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

There are 70 million Americans with sleep disorders who would like nothing more than to relax at night. Now there’s more reason to keep you up late.

People who sleep fewer than six hours or more than nine hours a night are more likely to have health problems, according to the largest government study linking obesity to irregular sleep.

Health problems also include higher rates of smoking and alcohol use among those who sleep too little or too much.

The report finds that restorative value of sleep has been underappreciated in public health recommendations.

In time of stress, the body is known to hold onto fat stores. That’s why diets often result in weight gain. The lack of sleep may also create a similar stressful situation. Expect to see more emphasis on eight hours a night as a key to good health.

The CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics surveyed 87,000 Americans from 2004 to 2006.

Among the findings:

* Smoking rates were highest for those who got under six hours of sleep a night. 31 percent were smokers. Heavy sleepers included 26 percent who smoked. The average rate of U.S. smokers is 21 percent. Among those who slept an average of eight hours, 18 percent were smokers.

* Obesity rates for light sleepers were 33 percent, for heavy sleepers 26 percent and 22 percent for normal sleepers.

* Alcohol use among the light sleepers was the heaviest. Regular and heavy sleepers have about the same rate of alcohol use.

* Exercise rates were low for those who slept a lot, worse than regular or light sleepers. Health problems or being elderly age may account for that

The American Academy of Sleep Medicine finds an increasing number of obese youth are not getting enough sleep. Obesity rates among children and teens have doubled in the last 30 years and AASM says sleep may be as important a component in fighting fat as diet and exercise.

Infants to 11 months need 14 to 15 hours of sleep a night; toddlers 12-14 hours; preschool children 11-13 hours and adolescents 9 hours. Adults should get seven to eight hours of sleep a night.

For those who have trouble falling to sleep follow these rules:

* Find a consistent bed time to go to sleep and wake up

* Keep the room completely dark free of lights from clocks or cable boxes

* Keep the room cooler

* Do not consume caffeine, colas or chocolate before bed or in the evening

* Take a break of at least an hour before bedtime from electronics

Also for children:

* Avoid videos or TV shows that are not age appropriate

* Use a half hour before bedtime for a bedtime routine and to read, interact and be close

* Do not let your child fall asleep while being held, rocked or nursed

* Avoid hunger at bedtime

Source: InjuryBoard.com, FL
http://www.injuryboard.com/national-news/cdc-sleep.aspx?googleid=238656

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

Parents are increasingly turning their backs on traditional parents’ evenings and would prefer more informal contact with schools to learn about their children’s progress, research shows.

The research finds that only half of parents report feeling very involved in their children’s education, with their working lives being the number one barrier to helping with homework.

The children’s secretary, Ed Balls, publishing the research, said: “We know parents are increasingly involved in their child’s education - and want to do even more. But for many it’s a difficult balancing act to juggle work, childcare and quality family time and still be able to help their children with homework and keep track of how their child is doing at school.

“Parents tell us they like having informal contact with their child’s school - whether that’s a chat in the playground or the chance to go online and see their teenager’s latest marks and make sure they are going to all their classes.”

Parent evenings would always have a role but schools should keep up to date with what parents want, he said.

Although the research, based on telephone interviews with more than 5,000 parents or carers of children at state schools, shows that only half of all parents feel very involved in their child’s education, that figure is up from 29% in 2001. The majority (65%) would like to be more involved.

The parents most likely to be involved in their children’s education - and to help with homework - are women not working full-time, parents of younger children, families from ethnic minorities, and parents who have been to university.

The popularity of parents’ evenings has plummeted since the last research. In 2001, 43% of parents said that parents’ evenings were the “most useful” way of communicating. That figure now stands at 19%.

Balls was speaking at an event to publicise the government’s Parent Know How scheme, which was showcasing new ways to offer support and advice to parents. The programme, worth £44m over three years, is designed to help more parents access information and help through the web, over the phone and through text and instant messaging.

Balls has put parents at the heart of his efforts to improve education. In his 10-year children’s plan, which was published in December, he promised parent councils and a dedicated tutor for every child who would build up a relationship with the child’s family.

