Parents who teach their children at home could have twice the impact on raising their child’s performance at school compared to a good nursery education, a new study suggests.

There have been rising concerns about the relatively low numbers of children taking up science and mathematics at the secondary level and evidence is published today that parents could have a much bigger impact on raising standards later on than preschool education, by a Government backed project following more than 3000 children.

Ten-year-olds who have attended “high quality” preschool tend to score higher on mathematics tests than those who haven’t, reports Prof Edward Melhuish of Birkbeck, University of London, and colleagues from the Effective provision of Preschool and Primary Education (EPPE) project.

He said they were surprised by the degree to which early experience both in the preschool and home were so influential later in the child’s life.

“For the average child who went to a particularly effective or high quality preschool their maths scores would be boosted by around 27 per cent,” says Prof Melhuish.

However, the project revealed that the education of the parents - particularly the mother- still has the greatest influence, having twice the effect and thus boosting maths scores even more.

What parents did at home mattered too. “The effects of the early home learning environment were very strong, much stronger than people had anticipated.”

“An ideal home learning environment would be rich in stimulation and very responsive to the child’s communications and activities,” says Prof Melhuish.

“Parents would talk to their children frequently, read to them, maybe visit library to increase range of books for child, provide opportunities to draw, paint, learn songs and rhymes, dance and physical activities, play with numbers and shapes.

The important thing is that the home provides lots of learning opportunities, The fact that learning is taking place is more important than the actual content of the learning. This provides the child with the mental structures needed to learn new things.”

The team calls in the journal Science for countries such as America to adopt universal preschool, which might cost up to £5000 per child, of the kind adopted in Britain since 2004.

Whereas much of the previous research on preschool’s long-term effects focused on disadvantaged children, the researchers followed children from throughout England, from ages three and four through to age 10, and is still studying them at secondary school.

“This detailed data allows us to examine the effects of various factors while allowing for the differences in the other factors and backgrounds of children,” says Prof Melhuish.

“Our study is the first to show that preschool shows advantages across the whole population, while being able to allow for other confounding factors.”

The home environment is the most important; five years of “effective” primary school is next most important but is closely followed by 18 months of preschool experience in terms of relative size of effects.

As for what parents should look for when chosing a preschool, he says: “A play-based curriculum that offers lots of learning opportunities that cover reading and play with numbers and shapes and some time in individual, one-to-one activities as well as small group work”.

Starting “between two and three can be very beneficial, particularly for children from disadvantaged homes.”

Source: Telegraph.co.uk, United Kingdom
http://tinyurl.com/5jevbu

Barack Obama says he believes in universal preschool and if he’s elected president he’ll pump “billions of dollars into early childhood education.” Universal preschool is now second only to universal health care on the liberal policy wish list. Democratic governors across the country — including in Illinois, Arizona, Massachusetts and Virginia — have made a major push to fund universal preschool in their states.

But is strapping a backpack on all 4-year-olds and sending them to preschool good for them? Not according to available evidence.

“Advocates and supporters of universal preschool often use existing research for purely political purposes,” says James Heckman, a University of Chicago Noble laureate in economics whose work Mr. Obama and preschool activists routinely cite. “But the solid evidence for the effectiveness of early interventions is limited to those conducted on disadvantaged populations.”

Mr. Obama asserted in the Las Vegas debate on Jan. 15 that every dollar spent on preschool will produce a 10-fold return by improving academic performance, which will supposedly lower juvenile delinquency and welfare use — and raise wages and tax contributions. Such claims are wildly exaggerated at best.

In the last half-century, U.S. preschool attendance has gone up to nearly 70% from 16%. But fourth-grade reading, science, and math scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) — the nation’s report card — have remained virtually stagnant since the early 1970s.

