaction but parents’ reports of frequency of what I would call enrichment activities, such as reading books with a child, singing songs. We know early enrichment activities with kids leads to higher IQs, earlier reading, better school preparation. The parents with the higher knowledge of normal infant development also had a significantly higher reported frequency of doing those enrichment activities with their kids.

What are the potential negatives?

Parents who have unrealistic expectations could misinterpret a child’s normal behavior and could respond inappropriately. An example would be like a mom who expects an 18-month-old child to sit still during an appointment. Eighteen-month-olds are normally curious. I would expect them to be wandering around the room. If parents are expecting a child to sit still on a chair for an entire appointment, they may take normal curiosity and interpret it as intentional defiance, rather than the normal curiosity it is. That could lead to inappropriate harsh discipline or the withdrawal of affection.

I think quite often parents maybe underestimate a child’s ability to pick up language skills. A lot of parents don’t think that it’s worthwhile to read a book to their infant, to their 2-month-old, and they definitely should be doing that, even if it’s to look at pictures and let the child hear the normal qualities of voice. They might not understand the words the parent is saying but they definitely understand what’s going on and the interaction going on between the two of them.

How should parents go about educating themselves?

Certainly, I think it’s an opportunity for pediatricians that, even during our brief office encounters with parents, we can potentially do something that can have a large impact on the way that parents and children interact. I do think that getting information from reputable sources, asking a child’s doctor for recommendations on books and Web sites to get high-quality information, is something parents could do.

Source: Forbes, NY
http://tinyurl.com/68hrk2

Mums can improve their kids academic performance by encouraging them to read more, says an expert.

Sharon Darling, president and founder of the National Centre for Family Literacy has suggested that incorporating a daily reading habit is essential for childrens future academic success.

Many moms wonder what they can do to help their children be successful in school. The answer is surprisingly simple, said Darling.

Many of the things parents do with their children as they work, play, read and talk together have an impact on the skills needed to become a confident and competent student.

Singing songs, making up silly rhymes, talking about what you see, pointing out letters and words in the environment and reading together are just a few activities parents can do, she added.

Creating reading rituals by setting aside a special time and place every day so that they enjoy stories without interruptions.

Moreover, cuddling closely with your child to foster a sense of security can actually eliminate stress that scientists believe produce hormones, which blocks learning.

Mealtimes can be the best opportunity to enhance learning skills.
Various programs have shown success in incorporating mealtime with literacy. In Southern California, the McDonalds Family Mealtime Literacy Nights have resulted in parents using its strategies and materials at home to improve literacy skills.

You can talk to your kids while driving across town or on vacation and looking for signs with words that begin with the same letters as childs name. Each person remembers what the other items were and adds an item that begins with the next letter of the alphabet.

Use techniques for reading that have been proven to increase effectiveness in reading time, providing sound effects to capture their attention, making connections between the spoken and written word because hearing sounds in words is a basic skill needed for reading, talking about the story to reinforce comprehension and memory skills and reading again and again as it helps children recognize and remember words.

Source: Thaindian.com, Thailand
http://tinyurl.com/6oy4zr