Source: guardian.co.uk, UK
http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,2278429,00.html

Poorer children are more likely to fail their exams than their richer peers according to new figures, raising fears about increasing inequality in state education.

Britain’s poorest children are at a greater risk of attending a failing school than pupils from the wealthier backgrounds, Government data suggests.

A new analysis of official data by the Conservative party indicates that the achievement gap in education between rich and poor children is increasing.

Those from the most deprived backgrounds have more than a 50 per cent chance of ending up in a school that the Government considers to be failing because it has not reached the target of 30 per cent of pupils gaining five A* to C grades at GCSE, including English and Maths.

This compares with just three per cent of children from the most well off homes attending a failing school.

A spokesman for the Department for Children, Schools and Families said that Ed Balls, Schools Secretary aimed to tackle the problem in two areas with a history of ingrained disadvantage, lower educational achievement and wide variations in children’s attainmaint. The programmes launched this week in Manchester and the Black Country will aim to raise the number of schools reaching the Government’s target of 30 per cent A* to C grades at GCSE.

Mr Balls said: “Every parent wants their child’s school to be a great school, where pupils get good grades in their GCSEs. That’s why it is right for us to focus extra support on those schools where less than 30 per cent of the pupils get five good GCSEs including English and maths.”

Across the board, the numbers show a strong link between a child’s background and their chances of educational success in the state sector. They also provide evidence that the poorer the child the higher the probability of them attending a failing school.

The figures were released in answer to a parliamentary question put to Jim Knight, the Schools minister by Michael Gove, the Shadow Education Secretary and show Britain has a long way to go before achieving a classless education system. They were compiled from the School and College Achievement and Attainment Tables from 2007.

Mr Gove said: “There is a growing gap between the standard of schools in richer and poorer areas. We must give teachers the powers they need to keep order, improve reading teaching, and have more teaching by ability.”

Dr Lee Elliot Major, Director of Research at The Sutton Trust, a charity which gives educational grants to children from underprivileged backgrounds said: “Unless we address such deep-rooted educational inequalities, the UK will continue to languish at the bottom of the international league table of advanced countries when it comes to social mobility. Breaking the link between poverty and academic attainment is a major challenge, but one that needs to be addressed both for reasons of economic prosperity and social justice.”

David Laws education spokesman from the Liberal Democrats said: “We simply can’t accept a situation where over half of the schools in the most depressed areas are failing to get the overwhelming majority of their pupils up to a good exam standard.”

“These figures reinforce the case for introducing a Pupil Premium which would target extra money on young people from more deprived backgrounds, bringing their level of education funding up to levels in the private sector.”

In the scramble for the best schools parents are prepared to lie and cheat the system according to a Local Government Association report in March. Out of 31 councils surveyed 24 said they had seen an increase in cheating. The figures for 2007-08 were nine times higher than two years ago.

Source: Times Online, UK
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article3881278.ece

Study ranked countries based on access to health care, education and economy

Canada ranks 20th out of 146 countries in a survey of the best and worst places to live for mothers and children, according to U.S.-based humanitarian organization Save the Children.

The group issued its ninth annual State of the World’s Mothers report Tuesday, ranking countries according to mothers’ and children’s health, education and economic status.

Canada’s ranking slipped to 20 from 15 last year, but not because of changes within Canada, says Susan Rooks, spokeswoman for Save the Children Canada.

“It’s because a number of other countries improved spending on early childhood education and secondary education,” Rooks told CBC.

Nordic countries came out on top while countries in sub-Saharan Africa dominated the bottom tier. Sweden tops the list, followed by Norway, Iceland and New Zealand while Niger ranks last among countries surveyed, just ahead of Chad, Yemen and Sierra Leone.

Survey criteria included:

* Lifetime risk of maternal mortality.
* Percentage of women using modern contraception.
* Skilled attendant at delivery.
* Female life expectancy.
* Expected number of years of formal schooling for females.
* Ratio of estimated female-to-male earned income.
* Maternity leave benefits.
* Participation of women in national government .
* Mortality rate for children under 5.
* Percentage of children under age 5 moderately or severely underweight.
* School enrolment ratios.
* Ratio of girls to boys enrolled in primary school.
* Percentage of population with access to safe water.