Preschool activists at the Pew Charitable Trust and Pre-K Now — two major organizations pushing universal preschool — refuse to take this evidence seriously. The private preschool market, they insist, is just glorified day care. Not so with quality, government-funded preschools with credentialed teachers and standardized curriculum. But the results from Oklahoma and Georgia — both of which implemented universal preschool a decade or more ago — paint an equally dismal picture.

A 2006 analysis by Education Week found that Oklahoma and Georgia were among the 10 states that had made the least progress on NAEP. Oklahoma, in fact, lost ground after it embraced universal preschool: In 1992 its fourth and eighth graders tested one point above the national average in math. Now they are several points below. Ditto for reading. Georgia’s universal preschool program has made virtually no difference to its fourth-grade reading scores. And a study of Tennessee’s preschool program released just this week by the nonpartisan Strategic Research Group found no statistical difference in the performance of preschool versus nonpreschool kids on any subject after the first grade.

What about Head Start, the 40-year-old, federal preschool program for low-income kids? Studies by the Department of Health and Human Services have repeatedly found that although Head Start kids post initial gains on IQ and other cognitive measures, in later years they become indistinguishable from non-Head Start kids.

If anything, preschool may do lasting damage to many children. A 2005 analysis by researchers at Stanford University and the University of California, Berkeley, found that kindergartners with 15 or more hours of preschool every week were less motivated and more aggressive in class. Likewise, Canada’s C.D. Howe Institute found a higher incidence of anxiety, hyperactivity and poor social skills among kids in Quebec after universal preschool.

The only preschool programs that seem to do more good than harm are very intense interventions targeted toward severely disadvantaged kids. A 1960s program in Ypsilanti, Mich., a 1970s program in Chapel Hill, N.C., and a 1980s program in Chicago, Ill., all report a net positive effect on adult crime, earnings, wealth and welfare dependence for participants. But the kids in the Michigan program had low IQs and all came from very poor families, often with parents who were drug addicts and neglectful.

Even so, the economic gains of these programs are grossly exaggerated. For instance, Prof. Heckman calculated that the Michigan program produced a 16-cent return on every dollar spent — not even remotely close to the $10 return that Mr. Obama and his fellow advocates bandy about.

Our understanding of the effects of preschool is still very much in its infancy. But one inescapable conclusion from the existing research is that it is not for everyone. Kids with loving and attentive parents — the vast majority — might well be better off spending more time at home than away in their formative years. The last thing that public policy should do is spend vast new sums of taxpayer dollars to incentivize a premature separation between toddlers and parents.

Yet that is precisely what Mr. Obama would do. His “Zero-to-Five” plan would increase federal outlays for early education by $10 billion — about 50% of total government spending on preschool — and hand block grants to states to implement universal preschool. This will make the government the dominant source of funding in the early education marketplace, vastly outpacing private spending.

If Mr. Obama is serious about helping children, he should begin by fixing what is clearly broken: the K-12 system. The best way of doing that is by building on programs with a proven record of success. Many of these involve giving parents control over their own education dollars so that they have options other than dysfunctional public schools. The Obamas send their daughters to a private school whose annual fee in middle school runs around $20,000. Other parents deserve such choices too — not promises of subsidized preschool that they may not want and that may be bad for their kids.

Source: Wall Street Journal
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121936615766562189.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Guidelines for managing attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder have alarmed leading education researchers, who warn they will cause an exponential increase in children being labelled as having ADHD by schools chasing funding.

A group of 14 researchers in education, disabilities and ADHD from seven universities have written to the Rudd Government, criticising moves to instruct teachers to look out for ADHD and to allocate special funding to schools for students with the disorder.

The guidelines are being reviewed by the Royal Australasian College of Physicians at the request of the National Health and Medical Research Council. Draft recommendations were released for public comment.

In a letter to Education Minister Julia Gillard and Health Minister Nicola Roxon, the researchers say the recommendations will encourage over-diagnosis of ADHD and give schools an incentive to have children classified with the disorder to gain access to extra money.

“This risk is particularly acute for children from socially disadvantaged backgrounds.”

A survey of children’s mental health, conducted by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare in 1998, found almost 8 per cent of 12- to 17-year-olds were diagnosed with ADHD.

A study of South Australian children taking medication for ADHD in 1999 found rates highest among children from families with low incomes and high unemployment.

The lead signatory on the letter, Linda Graham from the University of Sydney, said yesterday resources would be better spent on giving teachers the skills and support to deal with a variety of children’s behaviours rather than singling out disorders.

Dr Graham said diagnosing a child as having ADHD was sometimes medicalising normal behaviour and should be a last resort, but it had become the first step in dealing with challenging children. “The diagnostic criteria for ADHD over the past 15 years has been expanding and it’s now almost possible to diagnose one of my cats,” she said.

The chairman of the group writing the guidelines, David Forbes, said between 5 and 10 per cent of children had the features of ADHD and might need special intervention to help them learn at school. He disagreed that training teachers to recognise ADHD would increase diagnosis of the disorder.

Source: The Australian, Australia
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24203785-5013871,00.html

Glasgow schools have long had the poorest levels of academic attainment in Scotland. The gap has been particularly difficult to bridge because so many of the city’s school draw their pupils from some of the most deprived areas, while the leafy suburbs tend to be outside the city boundary. Yet it is all the more important for children from disadvantaged backgrounds to achieve their full potential in school.

The news that children in both primary and secondary schools in Glasgow have reached the highest levels of attainment in the “three Rs” since the 5-14 assessment tests began is welcome, but a long overdue step towards closing the gap with other areas. There is a disturbingly long way to go: in the first two years of secondary school, 40% are still failing to reach the required standard in reading and maths and 50% are below the standard in writing. That is unacceptable, whatever hurdles have to be overcome. Other local authorities with their own problems of deprivation, such as Inverclyde, achieve a high pass rate in English and maths at Standard Grade and Higher, compared with similar areas.

However, improved results in Glasgow primary schools as a result of the zero-tolerance approach to poor literacy and numeracy which has seen specialist teams of experienced staff training teachers and supporting parents as well as teaching pupils, suggest that teaching methods make a considerable difference. These include giving “booster” lessons to pupils struggling at primary school and extra lessons in reading, writing and maths at the expense of other subjects to pupils who are behind by the time they reach secondary school. That tried-and-tested reading method, synthetic phonics, has also been adopted with impressive results, following success in two other local authorities with previously low attainment levels. Pleasing as this is, it is hardly rocket science and will cause many a time-served teacher and weary employer to shake their greying heads over how a country which prided itself on pioneering mass education ever came to tolerate such low standards.

That improvements are evident so soon after the new blitz on literacy should spur further efforts. Resources are always scarce in education, but surely cannot be better spent than on achieving basic skills. The earlier such intervention is made the better, a child who is unable to decode the written word or understand basic arithmetic will become more and more frustrated, miserable and unable to learn. Education is the key to success, and people who reach adulthood without learning to read, write and count competently and confidently have their lives blighted.

Source: The Herald, UK
http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/editorial/display.var.2422085.0.Three_Rs_are_the_key.php

Just one in 50 teachers of the youngest schoolchildren in England is male, figures revealed.

Only 2% of staff in nursery and reception classes - teaching under-fives - are men, Department for Children, Schools and Families figures show.

Critics say men are deterred from working with young children because of the idea that it is women’s work, the low wages and fears they may be branded paedophiles, the Daily Telegraph reports.

Anastasia de Waal, head of family and education at the think-tank Civitas, told the newspaper: “It is very important for children, particularly young ones, to see men as teachers.

“Seeing men as role models is very important.

“The idea that men are afraid of being seen as paedophiles is very serious. Obviously we want to protect children but we don’t want to get to the stage where we are harming them because they dont see any men in schools.”

A Department for Children, Schools and Families spokesman said: “Male childcare workers act as positive role models for children, which is why we launched a campaign to attract more men to the sector last year.