The gap in availability of maternal and child health services is especially striking when comparing Sweden, at the top of the list, and Niger, at the bottom. Skilled health personnel are present at virtually every birth in Sweden while only 33 per cent of births are attended in Niger.

A typical Swedish woman has almost 17 years of formal education and will live to be 83. Modern methods of contraception are used by 72 per cent of Swedish women, and only 1 in 185 women will lose a child before the child’s fifth birthday.

In Niger, a typical woman has less than three years of education, and the life expectancy of a girl born today is only 45. Only four per cent of Nigerian women use modern contraception, and one child in four never reaches the age of 5. At this rate, every mother is likely to suffer the loss of a child during her lifetime.

200 million children without basic health care

In a separate survey, the group also ranked 55 developing countries according to children’s access to health care.

It found more than 200 million children lack basic health care according to a recent survey of developing countries that estimates six million of those who die every year could be saved if they had access to such services.

The children and health care survey found the Philippines ranks first and Ethiopia ranks last, with more than 80 per cent of Ethiopian children under age five not receiving basic lifesaving care.

The group defines basic health care as a package of lifesaving interventions that includes prenatal care, skilled care at childbirth, immunizations and treatment for diarrhea and pneumonia.

“A child’s chance of celebrating a fifth birthday should not largely depend on the country or community where he or she is born,” Charles MacCormack, president of Save the Children, said in a release.

Although some countries are doing a good job of reaching all children with basic health care, a closer look shows disparities. The poorest Filipino children, for example, are 3.2 times more likely than those from wealthier families to go without basic health measures, according to the report.

In 12 of the 55 countries, the poorest children are three or more times more likely to die than the richest children. These countries include Azerbaijan, Brazil, Bolivia, Cambodia, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Morocco, Nigeria, South Africa and the Philippines.

Peru has the widest gap in child death rates between the rich and poor. The poorest Peruvian children are 7.4 times more likely to die than the richest Peruvian children.

The report calls on governments around the world to close the child survival gap by stepping up commitments to deliver basic health care, especially to the poorest children in developing countries.

Source: CBC.ca, Canada
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2008/05/06/survey.html

There’s no ignoring that China, with a population exceeding 1 billion people as well as burgeoning economic capabilities, is a force to be reckoned with. Throw in the fact their kids too often score better in math and science than students in the United States and what does not make sense about getting Minnesota and Chinese educators together?

Forty-nine principals from all over China made a cross-global trek to meet last week with Minnesota educators in the first-ever U.S.-China Principals’ Summit hosted by the University of Minnesota’s China Center and the Minnesota Association of Secondary School Principals, among others.

The four-day event, also sponsored by the Beijing-based China-American Education Foundation, was a conversation about the commonalities and differences in each nation’s system of schooling their children.

Education is “their number one priority and their number one fiscal commitment. They are intentionally focusing on becoming a world leader in first-rate education. We need to collaborate with China and we need to keep them a close educational partner,” explained Joann Knuth, executive director of the principals’ group.

There is also Chinese students’ widely recognized academic reputation, said Youngwei Zhang, director of the center. “They outscore their counterparts in many countries in math and science. These are things we need to know about so our students can do better,” he said.

For instance, MinnPost reported last December on recent Program for International Student Assessment, a.k.a. PISA, scores where students in Hong Kong and Singapore outperformed American high school students.

The forum benefits University officials as well, Zhang said, since the University has the largest population of students from China of any U.S. campus. Currently, about 2.5 percent of the University’s student body is international students, and the intent is to double that number. He estimates the U received about 800 student applications from China.

Though international differences in education approaches are difficult to swallow in one big gulp, I asked two educators, Knuth, and Chin Yi (Chin is his family name), to share their initial reactions to the summit.

Chin, who is director of international programs from the Middle School attached to Hunan Normal University, and spoke in English, had this to say.

He praised the American educational system’s “creativity.” “One of the first things that attract me is the creative spirits I found in the American high school teachers and students. We often found that American high school students are very creative, although the Chinese kids have a solid academic foundation, they lack the creative spirit,” he said.