“The campaign challenges the stereotypical view that childcare is a woman’s role.

“Also, several of our recent early learning partnerships projects focused specifically on engaging fathers in their children’s early learning and our Children’s Plan called on all public services to take account of the needs of both parents.”

Source: The Press Association
http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5jtHGZzALO6_KynChwlehtUDnc3fg

Growing interest in publicly funded programs for young children has drawn attention to whether and how Head Start and other early childhood programs should be asked to prove their worth.

Congress asked the National Research Council for guidance on how to identify important outcomes for children from birth to age 5 and how best to assess them in preschools, child care, and other early childhood programs.

The Research Council’s new report concludes that well-planned assessments can inform teaching and efforts to improve programs and can contribute to better outcomes for children, but poor assessments or misuse of the results can harm both children and programs. The report offers principles to guide the design, implementation, and use of assessments in early childhood settings.

Federal agencies, states, school systems, and other organizations that evaluate early childhood programs or the children they serve should make the purpose of any assessment explicit and public in advance, the report says. For example, a state should specify whether an assessment will be used to help teachers gauge the progress of individual children or to help public agencies decide whether to continue a program’s funding.

“The goal of the assessment should guide the choice of the assessment tools used, and assessments that will have widespread effects should meet high standards of rigor and validity,” said Catherine Snow, a professor at the Graduate School of Education at Harvard University and chair of the committee that wrote the report. “For example, using a standardized test with a sample of children in a program would be suitable if the goal was to determine whether the program is bringing children closer to national norms, but if the purpose is to guide instruction within a specific classroom, a nonstandardized assessment linked to the curriculum would be appropriate.”

Effective assessment must be part of a larger system with a strong infrastructure to support children’s care and education, the report says. Facets of this system should include clearly articulated standards for what children should learn and what constitutes a quality program. Other aspects include professional development opportunities, training to familiarize policymakers, teachers, and administrators with standards and assessments, and continuous monitoring to ensure that all elements of the system are working together to serve the interests of the children.

The report urges extreme caution in basing high-stakes decisions — such as determining whether a program will receive continued funding or whether a child is eligible for services because of an identified disability — on assessments of young children. Models such as those set forth in the No Child Left Behind Act strive to link yearly progress assessments to explicitly defined academic content areas for children in grades three through 12. It would be inappropriate to borrow this model unchanged and apply it to early childhood settings, the committee said, because well-defined academic content areas are not characteristic of excellent care and education for younger children.

Cutting a program’s funding or imposing other negative consequences based on assessments of the participating children should happen only under certain conditions — if the program has been given enough resources to meet expectations, for example, and if the level of children’s development when they entered the program has been taken into account. Child assessment results should never be the only information considered. And a program should not be closed or restructured if doing so would have worse consequences for children than leaving it open, the report adds.

Likewise, decisions to penalize a teacher should never rest solely on findings from assessments of students in his or her classroom, without considering children’s starting points, how the test is related to the curriculum, and whether the teacher has adequate support, professional development, and other resources.

Programs’ quality should be evaluated based not only on how they affect children’s academic skills such as language and mathematics, but also on whether they improve other important aspects of child development, such as social and emotional skills, the report says. While good measures of certain outcomes — such as literacy and language development — currently exist, tools to assess other abilities such as problem-solving and creativity remain underdeveloped, and more effort will be required to improve their quality.

In addition, the report notes, some assessment measures have only been tested with populations that do not represent the diversity of children enrolled in today’s early childhood programs. Care should be used in assessing the status or progress of young children with special needs and those for whom English is a second language, because many existing instruments have not demonstrated their validity for these groups.

The report was sponsored by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and National Research Council make up the National Academies. They are private, nonprofit institutions that provide science, technology, and health policy advice under a congressional charter. The Research Council is the principal operating agency of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering.

Source: Science Daily
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080804111640.htm

The United States is not making the grade.