The American system seems more open to new ideas and innovation, he said, with China having a “unified curriculum.”

In addition, China attaches great importance to academics, Chin said, claiming more than 95 percent of its students graduate from high school – much exceeding U.S. rates.

“Also, I like to point out China is attaching great significance to education by the parents. You say the involvement. In China there is no problem in parent’s involvement,” he said.

Knuth, who also represents Minnesota at the National Association of Secondary school Principals in Washington, D.C., shared these thoughts:

“I was very intrigued by China’s commitment to education. Education is their number one priority.” For instance, they talked about a 10- year education reform program where they expect to establish 110 key universities and how they are investing $2 billion in poly-technical colleges, what Americans call technical or vocational schools, she said.

“This is an extraordinary commitment. When you think about their population and the impact it will have on global education, it’s amazing.”

However, China recognizes the need to reform some cultural aspects of their kindergarten through 12th-grade system, she said. “Right now it’s very intense.” She talked to a Carleton College student from China at the conference who told her Chinese students regularly spend 10 to 12 hours a day in “intensive study.”

What the Chinese are looking to infuse into their education system from the American system is innovation. “[Chinese] students are very good at rote learning, but the idea is to learn concepts and then be able to think about, analyze and create new. That is not the cultural pattern in their schools,” Knuth said.

It was 1972 when Richard Nixon became the first U.S. president to visit the People’s Republic of China, thus opening the door to normal relations with the Communist nation. The U’s China Center has worked since 1979 to encourage understanding and cooperation between the U.S. and Chinese people and cultures.

Source: MinnPost.com, MN
http://tinyurl.com/4xte2v

It’s one of the first things every new parent wants to know: How do I calm my crying baby, especially at bedtime. Many have heard we should just let them “cry it out.” But is that really best for your baby?

“A long-standing myth is the idea that if you pick up a crying child, you are really hurting this child. You are spoiling the child, you are reinforcing the whining, this crying and you’re going to create this crying baby and you should just kind of keep your distance. Then they will become strong and independent,” said Dr. John Gottman, Gottman Institute. “Just the opposite is true. We have learned that if the parent is a source of comfort, children feel comforted and safe and they go off by themselves and become strong and independent.”

OK, so we shouldn’t just let them “cry it out.” When they’re older, apparently we should also work harder at “talking it out.” “Time-outs,” say experts, are not the best way to discipline your little one.

“One of the things we encourage parents to do instead of time outs is time ins, which is a way of supporting a child to stay in a relationship rather than feeling abandoned in some way, to begin to think that there’s somebody that wants to work through things with them,” said Dr. Kent Hoffman, Marycliff Institute.

So don’t just send your child to his room. Really talk through the problem, until it’s resolved. And what about overall communication with your child? Most of us grew up with mom or dad running the show and junior just expected to follow along.

But the experts say parent-child communication should not be a one-way street.

“If they are understood by the parents and communication goes both ways, what happens really is the channel of communication is always kept open so the children, if they are in trouble, if they are going through a difficult experience, they can talk to their parents about it,” said Gottman.

From talking to toys: Do kids really need all those elaborate ‘educational’ toys to thrive? The experts say not at all. When it comes to toys, they say the simplest ones are often best.

“Now blocks have never, ever made the claim that they teach language or even, for that matter, make young engineers out of kids. It’s just about fun,” said Dr. Dimitri Christakis, Seattle Children’s Hospital. “But that kind of interactive play is really vital to children’s cognitive development. And it’s very much missing from the kind of media products that are targeting infants right now.”

And what about those media products? Can TV, especially so-called educational children’s shows, really be good for babies?

“There isn’t any evidence at all that infant TV viewing is helpful or beneficial to them in any way,” said Christakis. “In fact, the best available evidence suggests that it’s harmful.”

Remember the phrase “Father knows best?” Well, maybe not always. The experts say one of the best gifts a parent can give a child of any age is to simply say, “I was wrong, I’m sorry,” then work together on making it right.

Source: KING5.com, WA
http://tinyurl.com/3w3d7m

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