The 2003 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) shows the United States ranks 12th of 25 countries among eighth graders in math and science skills. In the No. 1 and No. 2 spots: Singapore and the Republic of Korea.

“There is a critical need right now in this country to do research on math. We need to identify the skills that children need to improve upon, and hone in on factors that can predict development. We really want to answer the question, ‘Why do some children succeed at math and others do not?’ There is an epidemic when it comes to children who just don’t have basic math skills,” said Steven A. Hecht, Ph.D., associate professor of pediatrics in the Children’s Learning Institute (CLI) at The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston.

“CLI is expanding its math intervention program through satellite clinics that can offer extra small group tutorials. We also want to address needs at the elementary and middle schools levels. Right now, CLI’s math initiative only involves students in pre-kindergarten,” said Susan Landry, Ph.D., director of the Children’s Learning Institute and Michael Matthew Knight Professor in the Department of Pediatrics at The University of Texas Medical School at Houston.

According to Landry, if children can be reached when they first begin struggling with math, a better educational foundation can be built. “We don’t want them just thinking ‘math is not my subject.’ We want to give them ways to succeed, so they can be anything they want to be. CLI uses only research-proven interventions that can help them pursue their dreams,” she said.

Hecht said the CLI group wants to find the most sensitive ways to measure math difficulties to identify early on what areas of math might require additional instruction.

To better understand how the brain processes mathematics, experts are using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and magnetoencephalography (MEG). “We are studying the entire brain to obtain more information on how it responds to mathematics,” said Andrew C. Papanicolaou, Ph.D., professor of pediatrics and director of the Center for Clinical Neurosciences in CLI at the UT Medical School at Houston. “We are seeking more funding from the National Institutes of Health to further this study.”

In the future, those scans may be able to be used to correctly diagnosis individuals who are having trouble processing math, Papanicolaou said. Imaging could also be used to see if interventions are working.

CLI, which is in the Department of Pediatrics at the medical school, currently uses one-on-one testing to determine a child’s math ability. Once a learning disability is detected, interventions can be implemented to help the child succeed.

“I believe that most people do not realize how important it is to foster a love of science and math in our young people today. With special activities and interventions in these areas, we can grab their interest and entice these future leaders into careers in medicine and other areas of science, where there is so much need,” said Judianne Kellaway, M.D., the Stephen A. Lasher Professor in Ophthalmology and assistant dean for admissions at the medical school.

CLI is developing math satellite clinics, which would bring extra assistance into Houston Independent School District schools. The clinics are scheduled to open by next year. “If we could provide that extra help and encouragement, it could go a long way to improving our children’s math skills not only at the state level, but also nationally and internationally,” Hecht said.

According to Kellaway, the medical school is also responding through its students. “In the last two years, our medical students have designed and implemented several elementary science programs. We have tripled our outreach to high school students and are initiating elementary and middle school programs,” she said.

Hecht said math and science skills are vital for national security and American businesses. “The National Science Foundation has reported that most graduate students who are obtaining advanced training in engineering departments are not U.S. citizens,” he said. “How are we going to remain a world leader in designing and building new space exploration technology? Right now, we are also relying on other countries to fill positions in American businesses that thrive in the math and science industry. If we want to stay competitive, we need action now.”

Source: Newswise
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/543136/

The evidence from around the world is clear. Kindergarten and early education for very young children offer tremendous benefits for most children and great gains for society.

Thus the B.C. government’s look at full-day kindergarten and education for children as young as three is a bold step that could make the province a leader within North America.

The government is seeking comments on proposals for big changes to public education. In the February throne speech, it pledged to assess both full-day kindergarten for five-year-olds and the introduction of optional day-long kindergarten for four-year-olds by 2010 and for three-year-olds by 2012.

Quality early education benefits almost all children, but the greatest benefits flow to the disadvantaged. They are the ones most at risk of starting Grade 1 already behind their peers, wondering in those first school days — and for years after — why the other kids seem to know what to do and how to learn so much better than they do.

It’s hardly surprising. A child raised in an affluent home, perhaps with a stay-at-home parent and active involvement in preschools and play groups and reading programs, is likely to be well-equipped for school’s challenges. A child deprived of those experiences and facing other hurdles, like a weak grasp of English, starts at a great disadvantage.

Research indicates that early education provides social and academic benefits. Done well, it also strengthens families and prepares parents to play a more positive role in their children’s education and lives.

There are bound to be concerns. Staffing will be an issue. That can be addressed in part by avoiding unnecessarily restrictive qualifications.

Some parents will likely seek not just the right to opt out of the programs, but equivalent funding. Choice is likely advisable, but special funding arrangements would not be.

Cost will also be a factor. Extending kindergarten to children of three and four could mean 80,000 extra students by 2012 and some $400 million in annual costs.

That’s certainly affordable, especially given the payback in a more successful, educated population and the harnessing of talent that might otherwise be lost.

But if the price is seen as too high, then one answer is targeted programs focused on the kids who need the early help the most — in First Nations communities and poor neighbourhoods, for example. The Education Ministry has already shown what can be achieved with its StrongStart B.C. drop-in program for children and parents.

The government is seeking public comments on the idea, with an Aug. 15 deadline. A discussion paper and response form can be found at www.bced.gov.bc.ca/ecla/.

This is a positive step, for children and the province. It is a great tragedy to deny children the basic right to make the most of their abilities. They are damaged, and society loses, when their chance to contribute and succeed is limited by an accident of birth.

Source: Times Colonist, Canada
http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/comment/story.html?id=96920524-3558-41aa-9973-e6e56c3f27be

My daughter will turn five years old two days before the new school year starts.

I didn’t think about this much when she entered her first year of preschool, but now as she is about to start kindergarten I suddenly started questioning whether or not she is truly ready.

It all started when I was chatting with some of the other preschool moms one day. We were comparing our children’s letter writing.

I was pretty surprised to see that many kids in my daughter’s class had much better handwriting and easily kept those letters between the lines.

Geez. Addie doesn’t really enjoy writing her “sight” words over and over. And I don’t really enjoy trying to get her to do it. I want her to have a love of learning and be excited about it, not moan over writing sight words.

After that day, the stage was set for my next worry project. (My husband thinks I purposely think of things to worry about and move from one worry to another.)

I remember getting all those birthday invitations last year for kids who were turning five in October and November. Addie had just turned four. That’s a big gap, and at this age I think it makes a big difference.

I am not worried about my daughter socially. Verbally, her vocabulary rivals mine. She uses words like “unfortunate” and “afforded” in the right context.

But she doesn’t always count to 20 perfectly. And counting beyond that is kind of a mess. Other kids in her class are counting to 100.

Her letters need some work, but I think she’s doing well.

I worry that if I make the wrong decision, Addie will struggle in school.

The Internet is full of articles about kindergarten readiness and forums where parents support both sides of “redshirting” or not.

My aunt held my cousin back and she ended up being the valedictorian of her high-school class. Impressive, but would she have had that title if she started on time?

All this worrying hasn’t really gotten me anywhere, so I turned to the U.S. Department of Education’s website.

In a survey, public school teachers ranked physical well-being, social development and curiosity as more important for kindergarten readiness than knowledge of skills.

Of the almost 1,500 teachers surveyed, more than half said it is not very important to know the alphabet or count in order to be ready for kindergarten.

Sounds good, but learning all seems to be moved up now. Many children learn to read in kindergarten, not first grade like I did. I notice one boy in my daughter’s class is doing math that seems to be on at least a first-grade level.

So what’s a parent to do? Are there any long-term effects of starting my early birthday kid in kindergarten on time? Is it better to be the oldest or the youngest in a grade?

According to Deborah Stipek, dean at the Stanford School of Education, I might be putting a little too much thought into this decision.

“It probably matters much less than parents believe. Most of the research suggests that any differences in achievement associated with age that are seen in the early grades disappear within a few years,” she said.

“‘Unless your child is very immature or is developing language unusually slowly or something like that, there is probably no harm in sending her on,” Stipek said.

OK. That makes me feel better.

Stipek added that what happens to children depends a lot of how good their teachers are at providing differentiated instruction that is appropriate for all of their students, regardless of skill levels and learning styles.

So for now I’m putting my worries aside, and next month, ready or not, it’s kindergarten here we come.

Source: The Canadian Press, LAS VEGAS
http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5hIf7t7_qrjR_OkFxr7-qca7hZITg

With 85 percent of brain development occurring between the time of conception and age five, early influences - both good and bad- affect a child’s ability to learn and function in society, a panel of state leaders learned at a Harvard University seminar.

What happens to a woman during pregnancy and to a child in its earliest formative stages “actually reprints your DNA and changes the DNA,” said state Rep. Hollis Downs, R-Ruston, who assembled a team to attend the National Scientific Council on the Developing Child at Harvard University June 26-28.

Rep. Don Trahan, R-Lafayette, chairman of the House Education Committee, said the symposium confirmed his belief that “pre-natal to age five is the most important time in the development of child. Our duty now is to determine how to satisfy that need in Louisiana.”

“We actually have a road map,” Trahan said. “Zero to three in Head Start, LA4 for four-year-olds, five in kindergarten and by the first grade, everybody is on the same page, able to read.”

It will take a serious education effort to get parents to realize the importance of prenatal and early childhood factors that can make or break a child’s chances for success, said Linda Johnson, president of the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, another member of the Louisiana team attending the conference.

Johnson said she will take the information to BESE and see what policies it can develop to improve the education climate.

Downs said scientists at the symposium showed evidence that numerous “stressors,” the most damaging of which is alcohol, can have long-lasting effects on brain development. Other factors include physical abuse, drugs, loud music, lack of nurturing, poverty and malnutrition.

Downs said alerting parents to these problems would improve their children’s school performance and “yield a 15-to-1 return on money spent.” He said the state for years has alerted mothers-to-be of the dangers of drinking and smoking while pregnant and “that was before we knew (other factors) had an impact on predisposition to heart disease and diabetes.”

Danny Bell, superintendent of schools in Lincoln Parish, said the stress factor “many times evolves into learning problems,” even autism. Also, “doing more from birth to the time a child enters school can have a significant impact on the success of a child.

“We learned from the science that stressors can have a lifelong impact that is almost impossible to reverse,” Bell said.

Janie Humphries, McGehee Professor of Early Childhood Development at Louisiana Tech University, said the group learned “Louisiana is doing things right.”

She said smaller class sizes, particularly in day care and pre-school, are important to development because children prosper from more personal attention.

“These are critical periods in a child’s growth” that “lay the foundation of higher thinking skills,” Humphries said.

Downs said having smaller classes is crucial because two-thirds of Louisiana’s pre-schoolers are in daycare. “Small is better and having a high ratio of adults to children is important.”

Trahan said the Legislature opened the door to universal access to the Cecil J. Picard LA4 Program but the state budget only covers at-risk children. Also, not every parish offers it. Parents of children who don’t qualify for state aid can still enroll their children in LA4 and pay on a sliding scale based on income.

Downs said the Louisiana team, which also consisted of Erin Bendily, education policy advisor to the governor, Senate Education Committee Chairman Ben Nevers, Joe Salter of the Department of Education, and Department of Social Services Secretary Ann Williamson, is planning a “mini-symposium” this fall to present the information to state policy makers. He said he expects legislation to be offered in the next session to address some of the issues that state government can influence.

Source: Opelousas Daily World, LA
http://www.dailyworld.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080723/NEWS01/807230304/1002